Pats vs Colts.

[2ND COMING]

so it comes down to this: Colts weapons on offense/ Pats defense.

You can talk about freeney and the colts pass rush but you can also make a case for brady's offensive line. Theres no denying how important those aspects were.

at the end of the day, an offensive genius like bill with a few no names and a disciplined,smash mouth defense SHOULD see more success than the former.

[TrapsMcLats]

Brady has had far less offensive talent around him for much longer than Manning....and he's been more successful (3 sb's to manning's 1 and a far superior playoff record with players you never heard of on O).  manning started of with Edge, Wayne, Stokley, Clark and Harrison.  Brady had no names like Branch, Givens Gaffney and Antoin Smith.  Manning couldn't "get r done" with some of the best talent ever, for the longest time.  If Manning wins a SB this year, you're statement might make a little more sense, but up until this point, Manning has failed more than he has succeeded with a GREAT offensive cast.  Manning has always had awesome weapons all over the place.  In 2007 when Brady got some top notch wr's (Moss and Welker) he had the best season of any qb ever, and he does not play in a dome.  He plays in the northeast elements, which is much tougher than a dome.  Both guys are awesome QB's, but to claim Manning is better due to getting it done with less talent is ludicrous.  Brady had a better night than Manning tonight.  Let's not act like the games best offensive line, Dallas Clark and Reggie Wayne are nothing special.

I'm not dissing Manning he is one of the greatest ever.

i was only talking about tonight.  the pats are the more talented team right now, and they never should've lost the game. and any time you bring up brady's no name guys, you have to take into account the massive cheating that was aiding those teams.  not brady's fault, but it was blatantly going on and affecting the outcome.

[tu_holmes]

Really, so is Manning's defense the reason he won a sb, because the year he finally won one, he played awful (as usual) and the Colts had the top defense in the playoffs that year....and they bailed him out over and over.  Remember the Balt game which they won on fg's, only?  Btw, The pats had a poor defense in 2001(with 23 free agents) and top 10 D in 2003 and 2004...lets not exaggerate and make them out to be more than they were.  You act as if it was a D filled with HOF players.  It was very good, but it wasn't crazy good.  The Bottom line is that Manning has always had pro bowl offensive weapons to work with, and he's lost a lot more than he's won when it counted most. As shown tonight, the  better D does not always win.

Manning is a GREAT qb and one of the best ever.  The original statement was that Manning gets it done with less talent.  That is false, infact, historically, he's gotten it done less with more talent.  That's all I was saying.

The truth though is that defense wins championships... That's just the reality of it.

If the Colts had had great D all of those years, then New England would be just another also there team, but because they had great D, they brought home 3 superbowls.

That's just the way it is.

[Fury]

Good game. Pats are a much better team than I thought. I daresay they're a legitimate threat to anyone in the AFC.

Though that call fucked the Pats, the colts secondary dropped two easy pick 6's in the last five minutes. They were really squatting on the short out routes at the end.

[body88]

Good game. Pats are a much better team than I thought. I daresay they're a legitimate threat to anyone in the AFC.

Though that call fucked the Pats, the colts secondary dropped two easy pick 6's in the last five minutes. They were really squatting on the short out routes at the end.

Which is neggated by several Patriots missplays and two horrendous calls on the Pats.  The Pats left at least 10 points on the field.  I'm not the type of guy to blame the refs, because it all evens out (the Pats got some calls too), and that's that. The colts were the better team last night and that's the bottom line....however, the Patriots can run with anyone in the NFL and it ain't over yet.  This might be the motivational tool to inspore them for the rest of the season.  

While what Belichick can be defended by percentages and strategy, I still don't agree with the call.  I was shocked to see guys like Merril Hodge, Marshall Faulk and Deion Sanders defend the call.  Harrison and Bruschi did not, and I agree with them, make them go 70 yards.  Manning had thrown two ints and anything could happen.

If Belichick had a timeout he could have challenged the play, but he didn't so tough shit. For a 1st down, the ball is downed when it is controlled, and by this video it looks like the ball was controlled well behind the first down line.  It is what it is, the Pats lost to a better team and Belichick made a mistake.

To be fair, it should be noted that this same call won them the Atlants game.  When it works you're a god, when it fails you get ripped.  That's the way it should be.

[Fury]

I can't believe people are defending the call. It's Peyton Manning. He's the last guy I would want to risk giving a 30 yard field with 2 minutes left on the clock. I understand Bill B's aggressive philosophy but sometimes you've got to make the right move. Anything less than 70 yards is asking for trouble with Peyton.

Good game regardless. Those are definitely the two best teams in the AFC.

[Option D]

Which is neggated by several Patriots missplays and two horrendous calls on the Pats.  The Pats left at least 10 points on the field.  I'm not the type of guy to blame the refs, because it all evens out (the Pats got some calls too), and that's that. The colts were the better team last night and that's the bottom line....however, the Patriots can run with anyone in the NFL and it ain't over yet.  This might be the motivational tool to inspore them for the rest of the season.  

