Why bother trying to use a statistical case when you have already made clear that the score is the only stat that you are looking at?
If you think I'm wrong, then actually demonstrate why I'm wrong. All you've done is made unintelligent claims such as:
This post is so stupid that my original response was all that was needed.
You either didn't the game or you were too drunk to know what actually happened .
I know from talking to many people about the game that the vast majority of people who watched the game felt the same.
The Patriots were clearly outplaying the Seahawks throughout the first half and everyone who actually watched the game knows that.
I've simply asked where the actual domination is and you've failed to point it out. As I've asked multiple times, how can the Pats have dominated if they were down by 10 points going into the 4th quarter? You have not made a single credible argument explain this.
And while I would agree that the score is the only thing that matters when all is said and done the claim that it is always an accurate reflection of what is going on during the game is total crap,
This is what I'm talking about. The above is your claim and here is your reasoning to support your claim:
and anyone who watches sports knows that.
This reasoning is not logical. It proves absolutely nothing in the slightest. Frankly, it's crap. This has been your reasoning the entire time.
And your claim that the first quarter was a draw when the Patriots dominated them on both sides of the ball shows just how warped your view of that game is. And the exact same thing can be said of the NFC Championship game, where the Packers beat the Seahawks up and down the field all day long but failed to put them away and lost because of it. Seattle won but no one who watched that game would claim they outplayed Green Bay. In the end the score is all that matters but claiming that it is the only indicator of how the game was played is ridiculously simplistic.
And this where you really prove you're not comprehending what I'm saying. For starters, your NFC Championship exactly proves my point.
1st Quarter: Packers outscore Seahawks 13-0.
2nd Quarter: Packers outscore Seahawks 3-0.
3rd Quarter: Seahawks outscore Packers 7-0.
4th Quarter: Seahawks outscore Packers 15-6.
OT: Seahawks outscore Packers 6-0.
Looking at the score, it indicates the Packers outplayed the Seahawks in the first half and the Seahawks made a comeback in the second half and overtime to win it. Funny enough, that's what happened. You also fail to take into account that I've been considering turnovers very heavily literally this entire discussion. In fact, I talked extensively about that turnover at the end of the first half and funny enough it appears that you ignored it for whatever reason. But it's alright, I'll post it again just for you:
You initially brought up the first quarter so it'd be nice if you stayed on subject. In the first quarter, the Patriots earned 75 yards, and the result of all those yards was no points and an interception. That is called "bend but don't break," which is a defensive concept that our own coach Bill Belichcick has touted for years. That drive by the Patriots reminds me of the first drive (if I'm recalling correctly) that the Colts had in the AFC Championship game in 2003. Manning drove the Colts down the field like Brady did, and he threw an interception (to Rodney Harrison) just like Brady did. What the Patriots displayed their, just like the Seahawks did, was text book bend but don't break defense. That was the biggest drive of the quarter and the Seahawks won that battle.
If Tom Brady doesn't throw that interception, then the Pats would have most likely scored a touchdown or a field goal, which means they would've won that quarter. But for some reason you just keep on throwing that interception.
Had the Seahawks won the Super Bowl they would have deserved it but the idea that the Patriots were lucky is crap, they were the better team and showed that over the course of the game.
And this is where you prove you REALLY don't comprehend what I'm saying. I have never once said or inferred that the Patriots were not the better or that they were lucky to win it. In fact let's take a look at what I've been saying this whole time:
So no, the Patriots didn't dominate. None of them did. It was a close, competitive game. In fact, Seattle had the upper hand going into the 4th quarter. The reason why they won is because they had an amazing 4th quarter.
Oh look, another one you conveniently ignored:
Being down 24-14 at the start of fourth quarter is not a sign of dominate play. The only time the Patriots were dominating was in the fourth quarter. Their dominant play in the fourth quarter is what won them the game. Not their play in the first three quarters. Their play in the first three quarters resulted in a 24-14 score. As I've been saying literally this entire time. It was a close, competitive game that the Patriots ended up winning. No team can say they dominated the other. A proper example of domination would be the game before the Super Bowl. A 45-7 blowout. That's domination, a 28-24 win that literally came down to the one yard line is not domination. It's dramatic. I don't know about you, but when the Patriots are dominating I'm not standing on the edge of my seat. I'm laughing my ass off (Like during the Colts game).
And if the shoe were on the other foot and Brady didn't get his first completed pass until there were five minutes left in the half
The objective to football isn't to complete the most passes, but to win. And what determines the winner? The scoreboard.
while the Seahawks moved up and down the fieldagainst them any Patriot fan who tried to claim the first half was a draw would have been labeled a blind homer.
You forgot the interception part.
It was a great Super Bowl but the better team won the game,
No denying that.
and they outplayed the Seahawks for three of the four quarters.
oh boy
