Congrats Seattle backers

Congratulations guys. It was one of the easier ones. Nice to have a stress free winner! This game played out exactly the way it should have…

Key takeaways-

1. Offensive line is king in the NFL. If you can’t protect the qb you can’t produce on offense. 

2. Defense still wins championships. The Super Bowl is one of the few times when elite defense seems to consistently win the day. In this particular case it wasn’t even close. Not saying the Patriots weren’t good on defense, they were. But Seattle was absolutely elite. 

3. Special Teams is critical. Look what it did to the Rams this season. Seattles special teams performance was one of the best I’ve ever seen in a Super Bowl and they didn’t even have to return a touchdown to do it. Myers was awesome as usual, scoring 17 of the 29 total points (and definitely was the MVP imo). And the punting unit put on an absolute masterpiece of a performance. 

4. Drake Maye is a young quarterback. A very good one. But now we can put to rest the debate between him and Stafford for MVP. Stafford, although protected by a much better offensive line, found ways to pick apart Seattles zone defense this year. Drake Maye was completely baffled by it. 

5. Schedule does matter. It showed big time tonight. The patriots hadn’t seen anything like what they met tonight vs Seattle. You could argue that they were able to beat Houston’s defense and Denver’s defense, but let’s be serious. We all watched those games. It all fell into New Englands lap and played out perfectly in the playoffs. 

6. And last but not least, Sam Darnold is still Sam Darnold. He has matured. He can play with the big boys. But without a defense and kicker like he has he’s going to lose a lot of games for his team. I still declare myself the president of the Sam Darnold Sucks Club. But then again I don’t think anyone backing Seattle was expecting him to be the reason they won. Most of us were just praying he wasn’t the reason they lost. Game manager. Hes good at that, but I wouldn’t go any further. 

@brn2loslive2win

 One more thing......Turnover's......a lot of people were betting on Darnold to blow the game......in 3 playoff games, including the SB, Seattle had zero (0) turnovers. Maye had 3 tonite alone.

Mike Macdonald is officially on notice by the league. 

Wins a SB in his second year.

You mentioned sos. I agree to an extent. But when do we put it into consideration? For instance if another team next year has an easy schedule like the Pats, when do we fade them? The Pats over came it until the very bitter end.

I doubt we'll see it again for a long time. If a team gets ALL THE WAY to the SB again, I guess we'll know what to do.

In my overall assessment of the post game analysis, I'd put more weight into everything else you mentioned. Seattle was greater in dvoa across the board including special teams. Their d line dominated the Pats o line. Macdonald blitzed more than he has in any other single game. He's the real deal coaching wise imo, until proven otherwise. 

Let’s not forget the few passes Darnold threw that absolutely should have been picked off. We were a little lucky in that regard but after all you need luck to win in sports betting. My overall handicap on the game accounted for Darnold potentially having a bad game. At the end of the day it still probably wouldn’t be enough for New England to cover. The game was such a mismatch overall that Seattle could have easily been a 7+ point favorite. 

@undermysac

 My overall opinion on the SOS of the Patriots is that the reality of it didn’t have a chance to rear its ugly head until the Super Bowl. I know some people hate hypotheticals, but imagine the WC game if the Chargers had a healthy offensive line to protect their quarterback. The Patriots 16 points of offense may or may not have been enough for them to advance. 

Fast forward to the Houston game. Houston’s defense basically did to Maye exactly what Seattle just did. They had 285 yards of offense and that’s with CJ Stroud literally throwing the ball to the other team all day. The snow came at the perfect time…

And the Denver game of course was viewed as a brilliant defensive performance by the Patriots. I’m not so sure about that either. I honestly think if the weather hadn’t come along that Stidham could have pulled it off. 

My point being that regardless of the regular season schedule that the Patriots handled on cruise control, the playoff games were what assured me that Seattle could win and cover the Super Bowl. The Patriots somehow managed to win three playoff games without playing well in any of them. You’ll probably not see anything like it again in your lifetime. Many of the people watching the Patriots advance through the playoffs were convincing themselves that they were watching a team of destiny. A team that could battle through tough defenses in tough weather conditions. A team who was well coached and could hang with the best. The fact of the matter is that it was an illusion. I’m not even sure how well coached they are. Should we have the conversation about Vrabel kicking the XP last night??

