NFL Conference Championships

[molson]

I can get people don't want to see a Boston/New York thing, but man, the Ravens are responsible for probably the worst game I've ever seen, that Sunday or Monday night against the Jaguars this year. I know a lot of people missed it because it was opposite the world series, but it was an abortion. It wasn't even a "good defense" game, it was just ugly. I know they pride in winning ugly and all that, but I think entertainment-wise, ugly works a lot better v. a team like the Patriots than the giants or 49ers, just because you have that contrast in styles.

Edit: Were people clamoring for a Alex Smith v. Joe Flacco Super Bowl? God help me. We got two great QBs, and one great defense. So, it seems pretty simple to me that the Giants will more likely win, though I certainly think and hope the Pats could pull it off.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by bronconick

From a neutral point of view, I'm just disappointed that both games ended because of special teams' cockups.

Well Lee Evans could've ended the game before Cundiff ever came onto the field...

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

Well Lee Evans could've ended the game before Cundiff ever came onto the field...

Yeah, don't blame the lose on Cundiff. Lee Evans should have caught the game winning TD.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Which is why I view NE/BOS or the NYY differently from IND or PIT (Cards? Braves?). I don't get that folks from Pittsburgh or Indy particularly relish rubbing it in.

[DaddyTorgo]

Which Pats/Giants fans here are rubbing it in?

Shit - nobody's even started a thread for the game yet.

[spleen1015]

Having fans of the winning team rub it in is all part of it.

Some people choose to not, but it is still part it.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I've always kind of liked the Giants ever since that first super bowl team with Phil Simms, Mark Bavaro, Phil McConkey, Lawrence Taylor, Harry Carson, Carl Banks, Mo Carthon, Otis Anderson... Really liked that team.

And I've always really liked Tom Brady, ever since his Michigan days. I have no problem with a former UofM QB being considered one of the best ever and winning all kinds of super bowls.

Lady H_B, however, hates Tom Brady. It's an issue.

[Rizon]

Turns out this will be the first time a Manning plays in Indy this season.

[Rizon]

Originally Posted by bronconick

From a neutral point of view, I'm just disappointed that both games ended because of special teams' cockups.

Yup, thanks to Shankapotumus and Fumbleupagus

[Honolulu_Blue]

I wasn't very impressed with Jim Harbaugh's post-game handshake last night. He's still gotta work on that.

[Ksyrup]

Coughlin didn't look like he wanted to stick around and chat, either.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I wasn't very impressed with Jim Harbaugh's post-game handshake last night. He's still gotta work on that.

What's the old saying about true character being revealed in advesity?
Didn't the FOX crew say just as the game had ended they tried to get Harbaugh on camera, and he declined (though later did his post game presser)?

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Suburban Rhythm

What's the old saying about true character being revealed in advesity?
Didn't the FOX crew say just as the game had ended they tried to get Harbaugh on camera, and he declined (though later did his post game presser)?

Great job by the SF PR staff IMO. There is no chance that Harbaugh would have been able to handle that interview well right after the game. No need to have another awkward Youtube moment.

[JediKooter]

Welp. Eli didn't fuck it up yesterday, but, the 49ers defense did shut him down when it mattered. So Eli is now officially above Philip Rivers on my list.

Too bad it came down to a fumble in over time and a kick so bad, it looked intentional. Good games overall all though. Too bad it set up the second boring SB in a row. Pats again...yawn. Giants again...yawn. I'm sure fans of those teams are loving it (which is totally cool), but, personally, I'm tired of seeing the same teams, especially from the AFC, in it year after year.

[Logan]

I know it's obviously personal preference, but I don't understand the "boring" angle being talked about here. Are you saying you're bored by the two weeks of talk and analysis of teams you're familiar with, or that you think that somehow that will actually make the on-field play boring, or both? The first I understand, the second I don't.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

I'm tired of seeing the same teams, especially from the AFC, in it year after year.

My wife asked me who was in the SB last year, and it took me a good 45 seconds to remember both teams. So I guess I'm lucky I don't have this problem.

It's a football game to me, nothing more and nothing less. I don't care who wins, so I'll be watching hoping that whatever happens, the game is entertaining. I won't pay attention to the 2 weeks of hype leading up to it, and I won't tune in until 6:27 or so (hopefully missing everything up to and including the anthem). Just give me the football and screw the rest. Would have felt the same if the other 2 teams had won yesterday.

[SirFozzie]

File it under "familiarity breeds contempt"

New York/New England have been two very successful sports areas over the past decade or so. So people start to feel antipathy, especially places that haven't been as successful (either because their teams have underperformed, or in smaller cities cases, they don't have the resources oreven a full slate of teams to root for.

