# Colts or Pats?



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

So who will remain as this years only undefeated team? The New England Patriots (8-0) or the Indianapolis Colts (7-0)? 

Next Sunday, 10/4/07 4:15 PM EST on CBS. This will be the game of the century.


----------



## EAGLES20 (Sep 8, 2005)

New England as good as Manning is Brady is so much better. Brady just threw another TD that's 31 in 8 games. Unbelievable


----------



## Michael D'Angelo (Oct 21, 2006)

I voted for the Colts even though I think the Pat's will win.

I just don't like how they are running up the score on every team the play and if they keep doing it someone is going to take out Brady.


----------



## vurbano (May 15, 2004)

Neither


----------



## vurbano (May 15, 2004)

BMoreRavens said:


> I just don't like how they are running up the score on every team the play and if they keep doing it someone is going to take out Brady.


Bingo. What they are doing is classless. Its 52-0 against the Redskins right now. Someone will take Brady out. BTW how is Belicheats' team allowed to compete anyway? They shoud have been banned from the post season for cameragate.


----------



## ccr1958 (Aug 29, 2007)

colts win @ home


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

Classless? Whatever. Since when is scoring points considered a bad thing? The Pats are doing what every team should, just don't go for the win for for the throat and never give up. This is a very exciting team to watch, Brady is one of the best quarterbacks the league has ever seen and very passionate. 

If it was your favorite team scoring 40+ points a game would you complain?


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Patriots baby!


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

If you want to compare Brady now to what Manning did a few years ago when Manning set the TD record... it is worth noting that Manning often went to running plays and the Colts that year had a lot of rushing touchdowns too.

Now I'm not saying Brady is passing for TDs at the expense of what is good for the team... but I think he may be forced to pass more as they may not have as much confidence in their running game as their passing one.. and in this year's case that is not a bad problem to have really. But had Manning strictly went for passing TDs over rushing ones... I suspect Mannings numbers that year would have been more like Brady's are this year.

Also worth noting that Manning's pace that year was faster earlier in the season, and slowed as the season went. Brady's may take a similar dip towards the end of the season when they have things wrapped up to prepare for the playoffs.

I think Brady has sometimes been underrated as a "system" quarterback, and he does remind me of Joe Montana, who probably also could have been considered a "system" quarterback... but both guys had really good results in "systems" so I wouldn't knock that.

I also think if you traded Brady and Manning this year... I would take even money that both team's performances would be about the same... so I don't know if you can answer the question of which quarterback is better.

Until this year, the Colts arguably had better receivers than the Patriots... but in the Superbowl years I think the Patriots clearly had the better team. I think last year for the Colts was indicative of their becoming a better team and they won the Superbowl so the results prove that out.

Whatever happens, this should be a good game next week. I think you honestly should give the slight edge to the Colts since they are at home. They are defending champions with a better team than they had last year. I will be very surprised if this is a blowout, and would consider a field-goal the differentiator in this kind of game.

That said... the Colts like flying under the radar and the Patriots have a chip on their shoulder... so it would not surprise me at all to see them win even though the Colts have taken the last 3. In the grand scheme of things, both teams are so much better than the rest of their conference this game may mean very little... but the probable rematch in the AFC title game will be the biggie.

As for running up the score. I've never understood why people have a problem with this. I do like to see coaches put in their 2nd and 3rd string players in a blowout to give them opportunities (how many times have we seen a 3rd string guy stand out and earn more playing time as a result)... and when you put the 3rd string guys in I have no problem with them trying to score... *that* is where I disagree with leaving the starters in so late in a game like today with Washington... not because of running-the-score-up or anything, but because of the lost opportunity to let the backups get some game experience that could be important down the road.

I've always felt, as far as score goes, if you are 30+ points better than the other guy... why shouldn't the score reflect that? For all the "running up" comments, imagine if the Patriots were only winning my 7... as a for instance, people question the Colts because they are winning closer games and thinking they may not be as good as the Patriots when the end result is both are undefeated. Anyone that will question a close win and say "they should have won by more" should not complain about a blowout.

As a fan, blowouts are not as entertaining as a close game... but I would never take offense to it.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

> As for running up the score. I've never understood why people have a problem with this.


