Idle thoughts - The "on to Indy" edition

supafly said:

One last concern would be Brady and his poor play in the AFCCG lately (post 2004). In the divisional rounds and SB's he's 12-4, yet in the conference championship he's either lost (IND, BAL, DEN) or barely won while playing very poorly (SD, BAL). He also has an 8 TD--to--9 INT ratio in those games.

Click to expand...

This strikes me as creating a narrative from a largely random sample.

supafly said:

The bookies don't stay wealthy due to things being nearly as one-sided as some people like to claim around here.

It's all about how our team comes out and plays. When they're good, they can compete with anyone. When they're bad, they can get caught flat-footed, allowing the underdog to win.

We all heard the same thing last week about how "Baltimore only beat one team with a winning record, leading to a 1-6 mark on the season," and that didn't mean a damn thing--nor does it ever. How about all of the "Jump Ball Joe" comments despite the fact that he has a 24 TD--to--4 INT (2 coming last week) ratio in his last ELEVEN playoff games? Either of those comments that we heard all week ended up meaning anything, so I'm taking any Colts comments with a grain of salt as well.

We'll obviously need the defense to play much better than allowing the 31 points like they did last week, or Indy can certainly pose a threat.

One last concern would be Brady and his poor play in the AFCCG lately (post 2004). In the divisional rounds and SB's he's 12-4, yet in the conference championship he's either lost (IND, BAL, DEN) or barely won while playing very poorly (SD, BAL). He also has an 8 TD--to--9 INT ratio in those games.

The bottom line is that N.England "should" win.....yet we end up saying that just about every year, don't we? I definitely agree that things have set up quite nicely for us, so let's hope that they can take proper advantage of the situation!

Click to expand...

Last time I checked that even after the game, the argument that the only team with a winning record the Ravens beat this year is the Steelers. The game may have been tougher than many people expected, but the results was the same as most expected - a Patriots win.

And Brady's struggles in the AFCCG are not because he struggles in that game, but because he didn't have any weapons. Against, the Colts he has Reche Caldwell, Jabar Gaffney, and an almost done Troy Brown. Against Baltimore, Brady had no problem moving the ball outside the 20, but drives stalled in the red zone because he had no red zone target (most specifically, no Gronk). Against, the Broncos he had no Gronk and Edelman was the only healthy receiver he had. I mean Matthew Slater was a passing target in that game.

This year, Brady looks to have an embarrassment of weapons. Gronk is probably the most impactful non-QB offensive player in the league. Edelman is healthy. LaFell is solid. Amendola is emerging at the right time. Vereen can catch the ball out of the backfield. I think the only AFC Championship game where Brady had better weapons is with the 2007 team. And I will say his receivers are performing better now than the 2007 version was at the end of that season and in the playoffs. Moss totally disappeared in the playoffs.

I'm sorry, but the Colts had an easy route to the AFCCG. Everyone agreed that the Bengals were the easiest out of the playoffs at least on the AFC. And the Broncos were playing with arguably the 2nd worst QB in the playoffs (yes, the current state of Peyton Manning was worse than any QB in the playoffs other than Ryan Lindley). I saw nothing on Sunday that made me nervous about facing the Colts.

Hey I could end up being wrong, but I am guessing I won't be.

I have a bad feeling about this game, Colts are playing with house money, have an outstanding QB, a pair of excellent receiving TEs and all 3 of their WRs are playing well.

Luck has improved tremendously,he threw 23 td last year and 40 td this year.We just gave Flacco 4 td and 31 points.We struggled against the run and the pass in that game, the Colts defense completely shutdown Manning, so I think there are reasons to be concerned.

libra957 said:

Luck has improved tremendously,he threw 23 td last year and 40 td this year.We just gave Flacco 4 td and 31 points.We struggled against the run and the pass in that game, the Colts defense completely shutdown Manning, so I think there are reasons to be concerned.

Click to expand...

