I was hoping he wisened the **** up after 2015 disaster season.

I bought into that he had after going 18 games without costing a game.

I forgot he had the capability of being stupid until the 4th quarter

then he totally redeemed himself

Give up their third and fourth SBs. I can't justify giving up a 3rd.

Their little barf/poop machines were getting tired and cranky.

You know Boston sports existed before 2001? And 2007 ****ing hurt, as did the Sox 2003 collapse.

But no, you're right. I'm sorry for trying to have a bit of compassion. I should instead act like mradvantage and relentlessly troll you into oblivion.

So **** you and your chokey team. I'm glad you're miserable and I hope you never feel the elation that I feel like every freaking year.

Is that better?

Yeah Pats made it to seven super bowls and won five bc the refs made a correct call in 2001.

The tears taste delicious...

To the rest of Atlanta fans, I'll be rooting for you to get yours soon.

Pats offensive game plan was pretty bad. Disagree that they had a bad defensive game plan. It was fine, Atlanta just made plays bc they have a great offense.

And there were plenty of people on here that would have laughed if it had been suggested, prior to the game, that Pats D would keep Atlanta to 21 points.

Yeah I was furious. My dad kept saying they have to run to setup play action blah blah blah. I was losing it. Falcons clearly outplayed them but their passing game was doing well and yet they went into a running formation and ran straight into a pile for 2 yards over and over and over.

They might've stuck with Blount too long but it wasn't for some stupid STABLISH reason, they were doing it because they wanted to slow those falcons edge rushers down from just peeling back every single play.

More drivel from a confused , envious , jealous hater. Even without that super bowl, the Pats would still have Brady and 4 bowls. Stop stacking off with top pair 3 times a session and your life attitude will improve.

It depends if the refs thought he gave him self up.

I was really impressed by the Falcons Run D. I thought Blount would definitely be able to run on them, and that there was a chance they'd just do a Colts type gameplan and run it all day.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/playbyplay?gameId=320916017

This is a situation where the Pats had the ball at the 23 on 1st down and didn't try to advance at all, just kicked. Gost missed, lost 20-18.

And I remember at the time thinking it was stupid that they didn't try to get closer than a 42 yard FG.

So now I am conflicted a little.

No. Doesn't work that way. The rule book makes it very clear that a player has to be on his feet for a fumble to occur - there is also an example provided where the player slips and the loses the ball untouched while on the ground. No fumble.

Offensive plan was fine. All kinds of drops in the first half and a couple errant Brady throws and even with all that said they were still moving the ball. Turnovers is what killed them in the first half not game plan or play calling. They got to the 29 of ATL on a first down run and Blount fumbled. They got to the 23 of ATL and Brady threw a "Pick 6". They got as deep as the 10 of ATL and had to settle for 3 after the sack on 3rd down in their last possession of the half. Spotty execution and turnovers were the issues in the first half. Game plan and scheme wise they didn't do a ton different in the second half they just executed better.

etimes controversial rule is usually referred to as "the ground cannot cause a fumble". If a player is tackled and loses control of the ball at or after the time he makes contact with the ground, the player is treated as down and the ball is not in play. However, in the NFL and CFL, if a ball carrier falls without an opponent contacting him, the ground can indeed cause a fumble. This is because in those leagues the ball carrier is not "down" unless an opponent first makes contact, or the runner is out of bounds. If a player fumbles in most other leagues, as soon as the knee or elbow touches the ground, the ball carrier is considered down. It is also possible for the ground to cause a fumble in college football if the ball hits the ground before any part of the ball carrier's body (other than the hand or foot) touches the ground. An example was the fumble by Arkansas quarterback Clint Stoerner vs. Tennessee in 1998.

I thought he would be able to run because of the matchup, but I was also aware that he has basically sucked for 5 weeks now in terms of productivity. That was vs mostly good run defenses but when a guy hasn't done anything in that amount of time you definitely think he could be ineffective.

I always thought that was the rule as well, but the discussion around this play indicated that "ground can't cause the fumble" is just a thing people say. Until you're ruled down, either by contact or giving yourself up by sliding, the play is live and fumbles are fumbles.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-h...es-on-4th-down

Pats got a fumble recovery a few years ago when a receiver for the Chargers went down on his own and then smacked the ball down and ran to the huddle.

yeah few weeks after the moss trade, I remember that

College and NFL rules are different in regards to going down without being touched.

So you made all of this because??

Oh hi GOAT, had fun today

Correct call? You obviously don't know the rule. Which isn't surprising since nobody does, but the rule states if the quarterback has two hands on the ball after bringing the ball down and then fumbles it's a fumble. That was a fumble, you know it, I know it, Tom Brady knows it. Tom Brady would be a greeter at a Vegas casino if it wasn't for the NFL paying tribute to Kraft for working out a deal to get Gillette built. But yeah man dynasty sure.