I never even realized this was an issue until mentioned in this thread. Hey if you got, flaunt it baby! The Pats have the talent and for the life of me why the two above have a problem with this team doing what their paid to do is beyond me. I was absolutely PISSED when the Pats took a knee at the end of the game I was hoping for one more score. maybe the NFL should be a socialist organization, maybe if opponents of NE were spotted 30 points and the first two touchdowns every game by the Pats didn't count maybe it would be more 'fair' to the teams with less talent.

Because scoring points is baaaaaaaaaaaaad :lol:

Go Pats!


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

"On any given Sunday..." Right now, I'm guessing New England. But both teams are powerhouses. We'll see how they actually match up on that Sunday. And then again in the Championship game.


----------



## Sharkie_Fan (Sep 26, 2006)

So many comments I agree with here.

I voted with my heart and picked the Colts.... but my mind says it'll probably be the Pats.

I agree with HDMe - Brady reminds me of Montana as well. And growing up in the Bay Area, I saw a LOT of Joe. I don't think Brady is the most physically gifted quarterback playing right now. Not the biggest, or most athletic. Neither was Joe. But they both play in a system that is designed to play off your strengths and the other teams weakness.

And being a "system quarterback" isn't necessarily a fair label. After all, Jim Druckenmiller was drafted to play in the same system as Joe Montana and Steve Young... and he's probably out waiting tables somewhere. Anyway.... it's not system alone that makes the quarterback... though certainly some systems seem to better maximize the talents of the quarterback.

And finally... My complaint with "running up the score" is that there's no reason to leave your starters in for the full 60 minutes and run the risk of injury. The Pats (and the Colts) are COMPLETELY different teams without their quarterbacks. Why leave them out there up 35-0 or 42-0 or 52-0 in the 4th quarter? To me, it's "irresponsible" coaching to do that in a regular season game that in the big picture means very little. That's my only complaint with it. I agree with the idea that if you're 35 points better than the other team there's no reason the scoreboard shouldn't reflect it. But at some point, the bigger picture should be the focus and you ought to put your other players in to A) get them experience that will serve your team in the future and B) protect the "stars" from injury that would cripple your team going forward.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Sharkie_fan hit my point about the score... I am not offended and I think it is fine to score whatever you can... but at the same time if I'm the coach and I'm up 35 points and I don't have confidence in my backup QB... my starter has his helmet taken away from him in the 4th quarter today and he + a few others enjoy the bench.

It's not about worrying over hurting the other teams' feelings... but more about making sure you don't lose a guy in a meaningless situation. Think about Drew Brees a couple of years back in a late game with the Chargers where he separates his shoulder in a game he should have been on the bench by then... end result is he has off-season surgery and the team lets him go. He did well in New Orleans and Philip Rivers is no slouch... but if the same thing happens to the Colts or the Patriots the end result would be nasty.

Letting players rest, get healed up from injury, avoiding injury... all good reasons to take them out of a game you feel confident you are winning. Now I don't feel the same way if you have already clinched the division or playoff birth about resting players for the whole game. I think that is overkill and can throw off your chemistry... but I do believe in pulling players when the game is in hand to protect them and to give other guys on the team experience.


----------



## Ray_Clum (Apr 22, 2002)

Steve Mehs said:


> I never even realized this was an issue until mentioned in this thread. Hey if you got, flaunt it baby! The Pats have the talent and for the life of me why the two above have a problem with this team doing what their paid to do is beyond me. I was absolutely PISSED when the Pats took a knee at the end of the game I was hoping for one more score. maybe the NFL should be a socialist organization, maybe if opponents of NE were spotted 30 points and the first two touchdowns every game by the Pats didn't count maybe it would be more 'fair' to the teams with less talent.
> 
> Because scoring points is baaaaaaaaaaaaad :lol:
> 
> Go Pats!


I don't mind scoring. If you're good enough, stop us. However, I do have an issue with the Pats going for it on 4th and 2 when they're up 45-0. Doing things like that will get someone hurt.


----------



## vollmey (Mar 23, 2007)

Ray_Clum said:


> I don't mind scoring. If you're good enough, stop us. However, I do have an issue with the Pats going for it on 4th and 2 when they're up 45-0. Doing things like that will get someone hurt.


They are pro football players. If you get you butt kicked on the field then to bad, do something about it.

Pat's by 24 this weekend.


