8 minutes ago, CBhearse said:

What a terrible super bowl. 2 biggest cry sack teams in the NFL. Totally unbearable. 

NFL is rigged as hell

I can’t believe I have to cheer for fing Mahomes 

So we have the team that beat us last year in the SB and the team that broke us this year. Time to root for the ole meteor. 

2 minutes ago, Southparkeagles said:

Spoiler alert:

Chiefs win the SB. The better storyline wins. That’s today’s NFL. 

And Taylor Swift sings at halftime. 
When people ask me who I root for, I usually say, "I don’t care so long as Dallas loses.” Different this time but I hafta root against SF.

 

13 minutes ago, GoEagles614 said:

Coordinator accepts a job, his unit craps the bed for a half to lose the game. Sounds familiar?

Yes unfortunately 

1 minute ago, VaBeach_Eagle said:

I didn't watch the game but I saw that the Lions (seemingly, since I didn't watch) idiotically went for it on 4th down twice and turned it over on downs. Kick those two FG's and it's likely a different outcome. 

In a case like this, I think I'd rather flame out in the WC round than lose the way the Lions did tonight. 

I don't remember the first 4th down attempt but the 2nd one would have been close to a 50 yard FG.  Definitely not a gimme.

The first time they went on 4th the WR Reynolds should have caught it.  Just dropped it.

I'm rooting for KC.

I got a chance to see Taylor Swift's AI nudes and I'm a big fan now.

Just now, just relax said:

And Taylor Swift sings at halftime. 
When people ask me who I root for, I usually say, "I don’t care so long as Dallas loses.” Different this time but I hafta root against SF.

 

No doubt. AR is not Dan Campbell. KC should win in a fairly close game, but I really could care less. Terrible ending to an NFL season imo regardless. 

**** 

 

I'm tired of hearing the cliche "Guys, the Lions got here by going for it on 4th down, can't argue with success"

Did they literally get there by going for it on 4th down though? Meaning, how many of their wins and losses were due to 4th down aggressiveness? Did they win games this year they otherwise would have lost had they not go for it on 4th down? I saw one they lost against Dallas. My guess is it was probably negligible overall. As are most things.

For all we know the data shows the Lions would've been better had they kicked FGs in specific situations more.

I hate when people just spout off mindless cliches without knowing their validity.

 

"John got his last 3 jobs when he wore blue socks to the job interviews. Stick with what works!"

Lions did not lose because of 4th down decisions. They lost because they dropped passes, INTs, fumbled, etc.

4 minutes ago, Sack that QB said:

I'm tired of hearing the cliche "Guys, the Lions got here by going for it on 4th down, can't argue with success"

Did they literally get there by going for it on 4th down though? Meaning, how many of their wins and losses were due to 4th down aggressiveness? Did they win games this year they otherwise would have lost had they not go for it on 4th down? I saw one they lost against Dallas. My guess is it was probably negligible overall. As are most things.

For all we know the data shows the Lions would've been better had they kicked FGs in specific situations more.

I hate when people just spout off mindless cliches without knowing their validity.

 

"John got his last 3 jobs when he wore blue socks to the job interviews. Stick with what works!"

Your example of them losing to Dallas when the refs clearly robbed them of a win is something…

Just now, RLC said:

Lions did not lose because of 4th down decisions. They lost because they dropped passes, INTs, fumbled, etc.

Without a doubt.

4 minutes ago, Sack that QB said:

I'm tired of hearing the cliche "Guys, the Lions got here by going for it on 4th down, can't argue with success"

Did they literally get there by going for it on 4th down though? Meaning, how many of their wins and losses were due to 4th down aggressiveness? Did they win games this year they otherwise would have lost had they not go for it on 4th down? I saw one they lost against Dallas. My guess is it was probably negligible overall. As are most things.

For all we know the data shows the Lions would've been better had they kicked FGs in specific situations more.

I hate when people just spout off mindless cliches without knowing their validity.

 

"John got his last 3 jobs when he wore blue socks to the job interviews. Stick with what works!"

The only reasonable argument I heard was their kicker hadn’t been that good. I don’t have the stats though. If you think there’s a 50% chance he misses kick it changes calculus of decision. With Elliott you’re assuming it’s 3 points 

Obviously should have activated Zach Ertz

3 minutes ago, pgcd3 said:

Obviously should have activated Zach Ertz

Why did they even sign him?