So, when these two cities show up AGAIN in a championship final, it's boring as in "I've already seen this story in baseball/bsketball/hockey. Give me a chance to see another city win."

I'm not going to apologize for rooting for my hometown team, mind you, but one of the reasons why I tend to stay out of the game threads during games now is the active antipathy towards Boston fans.. I get the feeling that I'm going to touch off the equivalent of a brawl on FOFC because I'm celebrating my team's success. It's there, others have noted it too..

[JediKooter]

Boring to me because I'm tired of seeing the same teams in the SB year after year, especially in the AFC. At least the NFC has mixed it up a bit the last few years.

Also boring to me, because, the Patriots are one of the most boring teams to watch, in my opinion. I don't know what it is about them, they are just boring to watch, even when they are beating up on teams that I hate and I don't hate the Patriots, I just think they are a boring team.

But, like I said, I'm sure this is great for fans of both teams, which I think is totally cool, but, it's just over saturation for me seeing the same teams in it. I feel the same way about all sports when this happens, but, it's even worse in the NFL for me because of the whole 'parity' thing. I think it would have been awesome had it been Lions/Bengals or 49ers/Texans.

All that being said, I'm still probably going to watch the game, it just won't be as interesting to me.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Everyone is still bitching and moaning about the forward progress call. Am I missing something, or didn't the whistle blow to stop that play? I agree that the play was stopped too soon, but there was nothing they could do to overturn the call since the whistle blew the play dead, right? That was on the ref who stopped the play, not on the replay for failing to overturn it, because I don't think they could have.

You're right, it couldn't be reviewed or overturned (not because of the whistle, but because it was a forward progress call). I still don't even see what there is to review anyway, though. Bradshaw (?) was going backwards when he fumbled. In order to be driven backwards by the defense, forward progress necessarily has to be stopped. Once forward progress is stopped, the runner is down.

I don't mean to sound harsh toward the people questioning this, but I don't see where the question about that call comes in. It's not like the runner was just bumped backwards by a defender. He was wrapped up and pushed/pulled back by multiple members of the defense. He wasn't getting away. His forward progress was stopped. The play was over.

Have fans become so conditioned to argue with the officiating that they're now upset when a call is made correctly? I haven't seen anyone try to argue that his forward progress wasn't stopped, so what's there to complain about? The officials got it right, so the officials are wrong? Is that the argument?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Literally just remembered that the Seahawks made a fucking Super Bowl this decade.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I don't find the matchup boring. Should be a good game. Hopefully it will be. I enjoy watching Tom Brady play and the Giants defensive line is great.

The hype is easy to avoid. I never watch ESPN unless there is a game on and don't watch the NFL Network save for some highlights and draft stuff, so that's the end of that.

I almost look forward to this weekend. No football. No hockey. A nice little break.

[Rizon]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Literally just remembered that the Seahawks made a fucking Super Bowl this decade.

Last decade

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

You're right, it couldn't be reviewed or overturned (not because of the whistle, but because it was a forward progress call). I still don't even see what there is to review anyway, though. Bradshaw (?) was going backwards when he fumbled. In order to be driven backwards by the defense, forward progress necessarily has to be stopped. Once forward progress is stopped, the runner is down.

I don't mean to sound harsh toward the people questioning this, but I don't see where the question about that call comes in. It's not like the runner was just bumped backwards by a defender. He was wrapped up and pushed/pulled back by multiple members of the defense. He wasn't getting away. His forward progress was stopped. The play was over.

I think the problem is the inconsistency: how many times has a runner hit the line, gone backwards, then turned around and run again for extra yards? That said, I agree here, his forward progress was completely STOPPED, he was not about to get out of there for extra yards, it was just a question of when he would finally hit the ground. It was the correct call, and had been used that way recently (wasn't there another playoff fumble called the same way in the earlier rounds?)

[gstelmack]

FWIW, I actually think the key play in the Pats/Ravens game was Brady's second pick. He had all day, and I still have no clue why he tried to force it in to a double-covered Slater, let alone why they called that play. When they picked off Flacco, that was the time for a patented Brady lots-of-short-plays drive for some points. If they had just run their offense, they had a good shot at putting the game away. While the defense stopped the Ravens, when the Pats got the ball back they had to play it safe and run time off the clock, rather than run the full offense, which led to the Ravens getting the ball back for the final drive.

My main reaction after the game was "Phew!".

[Ksyrup]

I am a much bigger fan of Terrell Suggs today than I was yesterday.