----------



## Michael D'Angelo (Oct 21, 2006)

Steve Mehs said:


> Classless? Whatever. Since when is scoring points considered a bad thing? The Pats are doing what every team should, just don't go for the win for for the throat and never give up. This is a very exciting team to watch, Brady is one of the best quarterbacks the league has ever seen and very passionate.
> 
> If it was your favorite team scoring 40+ points a game would you complain?


When you are up by 30+ points and there is 5 minutes on the clock you don't keep your starters in throwing 25+ yard passes. You put your back ups in run the ball and throw short passes to move the chains to keep the clock moving. If you score you score but this is not college football and you try to kill the other team. You show a little class and respect for the other team and shut it down some.

All I am saying is the other teams are starting to get pissed about it and you can tell that from some of the interviews. So when someone takes Brady out I don't want to hear a bunch of crying that it was a cheap shot and everything else.


----------



## mxd (Jan 17, 2006)

Colts by 3.


----------



## Sharkie_Fan (Sep 26, 2006)

BMoreRavens said:


> All I am saying is the other teams are starting to get pissed about it and you can tell that from some of the interviews. So when someone takes Brady out I don't want to hear a bunch of crying that it was a cheap shot and everything else.


I didn't watch the Pats game, but there was mention a few posts earlier that the Pats went for a 4th and 2 when they were up big with 5 minutes to go.... That's a little "cheap" in my mind. To me, there's a fine line somewhere between scoring because you're the better team and trying to embarrass the other team...

But, even bigger "issue" to me... The more the Patriots do this, the more likely it becomes that Brady is going to get hurt. Be it an intentional "cheap shot" or simply a result of the play. If they go out and embarass teams each week, the incentive builds to "make them pay". At some point, there going to end up with a situation where Brady rolls to the sidelines and rather than "bump" him out of bounds, someone is going to drive his head into the ground as hard as possible.... Not necessarily "cheap", but they're not going to "go easy" on the quarterback in a borderline situation... They're going to go hard every play and it's likely to end up getting Brady hurt...

And as has been pointed out... No Brady is a BAAAD thing for the Patriots.


----------



## mike558 (Mar 5, 2007)

To answer the poll, I think the Pats will win, but it should be close. Dungy is a smart coach, and he knows how to play the Patriots.

As for the other comments, I know I might be biased but there are reasons the Patriots are playing the way the are. This is not an excuse for running a score up with only 5 min left in a game, but the Patriots didn't score any points after was 6 min left in the game. The 4th and 2 play was with about 7min left and the back-ups were already in the game. I've outlined a few reasons below as to why the Patriots are playing the way they are, in case anyone wants a Pats fan's perspective. Bash the post if you want, but I've tried to give you an honest perspective.

1. They are still passing instead of running because they have Morris out injured and Maroney just came back from an injury. They are being cautious with their running backs, because that's the area where they can least afford an injury.

2. They tried putting Cassel in the game against Miami with 11 min left in the game and he threw a pick ret for a TD on his 1st pass. Bellicheck wasn't going to make the same mistake twice. Brady wasn't in the game for the last 9 min of the game, and the final touchdown was scored by Cassel, with the 4th string RB and #4 receiver in the game. That score only happened because Wash kicked a terrible 30yd punt leaving the Pats at the in Wash territory with 8:30 left in the game.

3. For some reason Wash decided to go for it on 4th and 4, down 38-0 instead of kicking a 30 yd FG to get on the board. That signals to me that Wash wasn't conceding anything. You can't ask one team to stop trying if the other team is still playing to win.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Pats, but only because I admit to a certain bias since the Colts bolted from Bmore,
and they beat the Jags who are a local replacement for the Hapless Falcons whom
I, myself, deserted some five years ago.


----------



## DtroitPunk (Sep 5, 2007)

Colts by 9 or 10. I think Indy is SICK to death of hearing Patriots this and Brady that.

theres only one way to get that spotlight off the Pats and on to them.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

BMoreRavens said:


> When you are up by 30+ points and there is 5 minutes on the clock you don't keep your starters in throwing 25+ yard passes. You put your back ups in run the ball and throw short passes to move the chains to keep the clock moving. If you score you score but this is not college football and you try to kill the other team. You show a little class and respect for the other team and shut it down some.
> 
> All I am saying is the other teams are starting to get pissed about it and you can tell that from some of the interviews. So when someone takes Brady out I don't want to hear a bunch of crying that it was a cheap shot and everything else.


