doesn't matter...no one cares about the superbowl...
The SuperBowl Thread...
- Thread starter mathiaslg
- Start date
1:47 to go, after that i need to study...
Patriots 24-20 Eagles...
Patriots 24-20 Eagles...
sure they do...I'm watching it.
where are you from? England?
Jacqueline_S said:
No!!!!!!!!! You know I'm from New York!!!! Don't you remember our Yankee stadium discussions?
no i don't...FLASHWOK said:
No!!!!!!!!! You know I'm from New York!!!! Don't you remember our Yankee stadium discussions?
the one with short memory...
Thank god!!
feck you Philly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
feck you Philly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
it's OVERRRRRRR
Patriot 24-21 Eagles...
love to see what's on Kobe Bryant's face eat that!!!
Patriot 24-21 Eagles...
love to see what's on Kobe Bryant's face
eat that!!!Horrible clock management by the Eagles at the end of the game. TO was the leading receiver for the Eagles and they still didn't win. Congratulations to the Patriots, class organization and a well run Team.
Not a bad game, definitely not a classic or epic. Was kind of boring at times. The better team won (thank goodness, I would probably shoot myself if I had to listen to Terrell Owens talking smack about winning the SB for 12 months).
What I find amusing is how my American friends talk about soccer (football ) being low scoring games. But they usually can't respond when I make comment of our gridiron football awarding 6 points for a touchdown. If soccer did that, most games would be 21-14 or 14-7...and even then, a goal in soccer is tougher than a touchdown in football, so a goal should be equivalent to 10 or 14 points. So now a soccer match would look like 28-14 or 42-28. Suddenly, soccer would be high scoring .
If you reverse the inflated scoring in gridiron football, scores would be listed as 3-2 or 5-3. Not such high scoring, ey. Just love to give it to my fellow Americans when they go on about soccer being low scoring compared to gridiron football.
What I find amusing is how my American friends talk about soccer (football
) being low scoring games. But they usually can't respond when I make comment of our gridiron football awarding 6 points for a touchdown. If soccer did that, most games would be 21-14 or 14-7...and even then, a goal in soccer is tougher than a touchdown in football, so a goal should be equivalent to 10 or 14 points. So now a soccer match would look like 28-14 or 42-28. Suddenly, soccer would be high scoring . If you reverse the inflated scoring in gridiron football, scores would be listed as 3-2 or 5-3. Not such high scoring, ey. Just love to give it to my fellow Americans when they go on about soccer being low scoring compared to gridiron football.
Keano1999 said:
I don't think that's it....McNabb should have thrown the ball away instead of tossing to the RB at the 5 yard line with no timeouts. That completion cost them 15 seconds or so. And left them in desparation heaves to get down field. McNabb was outside the pocket, so he could have thrown the ball away (or towards a WR near the sideline to stop the clock). The RB should have been aware of the time and dropped the pass.
MrMarcello said:
That's what I meant by clock management. Bad decisions, taking too long in the huddles, horrible play calling killed them when they needed to execute. They were lucky they even got the ball back after that shitty onside kick.
Keano1999 said:
I see your point and I agree. There didn't seem to be any hurry with about 5:30 to play. The receivers and lineman were taking their time to get in the huddle. It's almost as if the entire offense felt they would come down and score, get the ball back and win it late. It reeked of arrogance...but then again, it also looked as if the players just didn't know how to handle the situation. I blame the coaches for allowing that clock to run down that late without a sense of hurry.
Those onside kicks are a huge gamble anyway. The team should never have allowed themselves to be put in that situation. They should have attacked quicker and gone for bigger gains, especially with a secondary missing two CBs (one injured in the first half, and Law did not play) and a backup safety subbing for an injured starter. Instead, they went for short gains. The NE defense did it's job too though to minimize Philly taking deep shots. But the coaches should have played from the 6 minute mark as if they had 2 minutes left. Things might have turned out differently had Philly scored with 3 minutes left instead of 1:45.
In the end, I'm glad the fecking Eagles bottled it. Can't stand them and their asshole fans.
Ermm... Good result.
Dissapointing...New England remind me of Chelsea...soulless efficient machine
The Eagles blew it when they had them on the ropes
The Eagles blew it when they had them on the ropes
MrMarcello said:
Really?
I always thought it was harder to score a touchdown... it's like a gigantic moving chess game, whereas in proper football if you've got a George Best or Eric Cantona you sit back and watch them humiliate the opposition.
Plechazunga said:
Why ?
spinoza said:Really?
I always thought it was harder to score a touchdown... it's like a gigantic moving chess game, whereas in proper football if you've got a George Best or Eric Cantona you sit back and watch them humiliate the opposition.
What about a David Bellion?
mathiaslg said:
Well put, Mathias. 'kin Eagles.
Was 'F'ing my mother last night (the conspiracy queen)....said to her.." The Patriots vs. the Eagles....playing in Jebb Bush's state tell me there's nothing behind that"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Screw the Eagle fans, was thrilled to watch them go down in flames
tell me there's nothing behind that"------------------------------------------------------------------------
Screw the Eagle fans, was thrilled to watch them go down in flames
LABOB said:
Do you mean "Was 'F'ing with my mother last night"?LABOB said:
Talking about having a close family