Notice: All forums will be retired as of May 31st, 2016 and will not be archived. Thank you for your participation in this community, and we hope you continue to enjoy other content at

SB 46

  1. This post has been removed.

  2. This post has been removed.

  3. This post has been removed.

  4. This post has been removed.

  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: SB 46

    Why the f are people still talking about this game?  Jesus christ it was 2 years ago.

  6. This post has been removed.

  7. This post has been removed.

  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: SB 46

    In response to AZPAT's comment:

    In response to mthurl's comment:


    In response to AZPAT's comment:


    In response to mthurl's comment:


    In response to AZPAT's comment:


    In response to mthurl's comment:


    In response to AZPAT's comment:


    In response to BabeParilli's comment:


    In response to RockScully's comment:



    "Ball was high and to the outside. It turned him to the outside." - Analyst, Scott Zolak





    ROFLMFAO!!!   STILL!!!!!


    Babe, this play was NOT in the end zone. Yet, you keep devining that IF he caught the ball they WOULD have scored a TD. Just admitt that teh GMen played teh entire 60 minutes BETTER than the Pats did, AGAIN. But, if this Welker "drop" issue is true, then we'll put blame on the SF loss right where it needs to be... Vern Davis. Do you recall the wide pass he dropped inside the 30 yd line? Most assuredly, THAT drive would have ended up as a TD and the ultimate game winner, lights out or not.  And, the timing of the play in regards to the game clock is inconsequential, could be 1st, 2nd, or 3rd Qtr, or in the final minute of play. A drop is a drop, is a drop.....

    Just let it go...... 


    Well let's say he catches the thing - it's a first down around the 20? 30? I can't remember. Now let's say we get the ball at the 25 and drive down to the 5 before not getting in (could happen, I know), but what definetely would of happened at that point is we would of taken more time off the clock. The Giants ended up getting the ball back on their twelve yard line with 3:46 and one timeout. Now let's say they get the ball at the twenty yard line with 1:46 seconds and no they still beat us? With our defense the answer is probably, but I like our chances a little better with less time and less timeouts. And who's to say that we don't score when WE get into that redzone after Welker catches the ball (that he dropped)? 



    Ah, if only wishes were fishes, we'd be up to our arses in haddock. Sorry, can't devine a "possibility" of what COULD have happened. Facts is before and after that drive, only twice did they score TD's on drives. Look at official stats. You'll find "points for" and "points against", but no "Gee, if this hadn't of happened..." category. Why stop with what you'd PROBABKY think the Pats would have done, and add if the Giants defense all got leg cramps withina  3 play sequence,a nd they ended up with their punter playing DB? Or, if a lineman, two LB's, and a safety blew out their knees on the same play? You know, as long as we're playing that Could Possibly Happen Game. Who's to say that Brady was NOT going to toss an INT on an ill conceived pass into strong coverage? or a tipped ball? or a pass the bounced off a receiver? What about a good catch, a step, and then a fumble by the receiver? Where does that figure into your dream like wish?  Naw! That would NEVER happen! Impossible! Couldn't! Right? 



    So what you are saying is IF Welker caught that ball - despite it not being in the endzone - we still lose that game? I'm just trying to clarify, because that drop (at least to me) was along the lines of Bill Buckner, in terms of effect. This wasn't some meaningless dropped 2nd and ten throw in the first quarter, this is something that people are talking about two years later...and with good reason.



    Not saying the play wasn't pivotal, but there is no possible way to assure that a TD would have been scored. There are 60 minutes in a game, and you've got to make every play count, especially in a SB. They way they were playing, a turnover was possible, or another FG, or a turn over on downs. The offense up to that point was not on automatic mode. And, yes, as the game turned out, if that play happened in the 1st Qtr, it would have been just as brutally mentioned and blamed for a 3 point loss, because it eliminated the POSSIBILTY of scoring points of any kind.


    Interesting to note that, after that play, Brady tossed one into Branch's ankles when he had at least 10 open yards in front of him. Yet, no discussion on that play. Or his severely underthrown ball to Gronk that was an INT. Seems to me if you run the play for your TE, AND he draws a LB in coverage, AND he's got him beat by 5 steps, you put the ball where only 1 player can possibly made the catch, not making him come back to defend the pass thrown to him. Before getting all huffy, you DON'T call that play with a TE on a bad wheel unless you think the play will work, so save the injury excuse. Gronk flat out had the LB beat like a cheap rug. Severely underthrowing the ball isn't a good thing. Yet, crickets on both throws....


    Well not crickets, in fact both have been discussed. The throw to Gronk was a broken play - hard to believe they thought it was going to work or drew it up that way. Brady avoided an inside rush - he spun left and then curled back around to the right, where he would be flushed out of the pocket in that direction and upfield a bit. The large debate was weather he should of just continued running, and maybe he should of - I can't see him getting more than a few yards, but hey at least it wouldn't of been picked. Truth is he should of been sacked and lost 7 yards on the play, instead he was spinning around like a top and at the last second probably saw Gronk break free and ended up not getting his feet set well enough to heave the throw over the defender's head. Essentially it had the effect of a punt, but we wasted precious minutes and an oppurtunity to score some sort of points.


    The pass to Branch should of been caught, if it's the one I'm thinking of. Don't get me wrong, the throw could of been better, but it hit him in the hands. Don't recievers have to make those catches? I just watched Flacco's recievers make catches with defenders draped all over them. I watched them catch balls that were under thrown, over thrown and thrown a million miles an hour from three feet away...yet they still caught them...all of them.


