BBQ vs. Sourdough: Super Bowl LVIII thread

I must say - surprised Tony Romo avoided being the focus of scorn. Stunned to learn Musburger hadn't already won the NFL Media Award (HOF), considering some of those already in.

 

That was a great game. I didn't care who was going to win and just thoroughly enjoyed watching it.

Regarding the photo above, I do wonder what Kelce was screaming about, and if/how Reid addressed the behavior afterward/in the locker room. From what I saw, he actually kind of shoved Reid a little bit, too. Wow.

 

I'm with you there. Good game, tough loss to swallow.

 

There were two streakers on the field, not just one. Wonder if they gave them the choice of walking out of there without their shirt, or they can get the hammer?

 

I am a little disappointed that the Chiefs scored on that play instead of it going to double overtime, just because double overtime games are so damn trippy and rare. Nobody knows what the hell is going on, so there's this bizarre vibe to them.
There have only been six of them (including one in the AFL), and the last one was Broncos-Ravens in 2012. Even stranger, only Chiefs-Dolphins in 1971 lasted more than three minutes into the second OT. If this one had gone to a second overtime, it probably would've also ended pretty quickly.

https://www.nfl.com/photos/double-overtime-games-in-the-postseason-0ap1000000126753

 

Soon enough, the discussion will turn to how many of the defensive studs the Chiefs can afford.

But fuck that. I’m going to enjoy this title and buy the T-shirt.

 

In 1986 after the Bears destroyed Tony Eason and the Pats he came back from Boston with a “Pats Super Bowl Champs” t shirt for me. Maybe I can find one of 2024 49er SB Champions tees….

 

Kelce was pissed that he wasn't on the field for that play in the red zone. Reid laughed it off in a postgame interview on NFL Network.

 

At my gathering we were wondering if the game would just end if the clock went to 0:00. Why do they get to finish the possession in a 2nd OT? I know OT isn't sudden death anymore, but each OT period should be considered the end of the game. If it's 22-19 and the Chiefs are driving and the 1st OT ends, tough shit. Game over. That was the part I didn't quite understand. But at the end it didn't come into play.

 

I don't really see any advantage to taking the ball first. The second offense comes on to the field knowing what they need to do and they have four downs on each series instead of three. They can play the four-down game for the entire drive.

Also if both teams score a touchdown, I think there's a 75% chance the second team scoring is going for two. They aren't going to take the result of the game out of their hands.

 

You got some friends dealing with nonprofits in the Ukraine or Mongolia?

https://www.8newsnow.com/news/super... merchandise is,, Georgia, Estonia and Latvia.

 

If the Chiefs didn't kick a tying field goal before the end of the OT, they would have lost. You get "a possession" - if the other team finds a way to grind out an entire quarter and kicks a field goal to go up 3 with :10 left in the OT period. That's all you get. Sucks for you. I do wonder what constitutes a "possession" though - would a kick-off be enough - or at least one offensive play?