ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
There are a lot of reasons. One is the Colts are the one team that can keep up with the Patriots if there's a shootout. Doubt it? Well, they scored 32 second-half points against them in the AFC Championship Game victory last January. The Colts didn't punt. Did that have anything to do with Brady not having good receivers? Didn't think so. The Colts will attack the Patriots linebackers, guys who don't have great speed. Joseph Addai will catch a lot of passes. They will also try to get Rodney Harrison, an aging safety who doesn't run that well anymore, matched up in coverage a bunch. Dallas Clark will be huge in this game. So could Anthony Gonzalez. The Colts played the Patriots in that title game without a legitimate third receiver. Gonzalez can be that guy. The Colts defense is also better than a year ago. They're faster. Their corners are better. But to beat the Patriots you have to outscore the Patriots. You won't stop them. That's how the Colts can win. They can outscore them. How about 44-41? For an offensive guy like me, I'd take it.
owww, u must be kiding me...rit?
Prisco says that the D giving up 32 points in the half had NOTHING to do with the Offense? r u king me????? he should have known better...
my points? if the pats O can get first downs which was plausible with better recievers, they keep the ball away from manning...HELLO??? make sense prisco????
also, the longer the pats O is on the field, the longer their D is OFF it, RESTING...u can call me einstein whenever ur ready prisco...
and lets not forget this one...if the pats had better recievers, maybe they would have been able to score another TD...LETTING THE PATS WIN...ok prisco..SO...u can go hide in a hole now...u embarassed urself enough
honestly? and then he points out how important gonzalez can be? r u serius?
i dont know why i bother any more...but are sports writers really that dumb?
FEATURED ADVERTISEMENT
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
Are they really that dumb? Yes, they are. I for one have no idea how a lot of these guys get their jobs.
But I have more than given up on Prisco. He basically lives in Mannings pants, and is ridiculously biased towards them. Aside from that he's still a total idiot. You can't read one of his articles without a ridiculous, ignorant opinion.
And to realize that WRs can help out your defense is a little too complicated for Prisco. God forbid he mentions that we are the most improved team in the league and were beating the Colts for all but 1 minute of that game.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Prisco's article makes much more sense than your response.
He is talking about how the Patriots can be beaten, and says an offensive shootout can do it. His point, einstein, had nothing to do with whether a better Patriots offense could have prevented the AFCCG collapse. That's irrelevent here, despite the fact you are seemingly fixated on it. His point is that the Colts have demonstrated the ability to move the ball effectively at times against a recent Patriots team. That is fact. He may well be right that the Colts could keep up with our offense.
Unless I missed the rule change where the Patriots are so amazing the other team now has to kick off to them after the Patriots score a TD, Brady marching the team down the field doesn't mean the other team doesn't get a chance to do the same.
Not with the way the O line is playing and the confidence Brady has in his receivers this year.
Moss in a jump ball situation I like our chances, Sanders will never let Moss catch it.
Although he will pass interfere the hell out of him so that will move the chains non the less.
__________________
That trophy represents the team – I mean that word collectively, that is able to play the best season for the year that it's engraved. It doesn't mean anything about what happened the year before. It doesn't say what's the best team, which has the most talented players, which teams has the biggest payroll, smallest payroll. It stands for the team that played the best in that season. Put the number on there for that year. And the next year we start all over again everybody is at the same point."
I challange Prisco to defend his statement that the Colts did not punt in the second half.
__________________
We play! That's what we do! We don't talk, we play! You come to Foxboro, it's gonna be snowing, it gonna be cold...Come on in here! You wanna say all you want, you wanna change the rules, change 'em! We still play, and we win, that's what we do!" -Tedy Bruschi
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Kevin Faulk supporter.
Woo-hoo! Second Team baby!
Prisco's article makes much more sense than your response.
