[cab]

If it wasn't for yet another unbelievably lucky play, the Seahawks wouldn't have been at the goal line. Seriously, has there ever been a team as lucky?

[RPM123]

The look on Sherman's face after the interception was priceless!

Plus 1 and sore losers to boot! 49ers fan speaking here. 

[ted_b]

Pats pretty much won every phase of the game.

That's quite a post, given the closeness of the game and the play that wasn't.  Pats won, but not in any dominating way!  Really?? 

[S Clark]

I'd say great catch rather than luck.  And as for the Pats winning every phase of the game????? They were incredibly lucky to win.  Actually, it took the worst call in the history of all the Super Bowls for NE to win that game.

[Tomy2Tone]

Wow, a lot of Seahawks haters here! not sure where all the anger is coming from.

Maybe because they act like 3rd graders when they win and like we saw tonight with their bad sportsmanship when they lose.

[sts9fan]

That's quite a post, given the closeness of the game and the play that wasn't.  Pats won, but not in any dominating way!  Really??

In what part of the game did Seattle play better then NE?

[RPM123]

Maybe because they act like 3rd graders when they win and like we saw tonight with their bad sportsmanship when they lose.

 

[ted_b]

If it wasn't for yet another unbelievably lucky play, the Seahawks wouldn't have been at the goal line. Seriously, has there ever been a team as lucky?

Yeah, and if Omar Vizquel was playing straight up shortstop against Renteria, the Indians win the 97 World Series.  And if Jack's ball doesn't hit that tree, his chance for a 6th green jacket in 85 is toast.  And if anybody else but Buckner plays first......yadayada.  Sports is all about luck!  Arnold Palmer once said that it is surprising how lucky he gets the more he plays.

[sts9fan]

If if if.  All the Hawks apologists are saying the same thing.

[ted_b]

In what part of the game did Seattle play better then NE?

With 25 seconds to go in that game there were plenty of athletes watching who would have sold their soul to the devil to be on Seattle's payroll and in the game.  That says NE did not dominate every part of the game.  Results are trickling in that conventional wisdom is saying this was one of the most exciting SB games ever...why?  Not because one team dominated. Your hubris after that scary finale seems absurd, frankly.

To be honest, the Pats ought to be the most proud for NOT dominating but still winning.  They had more turnovers, less total yards, way less rushing yards, way less yards per play...and still outscored them.

[sts9fan]

They also had more first downs and less punts.
Total yards was a differential of what 20 yards? I never said the Pats dominated.

[rajacat]

If it wasn't for yet another unbelievably lucky play, the Seahawks wouldn't have been at the goal line. Seriously, has there ever been a team as lucky?

Yeah....easy. The Pats were lucky that the Hawks were too stupid to run Lynch at the goal line.
The earlier incredible catch was somewhat lucky but it was also a great athletic feat. There were other plays in the game in which an inch or two mattered whether it was successful or not. That's football.
The Seahawks gave the game away on one of the dumbest calls in Super Bowl history.
Yes, the Pats are seriously lucky. They won a Super Bowl without ever establishing a running game.
They had better passing stats but Brady also threw two interceptions. Seattle had more total yards. I hate to see Belichick win. What a glum dude. Has he ever smiled?

[a.wayne]

He doesn't have to , we  are all smiling for him .............

[a.wayne]

Maybe because they act like 3rd graders when they win and like we saw tonight with their bad sportsmanship when they lose.

+10 right there ........

[Letitroll98]

Pete Carroll had a reasonable explanation.  One timeout and second down dictates a pass which is likely incomplete or touchdown.  That leaves third down which is a run with Lynch, using your last timeout if needed to get to fourth down.  Makes perfect sense except to knee-jerk announcers and people who don't plan ahead in pressure situations.  The only reason we question it was because of a great play made by a rookie corner.  If he ran, failed, and needed the timeout to get to fourth down we'd really have reason to vilify Carroll.

[rajacat]

+10 right there ........

The Pats would have acted the same if they had lost in a similar way. It's silly to put your Patriots on a pedestal and assume that they aren't subject to bad behavior too.

The Hawks should've run the option with either Wilson running the ball in or passing to the TE in the corner or the back of the endzone. Alternate this with Lynch up the gut. Lynch was steamrolling the Pats. Use remaining TO's intelligently. It might have been a great time to use the QB sneak which they rarely use. They only had one yard to victory.

[OzarkTom]

They only had one yard to victory.

There are rumors that NFL games are fixed. A first grader could have made a better play call than that one.

[OzarkTom]

This play was very suspicious when Green Bay played the Seahawks, it looks like the player just fell down on purpose.

[OzarkTom]

The report is in, only 1 of the 11 balls were deflated.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/report-only-one-pats-football-was-badly-underinflated/ar-AA8S9L1?ocid=mailsignout

[sts9fan]

The Patriots also stopped Lynch for zero yards on more then one play in the game. Why is no one casting blame on Wilson?  The call is what it is but he executed it poorly. If he throws it away they have time for Lynch.   The Pats winning without establishing a run game is not luck. They do not all the time.