New England V. Baltimore

[vtdragon]

Originally Posted by mikey202

...you had the Patriots beat.

The coach who called the time -out, is a moron and Scott is a dumb-ass.

I can't believe what I just witnessed, you gave the win away.

I agree. The Patriots were very lucky to win last night. If they don't step up their intensity, it is going to be a tough night against the Steelers. My hope is that the Pats have weathered their mini-slump and the team that everyone was complaining about running up the scores will show up for the Steelers game. You can be sure that it is going to be a very long week of practice for Belichecks minions.

[Quint]

What a great win for the P-A-T-S last night dispite the refs allowing Baltimore to hold and interfer with the Pats receivers all night. Thats been going on all season and the Pats still manage to win.

[Alpedhuez55]

Originally Posted by ResIpsa

The Colts are starting to get their people back, and have won the last 3 in a row, so I'm not quite sure where you're analysis comes from other than wishful thinking. Example: Sundays Jaguars game. Colts won by three, but if you watched the game you'd realize it was never close. Colts led by 14 points for most of the game.
If any team has losses in them based on the last month and a half, its' the PATRIOTS, not the Colts. An Old, fat defense beginning to wear down is what we're seeing, based on the number of points and the yardage given up to such offensive powerhouses as the Eagles and Ravens.

Wait a minute there. the Colts led by 14 and the Jags closed it to 3 at the end of the game. The colts fold again as the game wears on just like they did against the Pats, yet it is the Pats defense that is wearing out? Remember last year when the Colts were a second half team? Now they are having trouble playing for 60 minutes on Defense. This year the little guys seem to be getting worn out and vunerable.

And of course the pats have come up big with stops or turnovers in the 4th quarter in order to win the three close games they have been in. The Colts have lost two of their close games.

And of course, the Steelers running the table means a Pats loss to them, doesn't it

I have never thought the Pats would run the Table. Still think they will may lose one of the next four games. It may be weather like yesterday, resting the players, a team like the Jets or Dolphins with nothing to lose using a lot of gimmicks and blitz packages, or maybe even against the Steelers this weekend with the short week to prepare.

They will not lose in the playoffs though.

[ResIpsa]

Originally Posted by Alpedhuez55

Wait a minute there. the Colts led by 14 and the Jags closed it to 3 at the end of the game. The colts fold again as the game wears on just like they did against the Pats, yet it is the Pats defense that is wearing out? Remember last year when the Colts were a second half team? Now they are having trouble playing for 60 minutes on Defense. This year the little guys seem to be getting worn out and vunerable.

And of course the pats have come up big with stops or turnovers in the 4th quarter in order to win the three close games they have been in. The Colts have lost two of their close games.




I have never thought the Pats would run the Table. Still think they will may lose one of the next four games. It may be weather like yesterday, resting the players, a team like the Jets or Dolphins with nothing to lose using a lot of gimmicks and blitz packages, or maybe even against the Steelers this weekend with the short week to prepare.

They will not lose in the playoffs though.

the Colts have not won any games that were "close". A close final score doesn't mean the game was close. With the exception of the Chargers game and the end of the Patriots game,I don't think the Colts have rarely TRAILED AT ANY POINT in any of their other games. They frequently have a large lead, both early and late so are more concerned with running the clock down then anything else.

If a team is up by 14 points with 2 minutes left in the game they go into a prevent defense designed to eat up the clock but let the other team move the ball. Giving up a touchdown is less important than the clock running out, so frequently what was a 14 point lead or 10 point lead all game becomes a 7 point or 3 point win. That doesn't make it a close game.

Basic football strategy. Seriously, you aren't watching the games so I guess you are basing your knowledge on........what exactly???

[rumballs]

Originally Posted by ResIpsa

the Colts have not won any games that were "close". A close final score doesn't mean the game was close. With the exception of the Chargers game and the end of the Patriots game,I don't think the Colts have rarely TRAILED AT ANY POINT in any of their other games. They frequently have a large lead, both early and late so are more concerned with running the clock down then anything else.

Uhh....

Chiefs were ahead for 8 minutes, Colts were only ahead for 6 minutes, and only won by 3...
They were behind for a whole quarter playing the Panthers.
They were behind for more than a quarter playing Denver, and only led by 1 point at any time in the first half.

I know you love your Colts, but let's talk facts, not just vague (and incorrect) assertions.

[Alpedhuez55]

Originally Posted by ResIpsa

the Colts have not won any games that were "close". A close final score doesn't mean the game was close. With the exception of the Chargers game and the end of the Patriots game,I don't think the Colts have rarely TRAILED AT ANY POINT in any of their other games. They frequently have a large lead, both early and late so are more concerned with running the clock down then anything else.

If a team is up by 14 points with 2 minutes left in the game they go into a prevent defense designed to eat up the clock but let the other team move the ball. Giving up a touchdown is less important than the clock running out, so frequently what was a 14 point lead or 10 point lead all game becomes a 7 point or 3 point win. That doesn't make it a close game.

