RealGM

Should be a good game,hopefully better than our game.

Patriots 31 Steelers 24

Go Steelers

Just get the 1st...

Looks like Brady is headed to his 7th Super Bowl.

With Mike McCarthy and Ted Thompson around,Aaron Rodgers would probably have to play 40 seasons to play in 7 Super Bowls lol.

It's a gut punch though because Aaron Rodgers is better than Tom Brady.That front office thing though.

I want to see Goodell present Brady with the Super Bowl MVP in 2 weeks haha.

Brady had an amazing game today,but if he didn't have a good team around him the Patriots probably would have lost last week when he had an off game vs the Texans.Must be nice to have an MVP all time great QB and know that even if he doesn't play out of this world you still have a chance to win.

These are the sour grapes of a baby, but man, look at the AFC playoff field NE was in:

Miami.
The Carr-less Oakland Raiders.
Kansas City.
F*cking Houston.
An inconsistent Pittsburgh Steelers.

Put NE in the NFC and put us in the AFC playoffs as a wild-card. Tell me we're not going to the Super Bowl, sh*tty injured defense and all against that field.

thomchatt3rton wrote:These are the sour grapes of a baby, but man, look at the AFC playoff field NE was in:

Miami.
The Carr-less Oakland Raiders.
Kansas City.
F*cking Houston.
An inconsistent Pittsburgh Steelers.

Put NE in the NFC and put us in the AFC playoffs as a wild-card. Tell me we're not going to the Super Bowl, sh*tty injured defense and all against that field.

I'll give you Houston,Miami and Carr-less Oakland,but the Packers wouldn't beat KC or Pittsburgh.

I agree to an extent that's not the toughest competition,but I don't think that takes away from the Patriots greatness.I think if you put New England in the NFC they still make it to the Super Bowl rather easily.If you're logic is that the Patriots success is in part due to the fact they play in weak division which gives them an easy road to the Super Bowl or that the AFC is weak,Atlanta should beat them in the Super Bowl rather easily.

This Super Bowl will be a great match up to debunk this nonsense.

Although anyone who thinks the Patriots are playing in their 7th Super Bowl since 2001 and going for their 5th Super Bowl win since 2001 because the they play in a weak division will still come up with an excuse if the Patriots win by 5 TDs.

Part of the reason the Patriots competition doesn't look great isn't because those teams aren't good,part of the reason is the Patriots are just so much better than their competition.

rilamann wrote:

thomchatt3rton wrote:These are the sour grapes of a baby, but man, look at the AFC playoff field NE was in:

Miami.
The Carr-less Oakland Raiders.
Kansas City.
F*cking Houston.
An inconsistent Pittsburgh Steelers.

Put NE in the NFC and put us in the AFC playoffs as a wild-card. Tell me we're not going to the Super Bowl, sh*tty injured defense and all against that field.

I'll give you Houston,Miami and Carr-less Oakland,but the Packers wouldn't beat KC or Pittsburgh.

I agree to an extent that's not the toughest competition,but I don't think that takes away from the Patriots greatness.I think if you put New England in the NFC they still make it to the Super Bowl rather easily.If you're logic is that the Patriots success is in part due to the fact they play in weak division which gives them an easy road to the Super Bowl or that the AFC is weak,Atlanta should beat them in the Super Bowl rather easily.

This Super Bowl will be a great match up to debunk this nonsense.

Although anyone who thinks the Patriots are playing in their 7th Super Bowl since 2001 and going for their 5th Super Bowl win since 2001 because the they play in a weak division will still come up with an excuse if the Patriots win by 5 TDs.

Part of the reason the Patriots competition doesn't look great isn't because those teams aren't good,part of the reason is the Patriots are just so much better than their competition.

So you look at that field, and you're willing to "agree to an extent that it's not the toughest competition" !?

What on earth would you consider a genuinely weak field, I wonder.