To Skip Bayless:

"Stop that. I know what you're doing. ... Be an analyst. Don't be a douchebag. You know what I meant."

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

You're right, it couldn't be reviewed or overturned (not because of the whistle, but because it was a forward progress call). I still don't even see what there is to review anyway, though. Bradshaw (?) was going backwards when he fumbled. In order to be driven backwards by the defense, forward progress necessarily has to be stopped. Once forward progress is stopped, the runner is down.

I don't mean to sound harsh toward the people questioning this, but I don't see where the question about that call comes in. It's not like the runner was just bumped backwards by a defender. He was wrapped up and pushed/pulled back by multiple members of the defense. He wasn't getting away. His forward progress was stopped. The play was over.

Have fans become so conditioned to argue with the officiating that they're now upset when a call is made correctly? I haven't seen anyone try to argue that his forward progress wasn't stopped, so what's there to complain about? The officials got it right, so the officials are wrong? Is that the argument?

For me, it's that in watching that game, there were numerous instances where the whistle didn't blow as soon as forward progress was stopped. I can think of Frank Gore hitting a pile, being pulled backwards, and then squirting free slightly as he was taken down but gaining an extra half yard. They gave him the extra half yard. Alex Smith was in the grasp a few times which could have led to a whistle, but they didn't and he was able to spin free and pick up more yardage.

I agree that if you look at it in a strict replay sense of "there he is, he was moving forward, now he's not, and he's being tackled, therefore his forward progress was stopped and the play ended" it was the right call. I just found it to be extremely quick in the context of the game, but the side judge was probably just trying to be quick due to the late stage of the game and in trying to not have the teams lose seconds off the clock.

[Logan]

I'll get enough of the Super Bowl hype just from being here in NYC. While it sucked to lose yesterday (especially in the presence of my NYG fan friends), the city is great when the NFL season is still going, so that's a plus.

The next ten or so days for me is all about college National Signing Day!

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I think the problem is the inconsistency: how many times has a runner hit the line, gone backwards, then turned around and run again for extra yards? That said, I agree here, his forward progress was completely STOPPED, he was not about to get out of there for extra yards, it was just a question of when he would finally hit the ground. It was the correct call, and had been used that way recently (wasn't there another playoff fumble called the same way in the earlier rounds?)

This really comes down to my primary point. Sure, people may feel there is inconsistency with the way this is called, but to make a fuss about it when the call is right? I haven't seen one person come out and say that his forward progress wasn't stopped.

Honestly, I'm starting to see why the NFL wouldn't care about explaining rule interpretations or trying to change things to make them clearer for the average fan. When people acknowledge that they got a call right and still complain about it, there's really nothing more to do.

I know people will always gripe about officiating, and it's sometimes fully warranted. This just seems like a really odd spot for people to challenge them on.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by Logan

For me, it's that in watching that game, there were numerous instances where the whistle didn't blow as soon as forward progress was stopped. I can think of Frank Gore hitting a pile, being pulled backwards, and then squirting free slightly as he was taken down but gaining an extra half yard. They gave him the extra half yard. Alex Smith was in the grasp a few times which could have led to a whistle, but they didn't and he was able to spin free and pick up more yardage.

I agree that if you look at it in a strict replay sense of "there he is, he was moving forward, now he's not, and he's being tackled, therefore his forward progress was stopped and the play ended" it was the right call. I just found it to be extremely quick in the context of the game, but the side judge was probably just trying to be quick due to the late stage of the game and in trying to not have the teams lose seconds off the clock.

First of all, you are probably right about the official trying to conserve time. The whistle probably came quicker than it normally would because of the clock.

With that said, the difference with Bradshaw is that he was no longer making an effort to gain yardage. He couldn't make any more effort because his entire body was tied up. In a lot of cases where forward progress isn't whistled right away, they'll give the runner a little time to get away as long as he remains on his feet. Maybe I'm misremembering the play now, but I seem to recall Bradshaw's feet being off the ground as he was being pulled backwards. He wasn't going anywhere.

Thanks for the detailed response. At least that helps me understand the viewpoint a little bit more.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Boring to me because I'm tired of seeing the same teams in the SB year after year, especially in the AFC. At least the NFC has mixed it up a bit the last few years.

Also boring to me, because, the Patriots are one of the most boring teams to watch, in my opinion. I don't know what it is about them, they are just boring to watch, even when they are beating up on teams that I hate and I don't hate the Patriots, I just think they are a boring team.