He is talking about how the Patriots can be beaten, and says an offensive shootout can do it. His point, einstein, had nothing to do with whether a better Patriots offense could have prevented the AFCCG collapse. That's irrelevent here, despite the fact you are seemingly fixated on it. His point is that the Colts have demonstrated the ability to move the ball effectively at times against a recent Patriots team. That is fact. He may well be right that the Colts could keep up with our offense.
Actually what is fact is that in the 2nd half of last years AFCCG the Colts offense easily moved the ball on a Pats defense that was missing 3 of their top DB's including both of their starting safeties (Harrison and Wilson), nickel back (Gay) and starting ILB (Seau).
If the Pats aren't missing those key players this time around then Prisco's assertion that the Colts can keep up with the Pats offense is nothing more than pure speculation on his part.
Now granted we are all speculating that the Pats NEW offense will be able to move the ball on the Colts too.
Prisco's article makes much more sense than your response.
He is talking about how the Patriots can be beaten, and says an offensive shootout can do it. His point, einstein, had nothing to do with whether a better Patriots offense could have prevented the AFCCG collapse.
He is talking about how the Pats were beaten by isolating one characteristic of the game and keeping everything else constant. It just doesn't work that way. Parts of the game are inter-related and inter-dependent.
Part of the reason the Colts O was able to score so much was that the Pats D was tired. The reason they were tired was that the Pats O stayed on the field for about 2 minutes then punted.
You don't think going three-and-out repeatedly gives the other team more opportunities to get on the field, or that the defense doesn't wear down after repeatedly being on the field? I think if our O ran about 6 long, time-consuming drives and scored every time the Colts did, the Colts would not have had time to score 31 points, and more importantly, the defense would not have been so tuckered out.
This is not a blueprint to beating the Pats. This is like the classic case where "they" say, "Gee, when teams run for 100 yards they usually win, so therefore run the ball for 100 yards to increase your chance of winning." No, like Prisco, "they" have it bass-ackwards. When you are winning you run the ball a lot to run the clock down, and when you are losing you pass more to catch up.
He is talking about how the Pats were beaten by isolating one characteristic of the game and keeping everything else constant. It just doesn't work that way. Parts of the game are inter-related and inter-dependent.
Part of the reason the Colts O was able to score so much was that the Pats D was tired. The reason they were tired was that the Pats O stayed on the field for about 2 minutes then punted.
You don't think going three-and-out repeatedly gives the other team more opportunities to get on the field, or that the defense doesn't wear down after repeatedly being on the field? I think if our O ran about 6 long, time-consuming drives and scored every time the Colts did, the Colts would not have had time to score 31 points, and more importantly, the defense would not have been so tuckered out.
This is not a blueprint to beating the Pats. This is like the classic case where "they" say, "Gee, when teams run for 100 yards they usually win, so therefore run the ball for 100 yards to increase your chance of winning." No, like Prisco, "they" have it bass-ackwards. When you are winning you run the ball a lot to run the clock down, and when you are losing you pass more to catch up.
thank you, after i saw alamo's post I was about to start on another reason to show why the pats O had something to do with the effectiveness of the colts O...but u got it pretty nicely....
Prisco's article makes much more sense than your response.
He is talking about how the Patriots can be beaten, and says an offensive shootout can do it. His point, einstein, had nothing to do with whether a better Patriots offense could have prevented the AFCCG collapse. That's irrelevent here, despite the fact you are seemingly fixated on it. His point is that the Colts have demonstrated the ability to move the ball effectively at times against a recent Patriots team. That is fact. He may well be right that the Colts could keep up with our offense.
Unless I missed the rule change where the Patriots are so amazing the other team now has to kick off to them after the Patriots score a TD, Brady marching the team down the field doesn't mean the other team doesn't get a chance to do the same.
Sounds like you didn't even read Prisco's post. He wrote: Did the lack of WRs on the Patriots last year have anything to do with the Colts scoring 32 points? Didn't think so.
But of course it did. With a better offense, the Patriots use up the clock instead of going 3 and out a few times.
If I ever thought Prisco made sense...
Linear Mode