Look, don't worry- nobody's trying to take anything away from your precious Patriots. Everyone knows they're good, and you can't choose your competition, but good god man- that AFC playoff pool is the sorriest bunch I can remember. Just look at the quarterbacks alone. Would you be willing to admit that to an extent those are not the greatest QBs in the league?

Also, we absolutely could beat KC. Even as banged up as we were Sunday. Also, NE would not cakewalk through the NFC field. Not like they did that embarrassing group in the AFC. You're really underrating ATL, DAL and even GB (before literally everyone on the team got injured and died).

thomchatt3rton wrote:

rilamann wrote:

thomchatt3rton wrote:These are the sour grapes of a baby, but man, look at the AFC playoff field NE was in:

Miami.
The Carr-less Oakland Raiders.
Kansas City.
F*cking Houston.
An inconsistent Pittsburgh Steelers.

Put NE in the NFC and put us in the AFC playoffs as a wild-card. Tell me we're not going to the Super Bowl, sh*tty injured defense and all against that field.

I'll give you Houston,Miami and Carr-less Oakland,but the Packers wouldn't beat KC or Pittsburgh.

I agree to an extent that's not the toughest competition,but I don't think that takes away from the Patriots greatness.I think if you put New England in the NFC they still make it to the Super Bowl rather easily.If you're logic is that the Patriots success is in part due to the fact they play in weak division which gives them an easy road to the Super Bowl or that the AFC is weak,Atlanta should beat them in the Super Bowl rather easily.

This Super Bowl will be a great match up to debunk this nonsense.

Although anyone who thinks the Patriots are playing in their 7th Super Bowl since 2001 and going for their 5th Super Bowl win since 2001 because the they play in a weak division will still come up with an excuse if the Patriots win by 5 TDs.

Part of the reason the Patriots competition doesn't look great isn't because those teams aren't good,part of the reason is the Patriots are just so much better than their competition.

So you look at that field, and you're willing to "agree to an extent that it's not the toughest competition" !?

What on earth would you consider a genuinely weak field, I wonder.

Look, don't worry- nobody's trying to take anything away from your precious Patriots. Everyone knows they're good, and you can't choose your competition, but good god man- that AFC playoff pool is the sorriest bunch I can remember. Just look at the quarterbacks alone. Would you be willing to admit that to an extent those are not the greatest QBs in the league?

Also, we absolutely could beat KC. Even as banged up as we were Sunday. Also, NE would not cakewalk through the NFC field. Not like they did that embarrassing group in the AFC. You're really underrating ATL, DAL and even GB (before literally everyone on the team got injured and died).

I know you said it was some sour grapes going on but the AFC field is/was better than you're making it out to be.

The Steelers and Chiefs are both very solid legit playoffs teams.The Chiefs did beat the Falcons in Atlanta in December.The Texans have a better defense than anyone in the NFC and the Patriots put up 34pts on them with Brady having a bad game.Then in the AFC championship game the Patriots destroyed the Steelers.

And they did this without Gronk and went 14-2 to earn the HFA in the regular season with Brady missing 4 games,I think it's pretty incredible.

Your perception is that the AFC playoff field was weak,but the reality is that the Patriots make it appear that way because they are so much better than their competition.

Now I'll give you Miami,I think they're kind of weak for a playoff team but the Patriots didn't even play them in the playoffs.The Patriots did catch a pretty big break with Carr going down right before the playoffs.I think if you put the Patriots or the Raiders with a healthy Carr in the NFC either would win the NFC.Had Carr not went down the Real Super Bowl would have been the AFC Championship game.

I think you could make a case that the Falcons had an easier road to the Super Bowl than the Patriots did,they played a 9 win banged up Seahawks team and a 3-13 team with God at QB in the NFC Championship game.

For the record I think the Falcons are good but I don't think they're that good.I think they are playing good football and they're tough at home.We'll see if I am underrating them on Feb 5th.

It def worked in ATLs favor that:

A) We knocked off the 1-seed for them (and a game NYG team) and..