While what Belichick can be defended by percentages and strategy, I still don't agree with the call.  I was shocked to see guys like Merril Hodge, Marshall Faulk and Deion Sanders defend the call.  Harrison and Bruschi did not, and I agree with them, make them go 70 yards.  Manning had thrown two ints and anything could happen.

If Belichick had a timeout he could have challenged the play, but he didn't so tough shit. For a 1st down, the ball is downed when it is controlled, and by this video it looks like the ball was controlled well behind the first down line.  It is what it is, the Pats lost to a better team and Belichick made a mistake.

To be fair, it should be noted that this same call won them the Atlants game.  When it works you're a god, when it fails you get ripped.  That's the way it should be.

We=in twilight zone

[body88]

I can't believe people are defending the call. It's Peyton Manning. He's the last guy I would want to risk giving a 30 yard field with 2 minutes left on the clock. I understand Bill B's aggressive philosophy but sometimes you've got to make the right move. Anything less than 70 yards is asking for trouble with Peyton.

Good game regardless. Those are definitely the two best teams in the AFC.

Agreed, make him go 70 yards and have the chance to create an int or a sack.  I understand the logic, but big mistake by Belichick.

[CalvinH]

Agreed

 

[YoungBlood]

I think it's an odd call that he made, but like someone said earlier- you make the call and you get the 1st, you're a God. You end up short, you're ostracized.

The way I look at this, and some hippies would agree with me, is it's Karma! Remember the Bills getting the kickoff in one of the first couple of games, and the Bills returner fumbled because he made a dumb decision and the Patriots came back to win? Well, now things have equaled out, and the Pats have negated/canceled out that earlier win that really shouldn't have occurred.

[body88]

I think it's an odd call that he made, but like someone said earlier- you make the call and you get the 1st, you're a God. You end up short, you're ostracized.
The way I look at this, and some hippies would agree with me, is it's Karma! Remember the Bills getting the kickoff in one of the first couple of games, and the Bills returner fumbled because he made a dumb decision and the Patriots came back to win? Well, now things have equaled out, and the Pats have negated/canceled out that earlier win that really shouldn't have occurred.

That was me...and I wasn't going to keep this thread going until I saw this gem   First, I don't agree with the call that belichick made, but there is plenty of statistical evidence to show why he did what he did.  

Fourth-and-2 conversions are successful 60% of the time.
The Pats' win probability on the fourth-down gamble was 0.79
The Pats' win probability by punting would have been 0.70
Assuming that the Colts would have started a drive at their own 34, teams have a 30% chance of scoring. But given the Colts' dynamic offense, their chances of scoring likely would have been higher. And that would have decreased the 0.70 win probability.
Number-crunchers: Bill Belichick's 4th-down gamble was the right call - The Huddle: Football News from the NFL - USATODAY.com

On top of what I just posted, the Patriots won the Atlanta game by going for it on fourth and short, deep in their own territory.  Do I agree with what belichick did?  No.  Even if the pats had won....I would have said it was the wrong call.

Your point about the Bills and Karma is over the top, imo.  Infact, it can be argued that the Patriots did get the first down and a bad spot did them in (which is fine, that's life and the better team won that night).  Mckelvin coming out of the endzone has absolutely nothing to do with this play or the Patriot's season.  The Bills are a crappy football team this year and nothing is going to change that.  

[YoungBlood]

That was me...and I wasn't going to keep this thread going until I saw this gem.  First, I don't agree with the call that belichick made, but there is plenty of statistical evidence to show why he did what he did. 

Fourth-and-2 conversions are successful 60% of the time.
The Pats' win probability on the fourth-down gamble was 0.79
The Pats' win probability by punting would have been 0.70
Assuming that the Colts would have started a drive at their own 34, teams have a 30% chance of scoring. But given the Colts' dynamic offense, their chances of scoring likely would have been higher. And that would have decreased the 0.70 win probability.
Number-crunchers: Bill Belichick's 4th-down gamble was the right call - The Huddle: Football News from the NFL - USATODAY.com

On top of what I just posted, the Patriots won the Atlanta game by going for it on fourth and short deep intheir own territory.  Do I agree with what belichick did? No.  Even if the pats had won, I would have said it was the wrong call.

Your point about the Bills and Karma is over the top, imo.  Infact, it can be argued that the Patriots did get the first down and a bad spot did them in (which is fine, that's life and the better team won that night).  Mckelvin coming out of the endzone has absolutely nothing to do with this play or the Patriots season.  The Bills are a crappy football team this year and nothing is going to change that. 

