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!
It seems like the media is almost setting up the loss for the Colts. Sportscenter just had a lead-in to a peice on Pats-Colts by saying 'Will Marvin Harrison play? See how immense an impact his loss would be, next.' (not verbatim, but it was something along those lines).
My opinion (and I think the opinion of many other football fans) is that Harrison is currently the 5th most important player on the Colts offense. I'd put Wayne ahead of him; I think--particularily for this game--Clark is more important; Addai, to me, is the second most important player on the offense; and then there's Manning.
Granted, anytime you lose your #1/2 receiver it's a big blow, I will not deny that. But a 35 y.o. Harrison with bad knees might not be the same player that many remember and think about when analyzing the matchup.
I might be paranoid, but the way the media has dealt with the Pats this year I could easily see this loss (if, in fact, the Colts lose) spun into 'they may have lost, but put Harrison in there and it might be different' by a good portion of the media.
Unless, of course, the Pats win by 3 TD's, which I think is just as likely.
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
I heard essentially the same thing on Sirius NFL this morning on my drive to work. M. Harrison may still play but he's injured so...
__________________ Relegated to LURKER status thanks to work.
18 year STH, although games are fewer and farther between. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I still have a lot of respect for Harrison. He and Addai are the only Colts' players that I have a hard time disliking. Up until this season, he had shown no signs of aging. If you look at his stats, they were very consistent, and I honestly think that they would be the same this year if he wasn't injured. Manning's stats may be a little depleted because of him right now. I mean, why hasn't anyone pointed out that Manning only has 11 TD's through 7 games? Or is it 12? Still! That's not Manningesque.
Maybe Manning is in decline from his meteoric prime? I'm ready for those discussions to begin.
It seems like the media is almost setting up the loss for the Colts. Sportscenter just had a lead-in to a peice on Pats-Colts by saying 'Will Marvin Harrison play? See how immense an impact his loss would be, next.' (not verbatim, but it was something along those lines).
My opinion (and I think the opinion of many other football fans) is that Harrison is currently the 5th most important player on the Colts offense. I'd put Wayne ahead of him; I think--particularily for this game--Clark is more important; Addai, to me, is the second most important player on the offense; and then there's Manning.
Granted, anytime you lose your #1/2 receiver it's a big blow, I will not deny that. But a 35 y.o. Harrison with bad knees might not be the same player that many remember and think about when analyzing the matchup.
I might be paranoid, but the way the media has dealt with the Pats this year I could easily see this loss (if, in fact, the Colts lose) spun into 'they may have lost, but put Harrison in there and it might be different' by a good portion of the media.
Unless, of course, the Pats win by 3 TD's, which I think is just as likely.
Who cares what the media thinks? If the Colt's lose, they lose. Its as simple as that. Doesn't matter who plays or who doesn't play.
BTW, can we put to bed the notion that Reggie is only successful b/c he plays across from Marv? Marvins missed 2 of the last 3 games and Reggie has been DOMINANT in his absence. Reggie is our best receiver and one of the 5 best in the league, IMO.
__________________
PonyExpress, Keegs and Joker on Tony Dungy,
If only the sanctimonious and holier than thou Dunchy paid just a TAD more attention to his SON'S needs and less pontificating about other teams, perhaps the poor child would still be alive today.
Who cares what the media thinks? If the Colt's lose, they lose. Its as simple as that. Doesn't matter who plays or who doesn't play.
BTW, can we put to bed the notion that Reggie is only successful b/c he plays across from Marv? Marvins missed 2 of the last 3 games and Reggie has been DOMINANT in his absence. Reggie is our best receiver and one of the 5 best in the league, IMO.
I agree that the media does not matter in the sense that they have no impact on wins and losses, SB teams, etc. But I'm a big fan of the historic impact of teams, and history--unfortunately--resides partially in the hands of the media. In 30 years, when people go back to research the 2007 Patriots, they will find a team that was caught cheating, a team that 'ran up the score', a team that may have skirted by the other dominant power because they were missing their most important player.
Granted, none of this will matter if the Pats win the Super Bowl. But when I'm retired, reading the History of the Patriots for the 20th time, I don't want to have glaze over the best team I've ever seen just because there was a perception that this team was cheap, dirty and lucky.
I agree that the media does not matter in the sense that they have no impact on wins and losses, SB teams, etc. But I'm a big fan of the historic impact of teams, and history--unfortunately--resides partially in the hands of the media. In 30 years, when people go back to research the 2007 Patriots, they will find a team that was caught cheating, a team that 'ran up the score', a team that may have skirted by the other dominant power because they were missing their most important player.
Granted, none of this will matter if the Pats win the Super Bowl. But when I'm retired, reading the History of the Patriots for the 20th time, I don't want to have glaze over the best team I've ever seen just because there was a perception that this team was cheap, dirty and lucky.
I guess it does matter, if you look at it that way. I definitely agree that the media has a lot to do with how certain teams and individuals are remembered.
Well said.
__________________
PonyExpress, Keegs and Joker on Tony Dungy,
If only the sanctimonious and holier than thou Dunchy paid just a TAD more attention to his SON'S needs and less pontificating about other teams, perhaps the poor child would still be alive today.
Ah, what do ya know, Hambonelives from the ESPN Colts board. Between you and Irishfan, I don't know who talks up this "cheating" thing more.
Sorry there, but I've never posted on a Colts board. I have no way of proving this, of course, but rest assured I'm a Pats fan and would love nothing more than the 'cheating' and the 'running up the score' talk just disappearing forever.
Are the mediots setting this up?
Linear Mode
