Sunday's Game
 

I have three take-aways from last night's loss:

1) We are a very good football team and let's not start going all negative out here. The Dillon-Maroney combo is awesome and, even with five TO's, thanks to our defense, we still had a chance to tie the game until, well, the final Turnover.

2) The Colts are a little better than us right now. If we're honest, we have to admit that was more than just a "bad night" by Tom Brady. The Colts' D had more than a little to do with how he played.

3) Finally, it's still way early to obsess about playoff seedings. We're only at the halfway point and, as the Dolphins (and the Texans almost) proved yesterday, a lot can happen every week. We beat the Jets and Bears in the next two weeks and the rest will take care of itself.

(I'd normally put these comments in another thread, but since the board was down, there aren't many running yet.)

Re: Sunday's Game
 

My take is that yes, we are still a very good football team but their is a clear hierarchy in the AFC at this point: Indy, Denver then New England. No longer the rock/paper/scissors analogy. We are 0-5 against the best 2 teams in the AFC the last couple of years. Unless we can step up and beat these teams we don't have any right to consider ourselves 'elite' anymore. Elite teams can beat other elite teams (especially AT HOME!).

As for playoff seedings, we still may come out with a bye given our relatively easy slate compared to Denver, SD and Baltimore. But Indy all but has HFA locked up and we'll have to go to the Dome if we want another Lombardi.

still a very good team?
 

rich, your point about being 0-5 against denver & indy is well taken. i guess "best of the rest" (as far as the afc) is a title our detractors could use at this point. remember, tho, that pats are one of the 5 best teams in a 32-team league. IMHO the patriots' "elite" monicker should stay in a hip pocket for a while longer. this team may go 13-3 or 12-4. with a schedule that turns out to be much tougher than last year's W-L records suggested. before the season i had us at 10-6. that ain't really "best of the rest" territory.
pats/redsox fans tend to get too high and too low. IMO patriots win that game by 10 points with 2 interceptions instead of 4. look at the box score. time of possession, average yds per play, etc the dolts didn't win it, we gave that game away.

Re: Sunday's Game
 

Thoughts from the game:

In the first half it seemed that every time the Pats made a stop a penalty took it away. I was happy with the halftime score.

(I am not complaining about the refs. I realize the Pats were given that 1st down at the end of the first half.)

5 turnovers and still in the game at the end. That was an accomplishment.

BB has a pair going for it on 4th and 3 in the first quarter. I would have taken 3, and still think that kicking it is the way to go. I'd much rather my coach be unafraid of failure though.

Harrison's juggle and drag the toes touchdown catch was awesome. I don't think #1 receivers are worth the money, but that is the type of play #1s make.

Peyton is either amazing good when getting hit or was unbelievably lucky last night. It seemed like every time he got hit while throwing, and it happened quite a few times, the ball got just enough on it.

I loved Brady evading Freeney and getting the 1st. freeney didn't seem ready for brady to hold onto the ball, and was only above to shove him.

Peyton went down pretty easily. A rusher would get an arm on him and that was enough to take him down.

I was shaking my head wondering why they weren't running the ball more.

Against most teams last night was an ugly win. Indy was simply too good.

Re: Sunday's Game
 

oh, another thought. On harrison's catch NBC was so convinced BB would challenge it that they went to commercial. The announcer kept saying that the Pats had to challenge it. I assume I wasn't the only one who thought "Belichick really values timeouts, who says they have to challenge this?"

I got a good laugh when they cut back to the game, surprised that BB didn't throw the flag. I love having a coach who knows the value of a timeout and won't just toss the flag because he wishes the play didn't happen.

Re: Sunday's Game
 

I thought they should have challenged. Yes, in a fraction of a second, he got control and dragged his feet, but the way I saw the replay, he got control AFTER he dragged his feet

Re: Sunday's Game
 

Good post PatsFanSince74. I was reading the Monday Morning QB spins and ran across Don Banks' article Snap Judgement on SI.com. Any way, Don begins the article with:

Substitute Bears with Patriots and tell me it's not true that we all aren't looking at the Pats and Colts a whole lot differently today.

Re: Sunday's Game
 

really? wow, when i watched it i thought there was no way it wasn't a catch. then again, i admit to being confused as to the NFL's interpretation of what a catch is. if wiggins didn't catch that ball last week maybe harrison's wasn't a catch.

A couple more thoughts:

i think no differently about the Pats than I did last week. they lost a game where they turned the ball over 5 times. no team survives that unless they're playing arizona. The only concession I'll make is that after the last two denver games and now this game (last year's indy game doesn't really count) the Pats no longer seem invincible in big games.

The D line got really good pressure all night. that was nice to see.

Re: Sunday's Game
 

I agree and I also believe it would have been his second (and last) challenge. So, the Colts would have gotten a TD and we would have lost a TO and the option to challenge later in the game.