Maybe Karma was not the best way to explain it, giving it a different connotation than what I meant?
While I agree with your stance on the numbers game, and why Bellichick made the call he did, I think you're correct in that even if the Patriots won, they should not have done what they did. But I disagree with going strictly by numbers, because as this scenario shows, too many factors can change the outcome of the play. The referee's made a poor call, and that changed the outcome.
As for what I talked about with the Bills, there's an entire thread regarding that one decision where it got pretty heated. Many people feel, obstinately so, that they're right- no matter the call. One guy feels that the returned made the right decision to run the ball out. Another feels he should have downed the ball for a touchback. Yet down the middle-where my decision is- are the people that feel it was OK to run the ball back even though not the safe play, but stupid to reach out for an extra yard and not protect the ball.
The Bills suck, surely. I wasn't comparing Mckelvin directly to the above play- but I was just merely attempting to point out that one highly disputed mistake (Bellichick's decision to go for it versus McKevlin decision to reach out for another yard...both resulting in their team losing the game; directly or not) made later on negates the dissension of another.

[body88]

Maybe Karma was not the best way to explain it, giving it a different connotation than what I meant?
While I agree with your stance on the numbers game, and why Bellichick made the call he did, I think you're correct in that even if the Patriots won, they should not have done what they did. But I disagree with going strictly by numbers, because as this scenario shows, too many factors can change the outcome of the play. The referee's made a poor call, and that changed the outcome.
As for what I talked about with the Bills, there's an entire thread regarding that one decision where it got pretty heated. Many people feel, obstinately so, that they're right- no matter the call. One guy feels that the returned made the right decision to run the ball out. Another feels he should have downed the ball for a touchback. Yet down the middle-where my decision is- are the people that feel it was OK to run the ball back even though not the safe play, but stupid to reach out for an extra yard and not protect the ball.
The Bills suck, surely. I wasn't comparing Mckelvin directly to the above play- but I was just merely attempting to point out that one highly disputed mistake (Bellichick's decision to go for it versus McKevlin decision to reach out for another yard...both resulting in their team losing the game; directly or not) made later on negates the dissension of another.

I don't disagree with your opinion that belichick made the wrong move - (regardless of what the numbers say).  I was one of those guys who was a stanch defender of McKelvin, so we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.  Thanks for the insightful post, it was a good one.

[Option D]

I dont disagree with the call...but the play on 3rd down should have been a run...and on 4th down...game over

[TrapsMcLats]

Body, the pats have now lost their last two big games (SB vs giants, and last sunday vs colts), do you, as a knowledgeable fan, see anything different intensity related or otherwise that has changed? it used to be they pulled out every close game, but suddenly they're vulnerable (obviously brady getting hurt last year was out of everyone's control... but he seems back to normal if not better than ever).  I have no great love or hate from the pats, but it always intrigues me how quickly things can change in sports, especially football.

[body88]

Body, the pats have now lost their last two big games (SB vs giants, and last sunday vs colts), do you, as a knowledgeable fan, see anything different intensity related or otherwise that has changed? it used to be they pulled out every close game, but suddenly they're vulnerable (obviously brady getting hurt last year was out of everyone's control... but he seems back to normal if not better than ever).  I have no great love or hate from the pats, but it always intrigues me how quickly things can change in sports, especially football.

I don't see any change in their intensity. They are a young team on the defensive side of the ball.  They are still learning how to finish games. The Pats have lost one big game recently, the 2007 superbowl.  Losing a mid season game by one point to a 8-0  team (that takes your record to 6-3) is hardly reason for concern, imo.  The Patriots are consistently competing for a championship; you can't win it every year in today's NFL.   Sunday's loss came down to a spot by a ref, and keep in mind that the Patriots have rebuilt their entire defense over the last 2 years while continuing to win and have remained a top team in the NFL. Lastly, let's give Peyton Manning some credit, the guy is an amazing QB.  Both him and Brady went off during that game.  It came down to a spot and it went the Colt's way this time.  They deserved to win.  As i said it's 1a + 1b when ranking Manning and Brady.  Brady got the best of Manning for many years and now it's Manning's turn.  Brady will get the best of him for a run and so on.

I'd put my money on the Patriots if they played again.  

[YoungBlood]

it used to be they pulled out every close game, but suddenly they're vulnerable (obviously brady getting hurt last year was out of everyone's control... but he seems back to normal if not better than ever).  I have no great love or hate from the pats, but it always intrigues me how quickly things can change in sports, especially football.

I would also attribute the change as the other team (s) learning how to beat them. Not so much the Pats having a changing of tides, but that could be some of it, but not a major part.
The other teams are making slow progress on how to hold the Pats within reach of their own abilities to catch up to them.

[body88]

I would also attribute the change as the other team (s) learning how to beat them. Not so much the Pats having a changing of tides, but that could be some of it, but not a major part.
The other teams are making slow progress on how to hold the Pats within reach of their own abilities to catch up to them.

This is true.

Lets be honest here, the Pats went 16-0 in 2007, 11-5 last year without Brady and so far are 6-3 this year.  It's not like they fell off and turned into a losing team.  If you expect them to win a sb every year, then yes, they've taken a step back...however, those expectations are unfair and ridiculous, imo.