B) ...in the process of doing so, got so banged up over the course of 3 playoff games that they only had to face a weakened version of us.

But I think its crazy to suggest ATL had the easier path.
First, nobody would rather play SEA than HOU. I know NE whipped SEA before, but anyone who says they prefer facing Wilson over fcking Brock Osweiler is lying.
Remember, this is one-and-done; you cant play GB/PIT until you beat your divisional opponent. Youd take HOU every time.

GB vs PIT is harder to choose. True we were banged up, but we also have one of the best QBs of all time who also happened to be on a nutso hot streak. I'd rather play PIT.

thomchatt3rton wrote:It def worked in ATLs favor that:

A) We knocked off the 1-seed for them (and a game NYG team) and..

B) ...in the process of doing so, got so banged up over the course of 3 playoff games that they only had to face a weakened version of us.

But I think its crazy to suggest ATL had the easier path.
First, nobody would rather play SEA than HOU. I know NE whipped SEA before, but anyone who says they prefer facing Wilson over fcking Brock Osweiler is lying.
Remember, this is one-and-done; you cant play GB/PIT until you beat your divisional opponent. Youd take HOU every time.

GB vs PIT is harder to choose. True we were banged up, but we also have one of the best QBs of all time who also happened to be on a nutso hot streak. I'd rather play PIT.

I'd rather play Houston than Seattle if I'm the road but if I am at home it's debatable.I guess it depends on what team's perspective you're looking at it from.If you made the Patriots play that divisional game against the Texans with the Packer's defense,the Patriots would have lost that game.Tom Brady threw 2 INTs and played an all around bad game in part because the Texans have a really good defense.Oswelier is nothing special but against the Packer's defense he probably makes enough plays to win that game in the 2nd half,don't forget the Patriots were only up 17-13 at the half.The Falcons defense isn't much better than ours.

So if we're looking at it from the Packers POV and the Falcons POV,if you are at home I might actually rather play a banged up Seattle team than Houston.On the road I would want to play Houston.

Packers or Steelers is debatable too but if I am going from the Falcons POV I would rather play the Packers.Sure facing Rodgers in the playoffs is scary but the Steelers have an all-pro big 3 in Ben/Bell/Brown.From an ''our offense vs their defense'' perspective the Packers were probably the best possible match up in the entire NFC for the Falcons.

And like they say,you gotta be good and you gotta get a little lucky to get to a Super Bowl and the Falcons were extremely lucky this season.

If the Cardinals don't beat the Seahawks in Seattle 34-31 on a last second 47 yard walk off FG week 16 the Falcons would have been the #3 seed.The Falcons would have had to then play an extra game playoff game vs the Lions wild card weekend.Sure,the Falcons probably beat the Lions but who knows,maybe the Falcons have a bad day that day.Or maybe Matt Ryan gets his leg broken on a sack,or maybe a Lion's defender spears Julio Jones and breaks his ribs.It's huge to not have to play that extra playoff game in the NFL,just ask Jordy Nelson.On top that the Falcons would then had to then go on the road and play a rested Seahawks team in Seattle,as opposed to playing them in Atlanta with a week of their own rest.The Falcons might still win in Seattle but it would have been a totally different game in Seattle.

Then if that wasn't enough luck for Atlanta the Packers beat the Cowboys by the same 34-31 score on a 51 yard walk off FG.Essentially giving the Falcons HFA and a match up vs a beat up Packers team who was probably the best match up Atlanta could have hoped for from an our offense vs their defense standpoint.

So Atlanta's road to the Super Bowl went from
vs Detroit
@Seattle
@Dallas

To having a week of rest and only having to win 2 games at home to get to the Super Bowl,one against a beat up Seattle team and one against a beat up and a God awful defensive team in the Packers,all because of two extra long walk off FGs by road team underdogs in games in which they,the Falcons had nothing to do with.