But, like I said, I'm sure this is great for fans of both teams, which I think is totally cool, but, it's just over saturation for me seeing the same teams in it. I feel the same way about all sports when this happens, but, it's even worse in the NFL for me because of the whole 'parity' thing. I think it would have been awesome had it been Lions/Bengals or 49ers/Texans.

All that being said, I'm still probably going to watch the game, it just won't be as interesting to me.

1) What would you have them do? Pick the Super Bowl team not based on winning, but based on how long since they'd last been there or something? Other teams have an equal shot.

2) How are the Pats boring to watch? The defense is swiss-cheese and gives up big plays and the offense features one of the best QBs in history, a plucky slot-receiver who always seems to find a way to get open, and now two matchup-nightmare TEs.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I am a much bigger fan of Terrell Suggs today than I was yesterday.

To Skip Bayless:

If true, it's awesome

SI

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

First of all, you are probably right about the official trying to conserve time. The whistle probably came quicker than it normally would because of the clock.

With that said, the difference with Bradshaw is that he was no longer making an effort to gain yardage. He couldn't make any more effort because his entire body was tied up. In a lot of cases where forward progress isn't whistled right away, they'll give the runner a little time to get away as long as he remains on his feet. Maybe I'm misremembering the play now, but I seem to recall Bradshaw's feet being off the ground as he was being pulled backwards. He wasn't going anywhere.

Thanks for the detailed response. At least that helps me understand the viewpoint a little bit more.

No problem. I looked back up at my original response and saw that I wrote that I was upset at the "call". Wrong word choice for me...maybe the "action surrounding the call" or something like that would have been more appropriate.

[Logan]

I love watching the Gronk/Hernandez duo play. And BJGE is fun to watch in a "he doesn't have any discernible skill, how is he effective" kind of way.

I'll be rooting for the Pats...five Rutgers players on the team including the practice squad.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

If true, it's awesome

SI

http://

[Pumpy Tudors]

posting in a thread where ksyrup posts a youtube link instead of a tweet

gg jk lmao

[Marmel]

On the non-fumble play, when a team is in the hurry up offense the refs seem to blow the whistle quicker once the forward progress is stopped. To not do so allows the defense to draw out the play, eventually tackle the man, then lay on top of him eating up a lot of time. Great strategy by the defense of course, but the refs rarely actually let that happen in the 2 minute drill. Also, as a Giant fan, I like the call.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

posting in a thread where ksyrup posts a youtube link instead of a tweet

gg jk lmao

I decided to take it old school.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

1) What would you have them do? Pick the Super Bowl team not based on winning, but based on how long since they'd last been there or something? Other teams have an equal shot.

Yes. Just kidding. Of course not. Never said it wasn't fair or things are unfair. All I'm saying is, it's boring to see the same teams in it. Nothing more, nothing less. Just like it started to get boring seeing the Yankees and Red Sox in the post season year after year and I like the Red Sox. Let's get some new blood in there as long as it isn't the Dodgers or Raiders.

2) How are the Pats boring to watch? The defense is swiss-cheese and gives up big plays and the offense features one of the best QBs in history, a plucky slot-receiver who always seems to find a way to get open, and now two matchup-nightmare TEs.

I believe you are a Pats fan, so it probably doesn't make sense to you, plus, it's hard to explain. I'm not a Pats fan and I don't hate them, I just think they are a boring team to watch and have been for the last few years. I find nothing exciting about them or anything exciting to watch. Great coach, great QB, great receivers, not denying any of that. They're just boring, that's all. Maybe it's like going to the same place to eat all the time, after a while, it gets boring.

Don't get me wrong, if the Chargers were in the next 10 Super Bowls*, I'd love it. However, you would have to admit, that if you were not a Chargers fan, it would get boring seeing them all the time.






*If the Chargers were in the next 10 Super Bowls, I would be highly suspect that I was any kind of normal reality.

[spleen1015]

I'm like JediKooter in that I don't like to see the same teams win or be in championship games year after year.

At the same time, I'm a Duke fan and I get that is a reason why folks don't like Duke.

[Drake]

Does it make me a bad Indy fan that I actually like Tom Brady?

I mean, I don't like him as much as Peyton. I'd have Peyton's baby. I'd just let Tom touch me inappropriately. But I dig his career arc, his professionalism, and the fact that I hate when the Colts play the Pats because Brady is so damned relentlessly good.

That said, I was still cheering for the Ravens on Sunday because I wanted to see John and Jim Harbaugh facing off in the SB (and because Jim is still Captain Comeback to me) and because I secretly dig Joe Flacco. How can you not want to cheer for a kid who came out of Delaware? Has anything good ever come out of Delaware?