    First off, there is ABSOLUTELY no way that play to Gronk was a broken play. Your TE with a bad wheel is NOT the guy to run down field with a LB on a broken play. If you think that, then you have no grasp on the game. Receivers run to an open spot, or come back to help their QB under duress. Yet, here's Gronk running down the middle of the field, with a LB in single coverage. He was on his way downfield while Brady was doing a Houdini, as there is absolutely no way Gronk, on a short route, was going to get 50+ yards downfield as Brady avoided a rush, on a bad wheel. That's what your WR's are for. Sorry, the Giants put a big rush on Brady and he had to escape it before that throw. It was a play that worked, except for the rush and poor throw. Caught the Giants completely by surprise. 


    Loved the "throw could have been better" excuse. Brach was a yard off the line, entirely by himself, on the strong side of the field, perfect WR screen set up, and the throw "could" have been better? My! How magnaminous of you! Button up that shirt before the old ticker falls out! Would you say that same thing ("could have been better") if the ball was on the 10 yd line? Don't answer that, I think you would. And I'd take all the Ravens WR's over the Pats WR's. They are bigger, faster, more physical, and, as you point out, have better hands. Now, careful! Gronk is a TE. I'd still take Gronk. So, don't try and put the Pats WR corps in the same category as the Ravens' WR's. You're not making any point for the Pats WR's when yiou make this comparrison.  

    Why yes! You're right! That play by Brady and Gronk must of been by design. See Josh McDanials must of said (as a consultant)...let's let the Giant's rush break through the center of our line, that way our 34 year old quarterback can run for his life out of it!. Yeah, here's what we'll do guys, we'll let a defensive tackle and end come crashing in right at hand off. Then as soon as  our quarterback (who has never ran faster than anyone in his) knows what is coming, he will have to spin like a top. Then we will make him run left, then right, then left, then right...before finally running five feet upfield where he will try to hit our tightend who has an ankle holding on by a guitar string!! Brilliant! We will confuse everyone!


  9. This post has been removed.

  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from GEAUX-TIGRES. Show GEAUX-TIGRES's posts

    Re: SB 46

    Just saying. I have nothing to gripe about here, I'm a freakin' Giants fan. Just being objective as usual. That is all. I played and coached the game so I can in turn tell you to learn the game. I just can't believe why people can't let go to something they can't undo. Move on. You have enough of Rusty to quibber with. Don't get me involved.

  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from GEAUX-TIGRES. Show GEAUX-TIGRES's posts

    Re: SB 46

    Who gives a fiotch? Your attempt to always be right reminds me of someone.

  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from GEAUX-TIGRES. Show GEAUX-TIGRES's posts

    Re: SB 46


  13. This post has been removed.

  14. This post has been removed.

  15. This post has been removed.

  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: SB 46

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    Giants fan? Oh I see. That explains EVERYTHING. Thanks for clearing up your agenda. Well, I guess not all opposing fans are as objective as jints.


    Have a nice day.

    Jints is a useless troll.  The vast majority of his posts consist of reminding us that the Pats didn't win those SBs or trolling Rusty.  He is about as objective as UD6.

  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from GEAUX-TIGRES. Show GEAUX-TIGRES's posts

    Re: SB 46

    Have to agree with you again Rust. 'Stats are for losers', as coined by BB I believe. Who cares about records if they're either personal or don't benefit the team?

  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from GEAUX-TIGRES. Show GEAUX-TIGRES's posts

    Re: SB 46

    Asante gets one mitt on it and he's fully extended. It's physically impossible. If Welk's catch is so mundane, maybe you could the football world how you'd make that catch. You couldn't and neither could he. You lost a SB, fiotching move on. Our teams may never see one again. I accept that, so should you.

  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from GEAUX-TIGRES. Show GEAUX-TIGRES's posts

    Re: SB 46

    I noticed that you and your geriatric nemesis are perpetually at it. Sometimes annoying, but extremely entertaining at times. Now he has turned on me for being honest and objective. A dose of Prozac may diminish is obsession with the extreme need to be right. He's like John Hancock, 'the man who slept'.

  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from GEAUX-TIGRES. Show GEAUX-TIGRES's posts

    Re: SB 46

    I don't get too warm and fuzzy about winning a game. The euphoria usually lasts about an hour unless it was our high school team which is for the good of the community. And I don't rub those SB wins in anyone's face. So you're wrong again. Did the care taker forget to give you your meds today? Sounds it. Bitter, p eeved off and a grandiose feeling of righteousness. Are you wet behind the ears? Depends, doesn't it?

  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from GEAUX-TIGRES. Show GEAUX-TIGRES's posts

    Re: SB 46

    PCM, I've been pressing to relate that point.

  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from LHNYJ. Show LHNYJ's posts

    Re: SB 46

    I agree -High and outside...a terrible pass from an aging QB.

  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from csylvia79. Show csylvia79's posts

    Re: SB 46

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to AZPAT's comment:


    OK, I'll bite.... so just what is Brady doing throwing him a HIGH ball that he has absolutely no possibly way, even with a jump off a loading platform, of getting his chest in front of?




    PS. I know catching footballs that are not chest high is possible. I've personally done it. Can anybody else be a witness to that?

    zbellino, you played in college. Did you EVER see a guy catch a pass that wasn't chest high?

    I played CB and SS in college and I saved my own a-ss many times catching jump balls. 

  24. This post has been removed.

  25. This post has been removed.