Congrats eagles and heir fans!

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by packs

That's just not true. Nothing that happened before that fumble influenced that fumble. The fumble happened when it did independent of anything else in the game.

wrong again. What happened before did influence the fumble.

Its not a stretch to say what happened before impacts the next possession. If the eagles are only up by 3 or less, theres no sack fumble as the Patriots would of had a ton more time to use as they would of needed only a fg. The eagles offense caused the patriots to need more than a fg.

Teams with the ball needing a td going the full length of the field with under 2 minutes have a greater chance to turn the ball over than teams that don't. Thus what happened before, caused that situation that was more ripe for a sack fumble or int etc.

[paandy]

Have been waiting for this Super Bowl win for 30 years!


Go Birds!!!!

[3-2-count]

What's clear to me after reading this thread is that you all are in the wrong profession and should be NFL football coaches.

The Colts job just became available. Quick, someone grab it!

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by 3-2-count

What's clear to me after reading this thread is that you all are in the wrong profession and should be NFL football coaches.

The Colts job just became available. Quick, someone grab it!

haha whats funny is in college my hall mates include an NFL coach and the GM of an NFL team which i correspond with my thoughts which i assume they laugh off

[bauce]

Originally Posted by 3-2-count

What's clear to me after reading this thread is that you all are in the wrong profession and should be NFL football coaches.

The Colts job just became available. Quick, someone grab it!

I want Marv Lewis' job - Bengals HC. Looks like job security for life!

[packs]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

wrong again. What happened before did influence the fumble.

Its not a stretch to say what happened before impacts the next possession. If the eagles are only up by 3 or less, theres no sack fumble as the Patriots would of had a ton more time to use as they would of needed only a fg. The eagles offense caused the patriots to need more than a fg.

Teams with the ball needing a td going the full length of the field with under 2 minutes have a greater chance to turn the ball over than teams that don't. Thus what happened before, caused that situation that was more ripe for a sack fumble or int etc.

Sorry but I could not disagree more. The defense forcing that fumble was a big play and it occurred at a crucial moment. Nothing mattered unless they forced the turnover and you're looking at things after the fact in a way that suggests this was a pre-determined outcome or something. In the moment they had to deliver and they did. They didn't force the turnover by virtue of prior events, like it was some foregone conclusion.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by packs

Sorry but I could not disagree more. The defense forcing that fumble was a big play and it occurred at a crucial moment. Nothing mattered unless they forced the turnover and you're looking at things after the fact in a way that suggests this was a pre-determined outcome or something. In the moment they had to deliver and they did. They didn't force the turnover by virtue of prior events, like it was some foregone conclusion.

with your logic, the last stop of the game was due to the eagles defense , not because the patriots only have 40 seconds or whatever to go the length of the field and complete a hail mary.

yeah its a stop, just like the sack fumble, but they were because of the eagles offense and its related... put nick foles on the field with 1:40 left in the game to go the length of the field and most defenses have an increased chance to stop him.

Any replacement defense could cause 0 punts and get only a one sack with a fumble with under 2 minutes left in obvious pass situation. The patriots did force a turnover in a harder situation (clock not an ally for them etc)

eagles defense did as close to nothing as they could to win this game is all i am saying. Giving up 500 yards passing etc. My whole argument is the Patriots and Eagles defense get the same grade for the game... FAIL

not sure why you keep defending them..

[packs]

I'm not defending the Eagles defensive performance as a whole. I'm trying to get you to understand that in a high pressure situation, the only thing that matters is that you performed in that moment. Finishing is what's important and the Eagles D showed up in that moment, which won them the game. You keep talking about everything else that happened up to the moment the game was won as though it mattered more.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by packs

I'm not defending the Eagles defensive performance as a whole. I'm trying to get you to understand that in a high pressure situation, the only thing that matters is that you performed in that moment. Finishing is what's important and the Eagles D showed up in that moment, which won them the game. You keep talking about everything else that happened up to the moment the game was won as though it mattered more.

They created the high pressure moment by giving up the lead late in the game

If a closer comes in the 9th inning up 8 runs and gives up 7 earned runs, but with the bases loaded with 1 out he gets a double play, sure thats a high pressure out but he created the situation. His team gave him the 8 run lead, thats what is important..not getting the double play. Eventually somebody will hit the ball to a defender. That closer would not be considered someone that 'won' the game.

Any defense would have a high probability to be on the winning side if their offense scores 33 points and the defense doesnt even have to force any punts to win the game and only needs 1 turnover in a situation where they are at a tremendous advantage due to limited clock and only a td beats them

You keep focusing on the end, but how they got there counts. By your logic Brady should be blamed for the loss, not his defense since the patriot defense was not there in the end. If you cant blame Brady, then you cant credit the Eagles defense. Plus the Patriot defense has no blame for the game because they were not on the field in the end. Why retool the Patriot defense when it was Brady's fault.

Patriot defense did force a fg and prevent time running out and get the ball back to to Brady down by 8.

Lets face it both defenses were terrible. We can argue who was better but its arguable and within the terrible category. If the eagles dont get the sack fumble and the patriots score, we are talking 600 plus passing yard allowed and huge last minute choke job (no superbowl team ever gave up td to lose game when drive started under 2 mins). Avoiding giving up 600 yards passing and not choking with less than 2 mins left doesnt give them praise.


Correct me im wrong but no team in a superbowl won the super bowl with a TD when getting the ball with under 2 minutes left. I know there were other strip sacks like with Kurt Warner on the Cardinals.

[packs]

I guess you missed both of the Giants' wins. Too bad, they were good games.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by packs

I guess you missed both of the Giants' wins. Too bad, they were good games.

apparently you missed them too... unless you are saying the giants started a drive with under 2 minutes left that resulted in a touchdown to win the game. So you are saying that happened in both or either of them?

(which is what the patriots would of had to do and what i said hasnt happened in any super bowls, correct me if im wrong)

If the eagles defense was a closer, they would of given up 8 runs in the bottom of the 9th with a 9 run lead)