With all the looking forward to the Colts....

[dryheat44]

Has anybody brought up the fact that the Redskins are the one team Brady has yet to beat? I would think that would keep him motivated and I'm surprised that the mediots haven't run with this yet.

Or maybe I'm not paying attention.

 

[Flying Fungi]

Has anybody brought up the fact that the Redskins are the one team Brady has yet to beat? I would think that would keep him motivated and I'm surprised that the mediots haven't run with this yet.

Or maybe I'm not paying attention.

closest i could find

seems to be a growing fear of angering Belichick and invoking the not-so-sleeping giant

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/22/AR2007102202107.html

 

[He Ban Me]

The ODD thing is, Manning hasn't beaten the Panthers either!!! Nor have the Colts. IIRC, we are 0-2 or 0-3 vs. them. How coincidental is this??

 

[Nordy]

Brady has only played the Redskins once. It's not like he's 0-5 against them or something.

 

[NYCPatsFan]

I hope the Skins put up a tough fight and do different things that can challenge our offense to score on every possession.

On defense, it should be interesting to see how we can stop their QB if he decides to start running for it when he sees light. In BH, Tomase had an interesting comment (with reference to the previous games where the opposing teams had a significant running yardage) that maybe we were trying to do something in anticipation of the Colts.

 

[NYCPatsFan]

The ODD thing is, Manning hasn't beaten the Panthers either!!! Nor have the Colts. IIRC, we are 0-2 or 0-3 vs. them. How coincidental is this??

I didn't know that. In that 0-2/3 record, how many games did Manning play?

 

[psychoPat]

Brady has only played the Redskins once. It's not like he's 0-5 against them or something.

Brady hasn't beaten the 'Skins because
Brady CAN'T beat the 'Skins!

Stick THAT in your locker, Mr. Record-Breaker MVP2b !

 

[Na_polian]

Has anybody brought up the fact that the Redskins are the one team Brady has yet to beat?

It hasn't been brought up at all that I've seen. Interesting information. Thank you!

 

[blriesenbeck07]

From what I've seen of this team, I don't think the Pats will sleep on the upcoming game. As for the Redskins, I'm sure Gibbs is going to pull out every trick he can in order for us to have a chance.

As for Brady, I'm sure he's looking forward to beating the only team he hasn't won against yet. On our side, Area 51 (Landry and Taylor) will be waiting for him.

Should be a great matchup.

 

[He Ban Me]

I didn't know that. In that 0-2/3 record, how many games did Manning play?

Twice, in '98 and '03, at home. Let them hang around in '03, and Foster came in and ran all over us in the second half. IIRC, he came in for an injured Stephen Davis.

As a franchise, I think we may have played IN Charlotte on time previous to that.

So, ends up being a team that neither Manning or the Franchise has beaten.

 

[dryheat44]

2-8-NE 8 20) (Shotgun) P.Manning pass incomplete short middle to D.Clark. (No call on Sanders)

3-6-IND 6 (1:35) (Shotgun) T.Brady pass short right to J.Gaffney for 6 yards, TOUCHDOWN [R.Mathis]. Play Challenged by IND and Upheld. (Timeout #1 by IND at 01:25.) (biggest gift ever)

I don't ever want to hear complaints about the AFCCG from a PATS* fan AGAIN!

I must say I really don't understand your sig. I don't want to start up a discussion from 8 months ago, but I don't remember Gaffney's TD reception to be at all controversial. You'll have to refresh my memory.

 

[PromisedLand]

Has anybody brought up the fact that the Redskins are the one team Brady has yet to beat? I would think that would keep him motivated and I'm surprised that the mediots haven't run with this yet.

Or maybe I'm not paying attention.

Here's the thing - the Redskins game doesn't matter. Blasphemy to BB? Perhaps, but if we lose the skins game and win out we still get the #1 seed. If on the other hand we beat Washington and lose to the Colts, we would be effectively TWO games behind Indy. BTW, how come no one is talking about the possibility of the Colts going undefeated?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating laying down against the Skins, or anybody - it's just that in the grand scheme of things, keeping eyes on the prize (winning the Super Bowl) and all that, an interconference game is as meaningless as a game can be.

 

[dryheat44]

Here's the thing - the Redskins game doesn't matter. Blasphemy to BB? Perhaps, but if we lose the skins game and win out we still get the #1 seed. If on the other hand we beat Washington and lose to the Colts, we would be effectively TWO games behind Indy. BTW, how come no one is talking about the possibility of the Colts going undefeated?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating laying down against the Skins, or anybody - it's just that in the grand scheme of things, keeping eyes on the prize (winning the Super Bowl) and all that, an interconference game is as meaningless as a game can be.

Of course it matters. In you're scenario it doesn't matter because it's an either-or situation.....we'll lose to Washington in order to beat the Colts.
Regardless let's say we beat the Colts, then lose to the Steelers. Meanwhile, the Colts finish 15-1. Did the Redskins game still not matter? By my reckoning, the Colts are 15-1, and we're 14-2 because we sacrificed the Redskins game so we could beat the Colts. No game on our schedule is a guaranteed W, so BB can't plan like it is.

 

[PromisedLand]

Of course it matters. In you're scenario it doesn't matter because it's an either-or situation.....we'll lose to Washington in order to beat the Colts.
Regardless let's say we beat the Colts, then lose to the Steelers. Meanwhile, the Colts finish 15-1. Did the Redskins game still not matter? By my reckoning, the Colts are 15-1, and we're 14-2 because we sacrificed the Redskins game so we could beat the Colts. No game on our schedule is a guaranteed W, so BB can't plan like it is.

Of course it matters SOME, my point was that it matters a HELL OF A LOT LESS than the Indy game. It wasn't meant to be taken literally.

 

[jaytyme]

Of course it matters SOME, my point was that it matters a HELL OF A LOT LESS than the Indy game. It wasn't meant to be taken literally.

true that the non-conference foe means less than the team youe appear to be fighting with for home field advantage.

But you'll never here that said in the pats locker room. they all count as a W or an L.

 

[patsox23]

Has anybody brought up the fact that the Redskins are the one team Brady has yet to beat? I would think that would keep him motivated and I'm surprised that the mediots haven't run with this yet.

Or maybe I'm not paying attention.

You're not paying attention in terms of THIS BOARD since it's been posted multiple times, but you're right in terms of the mediots.

 

[He Ban Me]

I must say I really don't understand your sig. I don't want to start up a discussion from 8 months ago, but I don't remember Gaffney's TD reception to be at all controversial. You'll have to refresh my memory.

It has not been spoke of as much as it should have been. he did a nice job staying in bounds along the end line, but for the officials to conclude he would have come down in-bounds was extremely generous. if you look at it, IMO, his rear end lands before he second foot does, regardless of contact. With his heels over the back line, coupled with his leap, his momentum was taking him out. Even if he goes straight up, landing on his rear means landing out of bounds. The way he was falling, no way that second foot comes down before his rear end. This was not a clear cut force out. You know the kind, where the receiver might jump, catch, and here comes a defender, who clearly rides the receiver several feet out of bounds. Great catch by Gaff, but for the officials to conclude what they did was very generous, and had it happened the other way, where it was one of our WR, I think it would have been discussed ad nauseum.