If I ever thought Prisco made sense...

[ALP]

i will never make that mistake again...

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.

http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/10429746

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?

 

[wdkantro2]

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.

 

[alamo]

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.

 

[Crazyeechrispats1]

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.

 

[jman924]

I challange Prisco to defend his statement that the Colts did not punt in the second half.:bricks:

 

[Bobs My Uncle]

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.

 

[spacecrime]

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.

 

[ALP]

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....

 

[upstater1]

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.

This is elementary football.

 

[FreakGoDeep]

where do these guys get their info from? Colts forums?

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/drive...yPage=tab_drive_chart&season=2006&week=POST20

the colts punted TWICE and the second time with 3:47 left in the game but the pats couldn't get a couple first down to seal the win. IDIOT

and i'm glad he's suck a fan of anthony Gonzales, the slot reciever who barely played monday and when he does play, barely catches any passes.

 

[PATRIOT64]

Everything said by anyone including media and stuff like THIS thread is irrelevant for the next 10 days - The winner of that game in 10 days will have bragging rights for awhile after that until the playoffs.

Until then,the best team in the NFL remains the Super Bowl Champion until they lose - PERIOD - And that,Unfortunately is the Colts right now.

 

[Satchboogie3]

I loved the part where he said the Colts did this when lacking a legitimate 3rd WR. UM? PATS!!! The Patriots had 0 legitimate WR. No deep threats. I mean, come on.

 

[sebman2112]

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.

Prisco does make it sound like this 2007 Patriots defense is the same one the Colts faced in that AFCCG though, and we all know that isn't quite accurate. Some other posters have already pointed out Wilson, Harrison, Gay, and Seau's being out, but one main addition that's clearly missed by Prisco happens to be none other than Adalius Thomas. I kind of think AD might be just alittle better than Eric Alexander, who found himself playing a lot of snaps in that game.

Also, it is a good arguement to say NE's offensive weapons might affect the Colts ability to put up points & comeback, if the Colts were down. Having those stronger weapons will make it tougher for the Colts defense to stop NE's offense, which could limit their ability to make up ground.

 

[Oswlek]

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.

Keep going. Indy really didn't start moving the ball until both Sanders and Hawkins were also out. And Colvin. And Wlifork, Seymour and Vrabel were all playing with severe flu symptoms or severe injuries.

People like Peter King and Prisco need to stop using that game as an indicator for anything. This NE team would beat last years team by at least 21 points. If they faced the depleted squad that played Indy in the AFCCG? 28 points minimum.

 

[solman]

The Colts played the Patriots in that title game without a legitimate third receiver.

Ranks of 2006 Colts receivers in that game by yards gained:

2 Harrison
3 Wayne
106 Utecht
109 Clark

Ranks of 2006 Patriots receivers in that game by yards gained:

40 Caldwell
60 Watson
103 Brown
114 Faulk

The Patriots played that game without a legitimate #1, #2 or #3 receiver*.

The Colts had two of the top three receivers in the league on the field.

The notion that Indy was somehow greatly disadvantaged by their receiving corps is beyond absurd.




*Caldwell is currently tied for sixth amongst Redskins WRs with zero yards.

I'd like to think that our lengthy off season argument (the sixth longest thread in the history of the board) in which I said:

1. Caldwell will likely be cut, traded or forced to restructure.
2. He is a good #4 or #5 receiver.
3. Brady is the greatest QB of all time, and his stats don't reflect that only because he's had to throw to receivers like Caldwell

(and in which a large number of other people called me an idiot for saying so because they like Caldwell) has been resolved in my favor.

 

[ALP]

i love this board..it seems, even though it is filled with fans from one team, the bias comes in our way of logical though a heck of a lot less then these ppl calling themselves sports writers...

good job guys...most of u bring back my sanity after it completely disapears wehn reading "Proffesional Writers"

 

[Fixit]

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.

If anyone's guilty of misinterpreting Prisco's article, it's you.

 

[cblesz]

When are you people going to learn!?!?!? Pete Prisco is nothing but a Manning ballwasher hack. He knows nothing about football and proves it constantly. Prisco = Moron.

 

[SoonerPatriot]

i will never make that mistake again...

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.

http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/10429746

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?

Prisco is so off the mark here. We lost that game because Indys defense was pretty good at stopping Reche Caldwell and Co. Things have changed a lot.

Also, on defense, there are several additions that will make a difference here. A healthy Seymour and Harrison and also A-Thomas....and drum roll please....Brandon Merrieweather who will be a factor in this one.

 

[alamo]

If anyone's guilty of misinterpreting Prisco's article, it's you.

You can't be serious.

4. Tell me why New England can lose to Indianapolis.

Pete Prisco: 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.
...
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.


Did you even read it? How can it be any clearer that Prisco is talking about how to beat the Patriots next week, not about why the Colts won in January?