Luck is always a concern, he's a great player. But we need to stop treating a shutdown of Manning in the playoffs as some kind of accomplishment. It happens more times than it doesn't.

Sicilian said:

Luck is always a concern, he's a great player. But we need to stop treating a shutdown of Manning in the playoffs as some kind of accomplishment. It happens more times than it doesn't.

Click to expand...

yeah, agree to that. Luck is coming on there is no doubt about that, but that Colts Defense is not seeing Manning this week...

Sicilian said:

Luck is always a concern, he's a great player. But we need to stop treating a shutdown of Manning in the playoffs as some kind of accomplishment. It happens more times than it doesn't.

Click to expand...

I agree that even if the Colts defense manages to slow the run down, the Patriots should score points on them. This game will rely more on the defenses ability to stop the passing attack of the Colts.

Patriots should be able to stop a 1 dimensional team like the Colts, BUT they do have a lot of receiving weapons.

Halifax_Pats_Fan said:

yeah, agree to that. Luck is coming on there is no doubt about that, but that Colts Defense is not seeing Manning this week...

Click to expand...

And I will add, I do think that Luck is more dangerous in this game than he's been in any game we've faced him before. I mentioned in another thread, I think beating Manning in the playoffs finally sets him apart from Peyton, where Indy is officially HIS team now. I don't want to underestimate the psychological effect that can have on a player.

Oswlek said:

This strikes me as creating a narrative from a largely random sample.

Click to expand...

He's either lost (2006 IND, 2012 BAL, 2013 DEN)

or

barely won (2007 SD, 2011 BAL)

Brady hasn't played well in the last FIVE conference championships. I don't know how that is a "random sample?" You may not like (or agree with) my comment, but the words "random sample" do not make any sense whatsoever.

Rob0729 said:

I'm sorry, but the Colts had an easy route to the AFCCG. Everyone agreed that the Bengals were the easiest out of the playoffs at least on the AFC. And the Broncos were playing with arguably the 2nd worst QB in the playoffs (yes, the current state of Peyton Manning was worse than any QB in the playoffs other than Ryan Lindley). I saw nothing on Sunday that made me nervous about facing the Colts.

Hey I could end up being wrong, but I am guessing I won't be.

Click to expand...

I agree that CIN was the easiest out of all the teams, but I disagree that they went into Mile High stadium and were just handed the game.

And hey--of course I hope that you're right. I'm just pointing out that I never once bought into the thought of poo-poohing the Ravens like you and many others did, and I'm not doing the same against the Colts either (although I do feel much better this week than last).

supafly said:

He's either lost (2006 IND, 2012 BAL, 2013 DEN)

or

barely won (2007 SD, 2011 BAL)

Brady hasn't played well in the last FIVE conference championships. I don't know how that is a "random sample?"

Click to expand...

Of course it is.

2001 Pitt - left too early for anything meaningful, plus it diminishes the totals.
2003 Indy - probably should have played better, had a lazy pick and another dropped pick.
2004 Pitt - dominance
2006 Indy - played as well as can be expected with the receiving crew and the injuries at RB.
2007 SD - not a good game, though he sustained an ankle injury that was bad enough that it NE adjusted his camp schedule 7 months later.
2011 - Bad game. No pressure and he was missing guys and making bad decisions.
2012 - Brady played well, he was just betrayed by his receivers who short circuited three drives inside the 40 with drops. At least two of the picks were after the game was long decided and he just had to force things.
2013 - Some bad throws, but when you can't run, you don't have receivers and the OL doesn't pass protect, what more do you expect from the QB.

So, yes, you are creating a narrative out of circumstances that are largely random (or, at the very least spell out a different story with closer scrutiny). In 8 prior AFCCGs, Tom played poorly twice and lower than you would expect even with hindsight once. Every other time he was at least good but the team was sunk by issues elsewhere.

Oswlek said:

Of course it is.