No matter what the score is, no matter how much time left on the clock, the game is 60 minutes and it should be played intensely throughout like the score was 0-0. Players are paid good money to perform and buildup their stats. In hockey when a team is up 6 or 7 to 1, you don't see them slack off in the second half of the third period. Other players can go screw, if they were part of the Patriots they wouldn't be complaining. What we have here is nothing but a good ole fashion case of jealousy. The Pats are good, they know they're good, who cares what anyone else thinks.

Instead of putting the blame on the Pats for being a good team, why not criticize the opponents. Maybe if Washington would have showed up, maybe if their players did what they're paid to do the Pats wouldn't have had some many points.

I'm really no Patriots fan, I used to be somewhat of a fan because of their defense. Back in the late '90s under Parcelles. They had a killer secondary with Lawyer Mallow, Ty Law, Willie Clay and Steve Israel. I do like Tom Brady and Belichick but my favorite team will always be the Titans followed by the Jets. It doesn't matter to me if they make it to the Super Bowl, or if they go 16-0, or even if they win another game, what they have done so far is amazing. They just don't beat the opponent, they kill the opponent then bury them.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

To me, when up by 38 points in the 2nd half, a wise coach and team aggressively play the second, third, and fourth string. Develop them. Teach them to play aggressively themselves. Especially focus on developing the younger players to keep the team growing.

If that _still_ leads to scoring, you can't be blamed for running up a score.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## mxd (Jan 17, 2006)

"Brady Bunch" cancelled------
replaced by "Peyton's Place"!!!


----------



## jimbo09 (Sep 26, 2006)

I think kicking an automatic field goal at the 7 would have been "running up the score" the 'skins were given a chance to stop the scoring right there. Bellicheck was right in saying "should we kick the fiedl goal", so then its 41-0 instead of 45-0. Next 4th down situation, they could go for it, or kick another FG, so it would have been 44-7...is that better...then couldn't punt (punt on the 7 and 34 yd lines of your opponent?) and they shouldn't take a knee (o.k. say Brady takes an knee on the 'skin 7...isn't that showing them up?).


----------



## Game Fan (Sep 8, 2007)

I've never been a big Manning fan. I like Brady. It's hard to argue with 3 rings. Peyton will get his numbers. I believe both teams running games and defenses are suspect. However, I think they are the two best teams in the league.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Bill Parcels made some nice points Monday about this as well. He mentioned games where a team with a big lead took a knee instead of going for it, and the opponent was offended by that because it was essentially saying "we are so good we will stop playing now". And also pointing out that while we armchair quarterback for days afterwards... the coach in a game has 40 seconds or so to make the decision.

There is no "win" in scenarios like this when you are just that much better on that day than your opponent.

As I've said, the only reason I would have any reason to question the Patriots here is for the possibility of an injury on those last drives. If I were the coach, I would be resting my starters and letting the other guys get experience. I would not be worried about whether or not the other team's feelings were hurt... but I would be concerned about my own guys.


----------



## layla17 (Oct 29, 2007)

HDMe said:


> Bill Parcels made some nice points Monday about this as well. He mentioned games where a team with a big league took a knee instead of going for it, and the opponent was offended by that because it was essentially saying "we are so good we will stop playing now". And also pointing out that while we armchair quarterback for days afterwards... the coach in a game has 40 seconds or so to make the decision.
> 
> There is no "win" in scenarios like this when you are just that much better on that day than your opponent.
> 
> As I've said, the only reason I would have any reason to question the Patriots here is for the possibility of an injury on those last drives. If I were the coach, I would be resting my starters and letting the other guys get experience. I would not be worried about whether or not the other team's feelings were hurt... but I would be concerned about my own guys.


I agree 100%. Parcells brings up good points about taking a knee. There is no reason for the starters to be playing in the 4th quarter when you're up by 45.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

Meyton Panning all the way!!!