Basic football strategy. Seriously, you aren't watching the games so I guess you are basing your knowledge on........what exactly???

Actually I was commenting on a game I did not see other than the highlights. But the colts have not been dominant in several of the games I did see like those against the Pats, Panthers, Chargers...and if you look at the other Patriots post from last week, I showed you that the Colts average about 10 points less in games played outside so not getting home filed is pretty much the nail in their coffin, like most Dome Teams.

And FYI, I was one of the top Defensive Linemen in Massachusetts in the mid 80s, I was all Eastern Massachuessts as a Jr. & Senior and was recruited by several major programs including Michigan, Penn State, BC and Pitt. Unfortunately I was hit by a car riding a bicycle a week before my Sr. Year and Shoulder injuries ended my playing days. I have also been a Defensive assistant coach for my old High School team. I know quite a bit about the game and stratigies.

[ResIpsa]

Originally Posted by mmblz

Uhh....

Chiefs were ahead for 8 minutes, Colts were only ahead for 6 minutes, and only won by 3...

They were behind for a whole quarter playing the Panthers.
so....they were ahead for 3 quarters then, yes??

They were behind for more than a quarter playing Denver, and only led by 1 point at any time in the first half.

again, so they were ahead for 3 quarters then, yes??

I know you love your Colts, but let's talk facts, not just vague (and incorrect) assertions.

ummm.. Julian, thanks for helping to prove my point!., they've rarely trailed yes??? I assume you don't cite the other games because they wouldn't help your cause.

[doctorcue]

Doug Flutie is my hero.












Just thought I'd add a little comic relief.

[ResIpsa]

Originally Posted by Alpedhuez55

Actually I was commenting on a game I did not see other than the highlights. But the colts have not been dominant in several of the games I did see like those against the Pats, Panthers, Chargers....

You have a unique perspective on when a team is not dominant:


Scoring Summary

1ST QUARTER

TDDeShaun Foster, 3 Yd run (John Kasay kick is good), 3:59. Drive: 18 plays, 80 yards in 11:01.

FGAdam Vinatieri 20 Yd, 0:47. Drive: 6 plays, 18 yards in 2:07.


2ND QUARTER

TDJoseph Addai, 2 Yd run (Adam Vinatieri kick is good), 1:33. Drive: 8 plays, 86 yards in 1:58.

3RD QUARTER

TDJoseph Addai, 4 Yd pass from Peyton Manning (Adam Vinatieri kick is good), 12:11. Drive: 8 plays, 60 yards in 2:49.

TDReggie Wayne, 59 Yd pass from Peyton Manning (Adam Vinatieri kick is good), 4:47. Drive: 2 plays, 70 yards in 0:46.


4TH QUARTER

TDJoseph Addai, 12 Yd run (Adam Vinatieri kick is good), 13:09. Drive: 11 plays, 55 yards in 4:17.


I think the facts here speak for themselves. Other than a first quarter score, it was all Colts, all day. Looks pretty dominant to me.

[wilblake]

How about Samari Rolle's accusations of a referee disrespecting him at the end of the game?

The ref called him a "boy" and he wants to sue. I could see if he was dropping racial epithets, but he referred to him as a "boy". Wow, that's certainly disrespectful considering the amount of verbal taunting and "disrespect" that the players give the refs game in and game out.

(rolleyes)

Edit: "The refs called me a boy. No. 110 called me a boy," Rolle said in the locker room after the game. "I will be calling my agent in the morning and sending my complaint. I have a wife and three kids. Don't call me a boy. Don't call me a boy on the field during a game because I said, 'You've never played football before.' "

The accused ref played for UCLA in his college days and also played in the NFL in the 70's and 80's.

[Alpedhuez55]

Originally Posted by ResIpsa

You have a unique perspective on when a team is not dominant:


Scoring Summary

1ST QUARTER

TDDeShaun Foster, 3 Yd run (John Kasay kick is good), 3:59. Drive: 18 plays, 80 yards in 11:01.

FGAdam Vinatieri 20 Yd, 0:47. Drive: 6 plays, 18 yards in 2:07.


2ND QUARTER

TDJoseph Addai, 2 Yd run (Adam Vinatieri kick is good), 1:33. Drive: 8 plays, 86 yards in 1:58.
......

I think the facts here speak for themselves. Other than a first quarter score, it was all Colts, all day. Looks pretty dominant to me.

That does not tell the story of the game. The First half Carolina dominated both sides of the ball and time of possession with several sustained drives. But I think Vinny Testeverde, who was just out of retirement, had a couple of turnovers, I think a stupid throw in the endzone and if I am right, a muffed snap. Vinnie gets knocked out of the game at the start of the Second Half and David Carr well, sucked. Panthers have no offense whatsoever and Colts took control.

THey are a much better team than the Panters and would have won anyway. Panthers made too many mistakes deep in thier own territory and very well could have had a 14 or 20 point lead after the first half.

Obviously you are too much of a Fanboy for the Colts to look at a game objectively and see all the flaws in the team. I explained all this crap toy you when you claimed the Colts had not looked past the Panthers, when they obviously had. Every game they lost is one the should have won. Simple fact is the Pats are a better team than the Colts.