From now on when people use the ''You have to be good and a little lucky to get to a super bowl'' cliche they can cite the 2016 Atlanta Falcons for the luck part.

If the Falcons win the Super Bowl Mason Crosby and Chandler Catanzaro should get consideration for game MVP...lol

rilamann wrote:

thomchatt3rton wrote:It def worked in ATLs favor that:

A) We knocked off the 1-seed for them (and a game NYG team) and..

B) ...in the process of doing so, got so banged up over the course of 3 playoff games that they only had to face a weakened version of us.

But I think its crazy to suggest ATL had the easier path.
First, nobody would rather play SEA than HOU. I know NE whipped SEA before, but anyone who says they prefer facing Wilson over fcking Brock Osweiler is lying.
Remember, this is one-and-done; you cant play GB/PIT until you beat your divisional opponent. Youd take HOU every time.

GB vs PIT is harder to choose. True we were banged up, but we also have one of the best QBs of all time who also happened to be on a nutso hot streak. I'd rather play PIT.

I'd rather play Houston than Seattle if I'm the road but if I am at home it's debatable.I guess it depends on what team's perspective you're looking at it from.If you made the Patriots play that divisional game against the Texans with the Packer's defense,the Patriots would have lost that game.Tom Brady threw 2 INTs and played an all around bad game in part because the Texans have a really good defense.Oswelier is nothing special but against the Packer's defense he probably makes enough plays to win that game in the 2nd half,don't forget the Patriots were only up 17-13 at the half.The Falcons defense isn't much better than ours.

So if we're looking at it from the Packers POV and the Falcons POV,if you are at home I might actually rather play a banged up Seattle team than Houston.On the road I would want to play Houston.

Packers or Steelers is debatable too but if I am going from the Falcons POV I would rather play the Packers.Sure facing Rodgers in the playoffs is scary but the Steelers have an all-pro big 3 in Ben/Bell/Brown.From an ''our offense vs their defense'' perspective the Packers were probably the best possible match up in the entire NFC for the Falcons.

And like they say,you gotta be good and you gotta get a little lucky to get to a Super Bowl and the Falcons were extremely lucky this season.

If the Cardinals don't beat the Seahawks in Seattle 34-31 on a last second 47 yard walk off FG week 16 the Falcons would have been the #3 seed.The Falcons would have had to then play an extra game playoff game vs the Lions wild card weekend.Sure,the Falcons probably beat the Lions but who knows,maybe the Falcons have a bad day that day.Or maybe Matt Ryan gets his leg broken on a sack,or maybe a Lion's defender spears Julio Jones and breaks his ribs.It's huge to not have to play that extra playoff game in the NFL,just ask Jordy Nelson.On top that the Falcons would then had to then go on the road and play a rested Seahawks team in Seattle,as opposed to playing them in Atlanta with a week of their own rest.The Falcons might still win in Seattle but it would have been a totally different game in Seattle.

Then if that wasn't enough luck for Atlanta the Packers beat the Cowboys by the same 34-31 score on a 51 yard walk off FG.Essentially giving the Falcons HFA and a match up vs a beat up Packers team who was probably the best match up Atlanta could have hoped for from an our offense vs their defense standpoint.

So Atlanta's road to the Super Bowl went from
vs Detroit
@Seattle
@Dallas

To having a week of rest and only having to win 2 games at home to get to the Super Bowl,one against a beat up Seattle team and one against a beat up and a God awful defensive team in the Packers,all because of two extra long walk off FGs by road team underdogs in games in which they,the Falcons had nothing to do with.

From now on when people use the ''You have to be good and a little lucky to get to a super bowl'' cliche they can cite the 2016 Atlanta Falcons for the luck part.