2001 Pitt - left too early for anything meaningful, plus it diminishes the totals.
2003 Indy - probably should have played better, had a lazy pick and another dropped pick.
2004 Pitt - dominance
2006 Indy - played as well as can be expected with the receiving crew and the injuries at RB.
2007 SD - not a good game, though he sustained an ankle injury that was bad enough that it NE adjusted his camp schedule 7 months later.
2011 - Bad game. No pressure and he was missing guys and making bad decisions.
2012 - Brady played well, he was just betrayed by his receivers who short circuited three drives inside the 40 with drops. At least two of the picks were after the game was long decided and he just had to force things.
2013 - Some bad throws, but when you can't run, you don't have receivers and the OL doesn't pass protect, what more do you expect from the QB.

So, yes, you are creating a narrative out of circumstances that are largely random (or, at the very least spell out a different story with closer scrutiny). In 8 prior AFCCGs, Tom played poorly twice and lower than you would expect even with hindsight once. Every other time he was at least good but the team was sunk by issues elsewhere.

Click to expand...

What are you talking about?

I included the words/phrases "post-2004" and "past FIVE conference championships."

Are you trying to deny that he hasn't played poorly in the past 5 AFCCG's? That's what I'm talking about. There's nothing "random" to that. It's a fact.

He's either lost (3x) or barely won (2x). Obviously, we hope that changes.

supafly said:

I included the words "post-2004" and "past FIVE conference championships."

Click to expand...

And I outlined them all, but if you want to just focus on those, be my guest:

Oswlek said:

2006 Indy - played as well as can be expected with the receiving crew and the injuries at RB.
2007 SD - not a good game, though he sustained an ankle injury that was bad enough that it NE adjusted his camp schedule 7 months later.
2011 - Bad game. No pressure and he was missing guys and making bad decisions.
2012 - Brady played well, he was just betrayed by his receivers who short circuited three drives inside the 40 with drops. At least two of the picks were after the game was long decided and he just had to force things.
2013 - Some bad throws, but when you can't run, you don't have receivers and the OL doesn't pass protect, what more do you expect from the QB.

Click to expand...

2 bad games, 2 good games that were both made worse due to receiver play, and 1 where the rest of the team was so terrible that it is impossible to say anything about Tom's play.

supafly said:

Are you trying to deny that he hasn't played poorly in the past 5 AFCCG's? That's what I'm talking about. There's nothing "random" to that.

Click to expand...

Of course. It is still completely random in that, in no way does it lend any predictability toward what will happen in this game.

Oswlek said:

And I outlined them all, but if you want to just focus on those, be my guest:

Click to expand...

Considering that you took offense with my original comment about his past five conference championship games, it seems much more likely that you either confused, or must have mis-read.

Stating that the past 5 AFCCG's are a "random sample" is just odd though, which is why I didn't understand how or why you keep saying that.

There's nothing "random" about bringing up the past 5 examples. Not in the least. "Random" would be if I picked and choosed--not 5 in a row.

supafly said:

Considering that you took offense with my original comment about his past five conference championship games, it seems much more likely that you either confused, or must have mis-read.

Stating that the past 5 AFCCG's are a "random sample" is just odd though, which is why I didn't understand how or why you keep saying that.

There's nothing "random" about bringing up the past 5 examples. Not in the least.

Click to expand...

No need for snark, I simply outlined them all because there were numerous arguments, some dealing with cumulative statistics.

Yes, despite the fact that all these games happened at the same point of the playoffs, they are still a random sample. Different seasons, different teams, different opponents... it is only marginally more relevant that pointing out that Brady has struggled in week 7 for the past five seasons. The fact that the quality of opponent would be more consistent than a random regular season sample is offset by this 5 game grouping is stretched out over an 8 year span.

supafly said:

I agree that CIN was the easiest out of all the teams, but I disagree that they went into Mile High stadium and were just handed the game.

And hey--of course I hope that you're right. I'm just pointing out that I never once bought into the thought of poo-poohing the Ravens like you and many others did, and I'm not doing the same against the Colts either (although I do feel much better this week than last).