You will get to see Manning when you watch the Superbowl though...I am sure there will be a new Gatrorade Commercial.

[rumballs]

Originally Posted by ResIpsa

the Colts have not won any games that were "close". A close final score doesn't mean the game was close. With the exception of the Chargers game and the end of the Patriots game,I don't think the Colts have rarely TRAILED AT ANY POINT in any of their other games. They frequently have a large lead, both early and late so are more concerned with running the clock down then anything else.

Originally Posted by ResIpsa

ummm.. Julian, thanks for helping to prove my point!., they've rarely trailed yes??? I assume you don't cite the other games because they wouldn't help your cause.

Maybe I misread your typo because of the all caps "TRAILED AT ANY POINT". I had guessed you meant "I don't think the Colts have really TRAILED AT ANY POINT in any of their other games." If you meant "rarely", then I guess something else is wrong with that sentence...

In any event, I was never trying to say that they haven't been pretty dominant, just that you seemed to be understating the time that they have trailed.

And the Chiefs game was "close". No matter how you spin it, a 10-13 score is close. To say nothing of the fact that it was 10-10 until the final minute.

[ResIpsa]

Originally Posted by Alpedhuez55

That does not tell the story of the game. The First half Carolina dominated both sides of the ball and time of possession with several sustained drives. But I think Vinny Testeverde, who was just out of retirement, had a couple of turnovers, I think a stupid throw in the endzone and if I am right, a muffed snap. Vinnie gets knocked out of the game at the start of the Second Half and David Carr well, sucked. Panthers have no offense whatsoever and Colts took control.

Well, which was it? Did they have several sustained drives, or do they have no offense?

Brother I have Sunday Ticket, I watch every Colts game. You are making stuff up.

THey are a much better team than the Panters and would have won anyway. Panthers made too many mistakes deep in thier own territory and very well could have had a 14 or 20 point lead after the first half.

Dude, what game were you watching?? Look at the drive chart from the ESPN site. You must have been watching a different game from the rest of us.
Obviously you are too much of a Fanboy for the Colts to look at a game objectively and see all the flaws in the team. I explained all this crap toy you when you claimed the Colts had not looked past the Panthers, when they obviously had. Every game they lost is one the should have won. Simple fact is the Pats are a better team than the Colts. Well...if the every game the Colts lost (all two of them) they should have won, then I guess they should have won the game against the Pats, right?? And I guess that makes the COLTS the better team right?? Thanks for finally acknowleding it!!

You will get to see Manning when you watch the Superbowl though...I am sure there will be a new Gatrorade Commercial.

Here are the Panthers drives from that game:


Carolina Drive Summaries:

START QTR POSS. YRDL PLAYS YARDS RESULT

15:00 1 11:01 CAR 20 18 plays 80 yardsTouchdown

00:47 1 03:09 CAR 20 5 plays 5 yards Punt

119201:58 CAR 0 4 plays 14 yards Punt

05:41202:10 CAR 42 4 plays 10 yards Punt

01:33201:33 CAR 15 6 plays 17 yards End of Half

12:11301:36 CAR 21 3 plays 8 yards Punt

09:14303:41 CAR 15 6 plays 17 yards Punt

04:473021CAR 21 5 plays 14 yards Punt

13:094039CAR 31 12 plays 49 yards Fumble

03:33403:33CAR 39 4 plays 14 yards End of Game




Maybe I'm just a fanboy, I just report the facts, I don't make them up. After the Panthers first drive, they had 8 drives of less than 20 yards, and one 49 yard drive that ended in a fumble. Maybe 8 drives of less than 20 yards each equates to "domination on the offensive side of the ball" in your mind, but.....well........lets just say "domination" means just a LITTLE bit more to me than 4 and out, 4 and out, 4 and out, 4 and out.....

[ResIpsa]

Originally Posted by mmblz

Maybe I misread your typo because of the all caps "TRAILED AT ANY POINT". I had guessed you meant "I don't think the Colts have really TRAILED AT ANY POINT in any of their other games." If you meant "rarely", then I guess something else is wrong with that sentence...

In any event, I was never trying to say that they haven't been pretty dominant, just that you seemed to be understating the time that they have trailed.

And the Chiefs game was "close". No matter how you spin it, a 10-13 score is close. To say nothing of the fact that it was 10-10 until the final minute.

You are correct Sir, my language was faulty.

And I would agree that the Chiefs game was close from an impartial standpoint. Watching the game I never got the feeling the Chiefs were going to win, so I guess in my mind that means it wasn't close.

[rumballs]

Originally Posted by ResIpsa

And I would agree that the Chiefs game was close from an impartial standpoint. Watching the game I never got the feeling the Chiefs were going to win, so I guess in my mind that means it wasn't close.

Cool - I guess we're all clear then: the Colts are GODS in Vic's mind!




At this point I'm not even going to attempt predictions, but I know we're all looking forward to the postseason...