Despite all of that there was one thing that was a sure thing going into the SB. The Patriots offensive line was never going to hold up. And McDonald who hardly ever needs to blitz, decides that he’s going to ramp it up and make sure that Maye couldn’t breathe all night. An absolute masterpiece of a coaching performance. I’m no better of an handicapper than most of the guys on covers, but one thing I can promise you is this- if you’re ever trying to determine if you’re betting the right side make sure to focus on the offensive line. It’s the most important unit of a football team in my opinion. 

brn2loslive2win ....... if you’re ever trying to determine if you’re betting the right side make sure to focus on the offensive line. It’s the most important unit of a football team in my opinion.

Amen

@brn2loslive2win

All good points.  
SoS does matter.  But I have never considered it to be as big of a factor as some think.  If you are barely beating bad teams it is one thing.  But after their first games and they got to going — then they were beating the bad teams fairly easily.  Jets, Giants, TEN, Car, CLV.  Even the ATL game was a 2-score game until ATL scored late and the NO game as well.  They basically got a weak schedule because they had to play the NFC South and the Jets and Miami twice.  
But it is still the NFL and all the games are tough.

Yes, a good point can be made that they didn’t see great teams.  But they saw some decent defenses and then saw 4 good ones in the  playoffs.  
But sometimes it can be said that playing too tough of a schedule hurts as well.  Because you are more beat up at the end because of it.  
But I do not think it is was the weak schedule, or that they had not seen good defenses, as much as the Seattle scheming. Plus the fact that NE is young and a young QB and new players and a new coach. 
But like I said before, it is like Collinsworth kept pointing out — when they were blitzing that Maye has to see that.  He also has to realize that they were rolling a guy straight to the hot receiver as well.  The coaches did make some adjustments for this at the half it looked like.  Like he was saying also, Maye should have been looking to take off some as well.

I wonder how the game would have played out if Seattle had scored a TD on any of the early drives instead of a FG.  Because it would have made NE have to open up the offense sooner than they did.  Because NE defense was playing very well also.  

But NE had some momentum going to start the fourth quarter.  They got the nice (or lucky) TD pass to make it 19-7. 
Then their defense held Seattle to 10 yards and a quick punt.

Then NE was actually putting a decent drive together it looked like. 
They got the ball at their own 4 yard line and drove 40 yards.  

THEN Maye threw the deep INT that got run back to the NE 40 yard line.  Then Seattle kicked a FG and made it 22-7. 

That play stopped whatever momentum NE had going.  Even Collinsworth said after the pass — I got nothing for you on that.  I am still not sure what Maye was doing or if they got the routes mixed up or what. 
BUT that play stopped whatever chance NE had to make a game of it late. 

If they had gone down and made it 19-14, I think it might have been a tad different down the stretch.  
The NE offense would have scored back to back TDs.  The offense would have had far more confidence.  
The NE defense had just stopped them for a quick punt and had been playing great.  They would have been even more energized. 

THEN the pressure would have been ON Darnold and the Seattle offense to get a drive going.  They would not have wanted to give the ball back to NE and let them score three straight TDs and take the lead.  

It would have been interesting to see Darnold under that type of pressure late in the Super Bowl. 

But as it was it turned out to be a very good game — EXCEPT for that ONE huge INT when they had their most momentum of the game. 

The next INT return was just a factor of all of that combining.  Because now Maye had to try to hold the ball longer and make something happen. 
BUT if that first deep INT does not happen and NE goes on to score, it could have been very different. 

I like a defensive and low-scoring game.  I know nowadays folks don’t.  

But a very good season and I am already waiting on next year.

Posted by THEMUGG     One more thing......Turnover's......a lot of people were betting on Darnold to blow the game......HE STARTED out with couple close ones ... had me nervous at the start    

@PUSSYGALORE333

  I snickered a little when C-worth raved about the play of Gonzales.......if he was worth a spit he could've had a couple picks......& if Darnold was sharp the score would've been closer to 42-13.

 But in the end it was Darnold that played fearless & well, while Maye looked shaken & young. The NE D held their own for the most part in what turned out to be a futile effort.

@THEMUGG

 Gonzales got lucky to dive on two of those and knock them down.  He was beat and the ball was not thrown out far enough.  

@Raiders22

 I thought it was a very good game. The fact that it was only 12-0 in the 4th quarter made it feel like the epic comeback was right around the corner. I love watching defense like that. In the modern game it’s so unbelievably difficult to be that good on defense. You basically have to be elite at all three levels and have a great scheme. Even myself who was in love with Seattle for the game thought that the Patriots could have done better offensively. Anybody want to talk about Josh McDaniels?