Click to expand...

Normally, I would agree it was tough to go into Mile High, but not on Sunday. How many times was Emmanuel Sanders running wide open down the sidelines and Manning just overthrew him? If Manning was just average on Sunday, the Broncos would have scored 25-30 points or more.

Manning started the game 3 for 3 on the first drive and then went something like 2 for 13 for the rest of the first half. Sure, some of it was good defense by the Colts, but most of it was that Manning's arm is toast.

They weren't handed the game, but the Broncos were not a tough test for them either. Every team that has followed the blueprint set forth by the Pats earlier in the year of taking away the center of the field and force Manning to throw outside the numbers have successfully made him look average to downright awful. The cold weather probably even hurt his arm strength even more.

The funny thing is the Colts didn't really do a great job stopping the run (CJ Anderson averaged 4.4 YPC), but the Broncos only ran the ball 20 times vs. 46 passes when Manning was actually hurting the team. If the Broncos kept the ball on the ground and out of Manning's hands, they might have won.

The Colts had a lot of possessions because Manning could complete passes and would hand the ball back quickly to the Colts because he went 3 and out four times and had 8 drives where they got less than 30 yards. The Colts had 11 possessions and only scored on four of them. I tend to doubt they will have that many possessions vs. the Pats, but if they do it is likely because the Pats are scoring fast (like what happened on Saturday). The Colts will need more than 24 points in that situation.

Oswlek said:

It is still completely random in that, in no way does it lend any predictability toward what will happen in this game.

Click to expand...

Pretty much nothing that we'll talk about all week will lend much predictability to what will happen in this game.

There was nothing predictive about speaking of Joe Flacco's previous 5 postseason games last week, which accounted for a 5-0 record for 13 touchdowns and 0 interceptions. It definitely wasn't random, though.

Oswlek said:

No need for snark, I simply outlined them all because there were numerous arguments, some dealing with cumulative statistics.

Click to expand...

I'm not really meaning to be snarky, simply matter of fact.

Apologies if that's the way it came across.

Oswlek said:

Yes, despite the fact that all these games happened at the same point of the playoffs, they are still a random sample. Different seasons, different teams, different opponents... it is only marginally more relevant that pointing out that Brady has struggled in week 7 for the past five seasons. The fact that the quality of opponent would be more consistent than a random regular season sample is offset by this 5 game grouping is stretched out over an 8 year span.

Click to expand...

You have a fine point about Brady playing better at certain times in AFCCG's throughout his career, and I'll agree with the fact that we can't take much from his last 5 appearances. I was simply bringing it up at the end of a previous comment as an added concern. In other words, "one final thought." You chose to single out that one final thought by using the phrase "random sample," which I didn't agree with (at all)....and here we are.

Our main point of contention seems to be with the definition of the word, so we'll have to agree to disagree on that. Otherwise, I agree with many of your points.

supafly said:

There was nothing predictive about speaking of Joe Flacco's previous 5 postseason games last week, which accounted for a 5-0 record for 13 touchdowns and 0 interceptions. It definitely wasn't random, though.

Click to expand...

I'll grant you that there is a specific set of criteria to determine the selection, but it still ends up with games that have virtually no useable connection between. From there, we are just manufacturing artificial story lines. "Random" was my shorthand for making this point but I have no objection if you substitute another descriptor instead.

Oswlek said:

I'll grant you that there is a specific set of criteria to determine the selection, but it still ends up with games that have virtually no useable connection between. From there, we are just manufacturing artificial story lines. "Random" was my shorthand for making this point but I have no objection if you substitute another descriptor instead.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, Oswlek. Let's just move on.

Like I said, if your point is that we can't take much from the fact that Brady has either lost or barely won in the past five conference championships, then I definitely agree.

I don't believe that using the past 5 games as anything random, however--which is why I've come back with responses. Otherwise, I wouldn't have returned a comment.