chiefjay Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 (edited) Colts 31 Pats 17 Edited January 13, 2005 by chiefjay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balzac Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Pats 34Colts 31 652695[/snapback] stop stealing my lines Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 stop stealing my lines 652698[/snapback] Didn't even look before I posted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balzac Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 One thing I don't get - why people seem to insist that the Pats are a one-trick pony in that they need their D to win games. Has anyone noticed that they were #4 in total offense in the AFC behind KC, IND and DEN? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czarina Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 So far, I count the Colts leading 16-6 in non-homer votes. You think there's an anti-Pats backlash brewing? 652680[/snapback] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhoops Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Don't you mean 41-31? No way Vinatieri misses the XP after the INT for the TD. 652667[/snapback] Figured the INT for TD would come with hardly any time left and game would end. Would the XP still be attainable if no time was left? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Figured the INT for TD would come with hardly any time left and game would end. Would the XP still be attainable if no time was left? 652919[/snapback] yes. the extra point must still be attempted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 One thing I don't get - why people seem to insist that the Pats are a one-trick pony in that they need their D to win games. Has anyone noticed that they were #4 in total offense in the AFC behind KC, IND and DEN? 652705[/snapback] The '85 Bears were 2nd in the league in points scored and 6th in the league in yards. You think that might've had something to do with their defense forcing turnovers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balzac Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 The '85 Bears were 2nd in the league in points scored and 6th in the league in yards. You think that might've had something to do with their defense forcing turnovers? 652932[/snapback] Not sure how that's material. Are you saying that this is relevant with respect to all teams that have highly ranked offenses and highly ranked Ds (as far as turnovers go)? Guess who led the AFC in takeaways and turnover differential? Colts. Does this take away from their #1 offense in your eyes? Bottom line = Pats don't rely on their D nearly as much as everyone would like to think. They've got a very solid offense and a solid D as well. Colts, while their O is spectacular, seem to lack the solid D (despite the excellent TO numbers). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MORNINWOOD Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 COLTS 34 PATS 21 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 (edited) Not sure how that's material. Are you saying that this is relevant with respect to all teams that have highly ranked offenses and highly ranked Ds (as far as turnovers go)? Guess who led the AFC in takeaways and turnover differential? Colts. Does this take away from their #1 offense in your eyes? 652973[/snapback] No, it does not. If anything, it shows how dominant their offense has been (building a huge lead in the first half and forcing opposing teams to abandon the run int he second half). And, while the Pats may have been a "one-trick pony" three years ago, I agree with you that they certainly aren't at this point. In fact, I think they're a pretty *** good offense. Much more balanced this year with Dillon than last. Hell, I'd be surprised if they scored under 30 points on Sunday. My point was simply that a dominant defense can make even a very mediocre offense (like the '85 Bears) look VERY good. And while NE's offense is pretty good, to say that they're 4th in the AFC is at least somewhat misleading. Obviously, the Colts being 1st overall in turnover differential doesn't translate into them having a stout defense. Edited January 13, 2005 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ziachild007 Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Colts win 34-24 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balzac Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 No, it does not. If anything, it shows how dominant their offense has been (building a huge lead in the first half and forcing opposing teams to abandon the run int he second half). And, while the Pats may have been a "one-trick pony" three years ago, I agree with you that they certainly aren't at this point. In fact, I think they're a pretty *** good offense. Much more balanced this year with Dillon than last. Hell, I'd be surprised if they scored under 30 points on Sunday. My point was simply that a dominant defense can make even a very mediocre offense (like the '85 Bears) look VERY good. And while NE's offense is pretty good, to say that they're 4th in the AFC is at least somewhat misleading. Obviously, the Colts being 1st overall in turnover differential doesn't translate into them having a stout defense. 652987[/snapback] Let me get this straight: The Colts have a high number of TOs BECAUSE their offense is so good. The Pats have a high number of TOs and that MAKES their offense good. Homer mentality at its greatest. It's really quite simple - Colts forced 35 TOs, whereas Pats forced 30. The sheer fact that the Colts' O is so much better than the Pats' would indicate that Indy was able to do more (from a yardage/TD perspective) with those 35 additional possessions than NE was able to do with its 30. I.e. Indy's offensive stats are more skewed than the Pats' due to yards/TDs off of TOs. All that said, why would Pats' offensive stature be any more misleading than Indy's? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Let me get this straight: The Colts have a high number of TOs BECAUSE their offense is so good. The Pats have a high number of TOs and that MAKES their offense good. 653021[/snapback] The point of all of this is that offense and defensive statistics aren't completely independent of one another. Homer mentality at its greatest. That goes both ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balzac Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 The point of all of this is that offense and defensive statistics aren't completely independent of one another.That goes both ways. 653074[/snapback] Right - they're dependent in a positive way for Indy, but dependent in a negative way for NE. Understood. Where's my homer mentality? All I did was point out that the Pats O is better than people think. I'm not trying to come up with reasons for the clear statistics that clearly favor my home team and/or disparrage anyone else's, which is what you are doing. I'm stating simple facts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Right - they're dependent in a positive way for Indy, but dependent in a negative way for NE. Understood. 653082[/snapback] I think it's fair to say that, unlike NE, Indy's defense is more of a liability than a positive. I don't think that they'd lead the league in turnover differential if their offense didn't build 20-30-point leads in the first half. Then again, that's JMO. Where's my homer mentality? All I did was point out that the Pats O is better than people think. I agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balzac Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 I think it's fair to say that, unlike NE, Indy's defense is more of a liability than a positive. I don't think that they'd lead the league in turnover differential if their offense didn't build 20-30-point leads in the first half. Then again, that's JMO. 653093[/snapback] I hear you. I'm just hoping it's more of liability this week than in others . . . Good luck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Good luck. 653095[/snapback] You don't actually mean that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balzac Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 You don't actually mean that! 653137[/snapback] You're right - I hope Manning slips in the shower and twists his right wrist breaking his fall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Dogs Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Colts - 38 (Manning 4TD's, 1 Defensive TD from INT from Brady, Vandy 1FG) Pats - 27 (2 Dillion TDs, 1 Brady TD, 2 FG's by Vinitieri) Then two glorius things will happen after the game.... -- They'll stop running that stupid NE commercial with Dillon pacing on the sidelines about not in his house. -- ugly Tuna will finally shut the ____ up!!! Hey, I guy has to have some hope!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 (edited) You're right - I hope Manning slips in the shower and twists his right wrist breaking his fall. 653144[/snapback] Good, now we're even. You and Swerski have both angered the football gods. Edited January 13, 2005 by CaptainHook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meat Face Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 I say the score will be 28-24. not sure who gets what score though. . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunther Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 I'm hoping Vandy misses a game-tying field goal attempt as time expires and members of both teams smother him with a terrible beating at the 50 while fireworks go off in Foxboro. I could dig that. 652686[/snapback] I have no idea why I found this so *** funny...but I did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.