----------



## rkr0923 (Sep 14, 2006)

All Brady does is throw the ball up (looks like a punt) and Moss goes gets it. Moss is the hero, not Brady. I've never liked Brady and never will. Everyone makes him out to be so good when it isn't him at all. I call all short passes with big gains by any team "Brady Passes" . That what most of his passes are, a little short 5-yard pass and the receiver makes something out of it. 
Go COLTS


----------



## chopperjc (Oct 2, 2006)

I answered the poll Patriots but this is one of these games take the over (for entertaiment pourposes only) and enjoy a high scoring track meet.


----------



## dalepm (Feb 3, 2007)

BMoreRavens said:


> I voted for the Colts even though I think the Pat's will win.
> 
> I just don't like how they are running up the score on every team the play and if they keep doing it someone is going to take out Brady.


I like the way the Pats they are running up the score. I have Brady and Moss on my Fantasy Football team and so far I am undefeated!


----------



## jutley (Oct 11, 2006)

Go Colts!


----------



## Sharkie_Fan (Sep 26, 2006)

Obviously it's been mentioned more than once the risk of injury Brady faces when he plays when they're way ahead...

Heard this song on the radio today... seemed fitting for this conversation:






same guy has even more @ www.ryanparkersongs.com

including "Shady Brady and Belicheat"... funny stuff.


----------



## Msguy (May 23, 2003)

Either way this is just round 1 because these 2 teams will meet again for the AFC Championship in late January. Whoever wins will have the inside track to home field advantage. I think the Patriots will this week in a close game. Then the Colts will have to play in Foxboro in the cold if they want to defend their Super Bowl Championship. It's going to be a good one for sure.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

9-0 baby! The few, the proud, the New England Patriots! The little Ponies go down! The naysayers can shut the hell up now.

HDTV - $2200
Surround Sound System - $800
So silent you could hear a pin drop at the RCA Dome – Pricele$$


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Well, I guess we've seen the answer to this one. Congrats, Brady and company!


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Interesting game to watch.

What I saw from watching the game is that while the Patriots offense is much improved over last season, so too is the Colts defense. We suspected both of these to be true, but matching one against the other helps solidify it.

Patriots did well to get to 24 against the Colts... and the Colts did well to hold the Patriots to that.

I would not use this as "excuse" material... but did the Patriots have anyone major sitting out? Marvin Harrison was a big loss for the Colts, and may very well have made the difference between a couple of those close field goal attempts vs a touchdown. In a 4 point game, one TD swap for FG alone would take us to overtime.

I am actually encouraged as a Colts fan that it was a 4 pt loss and the Colts were in control for much of the middle portion of the game... and would expect that if both teams play to their capabilities we could see an undefeated Patriots team vs a one loss Colts team in the AFC championship rematch.


----------



## Msguy (May 23, 2003)

The Refs made some bad calls that went against New England that whole game and the Patriots still won. Most Notably the Offensive Pass Interference Call against Randy Moss in the End Zone. I was MAD when they called that against Moss because the Referees were definately trying to help the Colts out ALL they could and the replay showed he didn't initiate the contact against the Colts player. I'm Glad New England won. No more Super Bowls for Peyton Manning and the Colts. The Naysayers can jump off the Colts Bandwagon and back onto the Patriots. Patriots will go undefeated this whole year and Win the Super Bowl. They will go down in history as being the best team in the NFL along with the 1972 Dolphins team.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

Yep it's almost like the officials wanted to see the Patriots lose, but hey they overcame a biased officiating crew.

Out of their remaining 7 games, Pittsburgh is the only one I see giving the Pats trouble. Divisional rivals Bills, Jets and Dolphins all suck this year, Eagles, Ravens and Giants don't have what it takes. New England patriots 16-0, maybe just maybe.

I can't stand Payton Manning, I hope the Colts lose another game or two so my Titans can claim #1 in the division.


----------



## Msguy (May 23, 2003)

I'm tired of seeing Referees in the NFL continue to make bad calls. It's becoming an epidemic in my opinion. I feel very strongly about this because the outcomes of games are at steak. I've seen too many bad calls this year and I hope Roger Goodell roots out the biased referees. I swear there are certain refs that call games for certain teams. Today the Refs at the Patriots-Colts game did ALL they could to help Indianapolis. in the first quarter alone there were 77 yards worth of penalties against New England All those Southern Boy Referees call games for Good Ole' Boy Peyton Manning and i'm getting tired of it. :nono2: I swear it seems that way every week. I'm so glad New England beat the Colts in the dome.


----------