 

12 minutes ago, RLC said:

Lions did not lose because of 4th down decisions. They lost because they dropped passes, INTs, fumbled, etc.

Honestly, they lost because of both. But dropped passes, INTs, missed tackles happen every game. Don’t make it harder on yourself by making bad coaching decisions. 

28 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

His kicker isn’t all that good. I think he was right to go for it. The problems were Gibbs’ fumble, drops, a flukey 50-yard interception turned catch, and Ben Johnson’s brain turning to mush.

It’s badgley right? Was he banged up cause last 4 years in the league he’s kicking 90% and 86% from 40-49. I don’t consider that bad enough not to kick it with a chance to tie it or extend it to 3 possessions. And this year with the Lions he was 4-4 in the regular season and 3-3 in the postseason. So essentially perfect on the year. And he hit a 54 yarder vs. the rams. And the last 2 years he’s kicking 9-11 from 40-49. Which is great but still not bad. Elliott over that same 2 years is 8-9. 

Just now, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

It’s badgley right? Was he banged up cause last 4 years in the league he’s kicking 90% and 86% from 40-49. I don’t consider that bad enough not to kick it with a chance to tie it or extend it to 3 possessions. And this year with the Lions he was 4-4 in the regular season and 3-3 in the postseason. So essentially perfect on the year. And he hit a 54 yarder vs. the rams. And the last 2 years he’s kicking 9-11 from 40-49. Which is great but still not bad. Elliott over that same 2 years is 8-9. 

He’s 76.5 percent from 40-49 in his career. Not sure about outdoors, but he’s certainly better than I thought considering he was on the PS late in the year. 

Regardless, I’m good with going for it. The defense was toast. 

51 minutes ago, devpool said:

It's not his fault, but Purdy gets more undeserved D slobbing than anyone I've ever seen. He does nothing special, nothing. He's a dude who has 3 Fing all pro weapons that do all the work and an all world defense. Put him on literally any other team and no one would ever talk about him. Put 99% of halfway decent QBs in SF and they perform the same way or better. 

If he wasn't Mr irrelevant, not a soul would call for him to be the MVP. No one would mention him at all except as a good game managing QB on a stacked team, which is all he is.

Nah ... gotta give him his props. There were other QBs with all pros around them that failed to get as far as he did. I'm gonna put some respect on his name because even with the supporting cast what he's doing is unprecedented. He made plays. Not his fault that the media is hyping him. Seems like a JAG that wants to compete.

In general, I think you always try to make something a 3 possession game. Yes, the drop killed them, but that's the risk when you go for it.

The Niners defense sucks though, they're going to get trashed by Mahomes and Reid. And Spags will be the best coordinator the Niners have gone up against. Just hope the Chiefs don't cough it up like the Packers and Lions did.

1 minute ago, ManuManu said:

He’s 76.5 percent from 40-49 in his career. Not sure about outdoors, but he’s certainly better than I thought considering he was on the PS late in the year. 

Regardless, I’m good with going for it. The defense was toast. 

If you look at his career his early part of his career, he wasn’t very good. Thats where a majority of his misses came. His first 4 years he was 8-14 from 40-49 (57%) and overall 42-66 (63.4%). But the last four years of his career he’s actually been pretty solid In general and at making it from 40 to 49 yards. Overall last 4 years he’s 46-53 (89%). If compare his last 4 years to Jake fo 40-49, he’s had less attempts from 40 but his numbers are comparable. Hes 18-21 (85.7%) in his last 4 years from 40-49. Elliott has been 23-27 (85.2%).

I don’t mind if he’s gonna say he’s going for it but saying that his kicker is the reason is BS imo. His kicker in the first playoff game made a 54 yard field goal. And without that they don’t win that game. So This just came down to Dan Campbell wanted to go for it because he’s ultra aggressive.

I still can't wrap my head around the decision making. They made the conscious decision to go safe with the FG from the 2 yard line before the half then they randomly got overly aggressive afterwards. No reason to give the Niners any momentum since they didn't do anything that game up to that point. It's not like they were in a shootout.