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

I'm like JediKooter in that I don't like to see the same teams win or be in championship games year after year.

At the same time, I'm a Duke fan and I get that is a reason why folks don't like Duke.

Yeah, I'm tired of Butler being in the championship game. Give someone else a chance to lose, damn it.

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by Drake

Has anything good ever come out of Delaware?

ME!!!



I don't dislike Brady so much anymore either. I disliked him a lot back when they first won the SB or 2 because I thought he was just a system QB where the system limited his ability to make mistakes. I don't think so anymore.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

Yeah, I'm tired of Butler being in the championship game. Give someone else a chance to lose, damn it.

Just like the Buffalo Bills!

[Rizon]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

I'm like JediKooter in that I don't like to see the same teams win or be in championship games year after year.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Drake

I secretly dig Joe Flacco

Admit it, it's the brows. You've always had a thing for brows.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Admit it, it's the brows. You've always had a thing for brows.

You know, that's exactly it. The first time I saw Flacco, I was like "Man, he looks like a 22 y.o. Shaw."

And he's been one of my favorite guys since.

Of course, it highly likely Flacco is one of Shaw's many illegitimate kids running around the East coast. God knows that man gets around. And around. And around.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Yes. Just kidding. Of course not. Never said it wasn't fair or things are unfair. All I'm saying is, it's boring to see the same teams in it. Nothing more, nothing less. Just like it started to get boring seeing the Yankees and Red Sox in the post season year after year and I like the Red Sox. Let's get some new blood in there as long as it isn't the Dodgers or Raiders.

I got bored of the Yankees going to the world series 5 out 6 years, so I understand that point, but it has been 4 years since the Patriots or Giants were in the Super Bowl. Do you get bored of presidential elections and the Oympics happening so often too?

Personally I like a little mix of of dynasties and parity (regardless of whether my team is involved) and I think the NFL has delivered that. I don't want to see the same team in every year either, but I also don't want to see 10 AFC Champions in 10 years. I like the stories and rivalries that are created from teams with consistent success. The NHL to the contrary confuses me, it seems like it's a lot more random every year. One year the Hurricanes are the Stanley Cup Champions but then they suck again. It's harder to follow. You can have minimal knowledge of the NFL and kind of understand the big teams, the crappy teams, and that stuff does evolve, but Brady/Bellichick have been together this whole time. If they're great, why wouldn't they have a super bowl run every so often, or even two in a row occasionally?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by molson

Personally I like a little mix of of dynasties and parody and I think the NFL has delivered that.

Parody/parity is a really funny typo in context.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Drake

Parody/parity is a really funny typo in context.

Ya, I also like how every journalist thinks the following headline is clever..."Parity....or Parody?" I think I've seen that a hundred times.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by molson

I got bored of the Yankees going to the world series 5 out 6 years, so I understand that point, but it has been 4 years since the Patriots or Giants were in the Super Bowl. Do you get bored of presidential elections and the Oympics happening so often too?

Personally I like a little mix of of dynasties and parity (regardless of whether my team is involved) and I think the NFL has delivered that. I don't want to see the same team in every year either, but I also don't want to see 10 AFC Champions in 10 years. I like the stories and rivalries that are created from teams with consistent success. The NHL to the contrary confuses me, it seems like it's a lot more random every year. One year the Hurricanes are the Stanley Cup Champions but then they suck again. It's harder to follow. You can have minimal knowledge of the NFL and kind of understand the big teams, the crappy teams, and that stuff does evolve, but Brady/Bellichick have been together this whole time. If they're great, why wouldn't they have a super bowl run every so often, or even two in a row occasionally?

I get bored of the presidential elections, but, not because of the cycle they are on. And the olympics would be awesome if there were less video tributes and hard luck rags to riches stories and just show the damn sports events.

I totally understand what you're saying and I'm not saying that anyone who disagrees with me is wrong. However, I don't mind seeing different champions each year though. And it's not like the Patriots have been in some kind of 3 or 4 season post season drought or perpetually out of the playoffs like the Lions. My heart isn't really bleeding for a team like New England if they don't make it to the Super Bowl. They've been in the playoffs in 01, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 09, 10 & 11. In the AFC championship game in 01, 03, 04, 06, 07, 11. I say: "New team please". Of course other teams need to step it up, but, that's not my point.

Again, don't get me wrong, if it was my team, I highly doubt I'd mind it at all, but I'm sure others would be tired of seeing the Chargers every year or just about every year. Or really team 'X'. It's not that it's the Patriots, it's that they are constantly there. And also, this is all my opinion.