If the Falcons win the Super Bowl Mason Crosby and Chandler Catanzaro should get consideration for game MVP...lol

If ATL wins it all, they should definitely mention us on the podium. "I'd like to thank the Green Bay Packers for being good enough to knock off DAL, but too injured to beat us.. We wouldn't be here without them"

But if NE wins it all, they probably should thank whoever broke Derek Carr's fibula. Don't forget to mention Le'veon Bell's groin while you're up there, Tom. I mean, if you want to talk luck, AND you want to go back into the regular season and how that helped any team get into the SB, we could go all day. That applies every year, to every team (like you imply, it always takes luck).

But look:

Wilson + SEA's D > Osweiler + HOU's D.

The Texans' D is just not good enough to balance out having Osweiler at the helm- that would take a truly great D. HOU's unit was good overall, but were 27th in the league in takeaways, with only 8 INTs all year (!) and that isn't good enough to overcome Osweiler, because despite what you say, he's NOT capable of making enough plays on his own.

Regular season, Brock averaged under 200 yards per game, had a QB rating of 72 and he threw 15 TDs and 16 INTs. He's bottom of the league in nearly every statistical category. YET, in another massive understatement employed by necessity to make your argument seem reasonable, you glibly and way too briefly describe Osweiler merely as "nothing special". This is an epic glossing-over of a fact that's key to your argument.

I asked you a similar question before about an earlier understatement of yours, but on this one I'd genuinely like to know the answer: If Osweiler is merely "nothing special" (and not, say, "terrible") then who would you consider to be an actual terrible QB? One with no arms, maybe?

RE the Falcons, I will concede that our D vs their O was a good matchup for ATL. But their D vs our O was good matchup for us too. Like I said, choosing between playing PIT or banged-up GB is close. I think most teams would rather play the team whose QB was not named Aaron Rodgers though, and I feel damn safe saying that.

But my original point that the AFC field was inferior still stands. If you've refuted me there, I must have missed it. You need only compare the worst teams in the NFC field to the worst teams in the AFC field to arrive at a conclusion quickly and easily.

Having a field with a "low floor" like the AFC makes getting to the SuperBowl SO much easier for the good teams- you have no real risk of getting upset in your first game. If you don't believe me, just ask the Dallas Cowboys. That could have been NE. But never in that AFC field.

Here are all the Super Bowl prop bets:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0u9Mx7xgQ3idmRyTVdCT0t6ZW8/view

I have nothing to do at the moment. Seriously have some time to kill, and I'd rather do nothing than watch the pro Bowl. I just checked the score and went... Meh... No thanks. I didn't even want to make a pro Bowl thread.

HKPackFan wrote:I have nothing to do at the moment. Seriously have some time to kill, and I'd rather do nothing than watch the pro Bowl. I just checked the score and went... Meh... No thanks. I didn't even want to make a pro Bowl thread.

I've been flipping back and forth. Actually a good ending. Players looked like they kind of cared this year.

The Skills events last week were actually pretty fun to watch. The Pro Bowl, on the other hand, is literally the worst.

humanrefutation wrote:The Skills events last week were actually pretty fun to watch. The Pro Bowl, on the other hand, is literally the worst.

They brought that back? That was the part of the Pro Bowl I used to love.

The QB Challenge with the moving targets & then the longest throw.
The WR challenge where they are getting footballs launched from juggs from all sides.
The Kicker challenge (Ok that one wasn't that interesting).
And one of my favorites was the retired stars Flag football match.


They had all that stuff?

HKPackFan wrote:

humanrefutation wrote:The Skills events last week were actually pretty fun to watch. The Pro Bowl, on the other hand, is literally the worst.

They brought that back? That was the part of the Pro Bowl I used to love.

The QB Challenge with the moving targets & then the longest throw.
The WR challenge where they are getting footballs launched from juggs from all sides.
The Kicker challenge (Ok that one wasn't that interesting).
And one of my favorites was the retired stars Flag football match.


They had all that stuff?

No, it was different this time.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000755941/article/pro-bowl-skills-showdown-announced

http://deadspin.com/the-pro-bowls-skill-competitions-were-surprisingly-fun-1791680895