We talked about the under earlier in the week. You loved it I didn’t. And it’s not because I didn’t think it was the right bet. It’s just getting harder to take unders in the NFL when the rules are so skewed towards offense. And the game last night had all the makings of a guaranteed under game that goes over. Boy oh boy is the 4th quarter of an NFL game a heart attack every time or what? 

The Drake interception was definitely a huge swing. But you could say it was expected. The way Seattle drops back in zone is a nightmare for a young quarterback. Especially when playing from behind. It really goes to show how good Matt Stafford is. When other qbs are completely baffled by a disciplined zone defense, Stafford is licking his chops. Elite level veteran qbs know exactly where the ball needs to go against a zone defense. The Patriots could have made things a lot easier on their quarterback. They just didn’t do it. It should have been short quick passes all night. It was almost like the Patriots actually thought that the offensive line would hold up. The emphasis should have been put on 3 step drop and ball comes out immediately even if it’s thrown out of bounds. For me the verdict is still out on whether or not the Patriots coaching staff is actually good. The fact that Vrabel kicked that extra point was just all time bad. How does an entire team of professionals let that happen??!!

@THEMUGG

 If Darnold was a better qb the Seahawks would’ve scored 3-4 touchdowns no question. He missed an easy TD to JSN early on, the other throw at the end of the first half at the goal line was horrible and JSN never even had a chance to make a play on the ball, and the deep ball to Shaheed is probably a touchdown if it’s laid out for him. He had to slow down just to track the ball and the defense back was able to maintain position. 

@brn2loslive2win

 Yes. You can say it was expected for that INT. 
BUT he did not have to throw that pass and he certainly did not have to throw it to where his receiver could not even make a play on it.  
They could have kept going down the field like they were doing.  But he decided to take a deep shot into coverage and throw the ball nowhere near the WR. 

You are so right about the way the total was setting up to go over.  

I sort of felt lucky in the end that it stayed under. 
But glad I had some on the side just in case the total did go over.  

You are correct about the zone also. Look at Old Man Rivers — he was still able to pick it apart.  

I think the NE staff is fine.  McDaniels is good to me because he can make the offense work in multiple ways.  Vrabel is a player’s coach and will get the most out of the team that he can.  

I think the reasoning is that if you make the 2 point, you still have to make another.  So, if you miss either one then you still need another TD for sure. So either way it was going to be that he needed three more scores.  Yes. If you make it one of them only needs to be a FG.  But you also have to kind of consider the 2 pt plays as needed scores also.  So against that defense you NEED to get it in the endzone 4 times and a FG or you need to get it in the endzone 3 times.  But after that TD — now he had time he figured to only need to get it in the endzone twice.  Or even only once more and two FGs.  There was a lot of time left.  
I know the math makes it look easy.  But I have no problem taking modern analytics out of it and playing momentum and feel for the team.  
It can be so deflating for a team to finally score a TD and then miss the 2 pt.  The more you do this the more you put yourself in a must go for it at the end.  
I think I would have gone for it. 
But with that much time left and the little momentum that seemed to have at that point — I think it was okay not going for it.  

@Raiders22

 Have to disagree with you there. If you’re down 19 and you score 8 points to make it an 11 point game you have a totally different way to play out the rest of the game. Down 11 you can settle for a field goal at any time and still be in the game and keep momentum on your side. More importantly if you score two tds and two 2pc you can now score a third td and kick the extra point to take a 4 point lead and force Darnold to score a TD to beat you. By kicking the extra point and staying down by 12 your best case scenario in regulation is scoring 3 consecutive touchdowns and taking a two point lead. Unless of course you decide on the 3rd touchdown to go for 2 and take a 3 point lead, but here we are again needing a 2pc to make sense of it all. 

The bottom line is that by staying down by 12 points you now need two touchdowns to win the game and also have no way of realistically tying the game. All he did there was make a 3 score game a 3 touchdown game instead. Exactly what it became by kicking the extra point. 1 point in that scenario is completely worthless imo. Not to mention, in a game where your offense hasn’t even gotten into field goal range what would make you want to put yourself in a scenario to need two more touchdowns? I’d think that being able to kick a field goal and have it mean something would be a huge relief the way the game was going. But as the Italians say before giving horrible advice…”but hey, what the hell do I know??”

Who is winning the Superbowl next year? Looking at Superbowl futures right now.

@brn2loslive2win

I understand.  I am NOT saying you are wrong at all.  I am saying I can understand it either way.

If you look at the chart with about 12:00 minutes left in the game and down by 13 — the breakeven chance needed when you go for 2 points is about 65%.

If they miss it and stop Seattle and get the ball back after say 2 more minutes run off the clock and then score 2 minutes later then the B/E chance is around 75%.  But since you would only be down by 6 if you kick the extra point — you would NOT go for 2 at that point.  Because now a TD and XP wins it and you still even have time left for two FGs to tie it.

Now, if you make the 2 pt conversion it also changes things.

Now if you go down and score a TD and go for 2, the B/E drops to around 25%.  Because, obviously, if you miss it you can still score a TD on the next possession.  But you would HAVE to score a TD and not a FG.

Now, if you miss the 2 pt conversion and Seattle goes down and kicks a FG — like they did.  Now

You are down 16 and need two TDs and two 2 pt conversions to tie.   

However, if you kick the XP and they go down and Seattle goes down and kicks a FG.  You are only down 15.  Now if you go down and score and go for two, the B/E would be

So, in theory you can be down 19-6, 19-7, or 19-8 — 13, 12, or 11 points.

Then you can be down 22-6, 22-6, or 22-8 — 16, 15, or 14 points.

So, in only one of those six situations can you use a FG to help you, if you assume only two solid drives.  And in that situation you still need to get in the EZ two more times.  Because you have to score a TD and a 2 pt conversion.  Against that defense that is like having to make a 4th and 2 on demand.  Not an easy proposition after you had already done it once.  Now against that defense you are NEEDING to do it twice.

But you are going to get at least two more possessions and maybe three if your defense plays like it had been playing.

So, having the choice of being able to have sustained drives, where you can have a failed play here and there, versus putting yourself in a situation where you HAVE only one chance to make a single play against that defense — AND you have to MAKE that single play NOT once but TWICE.

Maybe Vrabel was considering with the time left that he felt the team could use positive momentum and could have better chances on a couple of sustained drives, or three if needed.  As opposed to FORCING his team into having to make not one, but two plays just to tie the game. Not even to win it.

So, now in the situation, again, you can be down 19-6, 19-7, or 19-8 — 13, 12, or 11 points.

Then you can be down 22-6, 22-6, or 22-8 — 16, 15, or 14 points.

In the initial situation, in all 3 of the scenarios 2 FGs and 1 TD will do it for you.

In the second situation, ONLY in one scenario will 2 FGs help and then you still need a TD — BUT you NEED to now make a 2pt conversion.

AND this was because you went for two on the first TD and made it.  So, ironically you would be forcing your team into the very situation you were hoping to avoid by not going for two.

So, again, I think you are right.  I probably would have gone for two.  But you Force your team into a hard way to go and they had to be perfect on both sides of the ball in most situations.  Whereas, you can decide to put them in a situation where both sides of the ball have a bit of leeway — but still need to be very good down the stretch.

So, accounting for all of that and reducing the odds to figure in the likelihood of 3 drives versus 2 drives and stopping Seattle each time versus allowing them a FG one time.  ~.75 or so for rounding.

I would be happy to say it is ~56% to kick the PAT and ~44% to go for two.

@Raiders22

 About half way through reading that all I could think was “this fckn guy is so much smarter than I am” 

hats off to you Raiders. Love these discussions 

@brn2loslive2win

 No sir. I am not.  
Like I said — I would have gone for 2 points. 

But with that much time left, defense playing great, offense had a bit of momentum— maybe that was what he was thinking.  

I say that because these guys upstairs already know the analytics and know if they should go for two in that situation.  In fact, they should already know the play that they will call. 

So, I hope they were not caught flat footed by finally scoring a TD and decided in that particular situation it was best to kick the XP. 

BUT I could also make a case that if they had gone for 2 and got it — it really energizes the team. 

I would have taken that chance — like you said. 

@Raiders22

 I’m not sure that they didn’t go for two because they didn’t know better! we all assume  that these coaches make the choices that they make based on analytics and probabilities. but would it shock you to find out that they kicked the extra point out of pure stupidity? We see it every week in the NFL. Coaches mismanaging the most critical situations. Vrabel has a little bit of a history of coaching blunders. Which brings me back to my original point about how good is the coaching staff? There could’ve been sound reasoning for kicking that extra point, but it also could’ve been a caught up in the moment, not knowing what to do type situation like we see on a weekly basis in this league. 

I’m not a big “players coach ra ra” kind of guy. I’ll take the quiet Andy Reid or hard nosed do your job Bill Belichick kind of guy all day long over the “team guy” Dan Campbell. I think both types of coaches can be great, but sometimes it rears its ugly head. We often think a coach is making a gut decision when really they’re just don’t know what to do