Are Colts more formidable than Broncos?

[Rob0729]

They have the top scoring offense in the league.

And they still looked like the better team through about 6 games or so. Sorry if that upsets you, but to my eyes, they did. Doesn't mean the Pats can't or won't win this game, but until the past few games the Pats did not look very impressive. As I recall, plenty of Pats fans thought the same thing.

You do realize over the last five games, the Pats have been scoring about 10 more points a game than the Colts (40.2 PPG for the Pats vs. 30.8 PPG for the Colts since week 4)? So over the last five games, the Pats have had the top scoring offense in the league. The difference is the Colts started with two bad games and the Pats started with four.

And even if you count the entire season, the Colts are scoring one more point a game than the Patriots. The Colts have scored 32.2 PPG this year and the Pats have scored 31.2 PPG.

 

[sb1]

If any Colts fans are visiting... what's the deal with LaVon Brazill? Had a nice game against the Patriots in Foxboro in the playoffs, failed a PED test, the Colts released him, and now he's playing up in Canada. That couldn't have been the only reason the Colts released him was it?

 

[PatsFanSince74]

The colts are 2 years away IMO from being true contenders. Luck is absolutely carrying that team

I have no idea what that means. Two years? "True contenders?" Good QB's "carry" their teams all the time. Good Coaching makes up for many other deficits, plus a little luck (no pun intended) and a few calls going your way.

Two years is an eternity in an NFL, where the future is always now. On paper, the 2001 Pats were a long way away from being contenders for an SB in October, but we all know how that turned out. No one thought the 07 Giants were going to contend in November and we also, unfortunately, know how that turned out.

 

[RIpats88]

I think the colts are overrated quite honestly. they have no defense and they have beat up the bad teams of the league which they are supposed to. they let Ben Roethlisberger light them up for 6td's. the guy who couldnt score on JETS yesterday. every playoff type team they have played they have lost to.

1. I dont see the Colts defense stopping this patriots offense, especially in a Dome. their main passrusher is gone for the season. I expect a big game for brady/Gronk

2. Luck is good for a couple of bone-headed throws/mistakes a game which should give our secondary interception opportunities.

 

[Oswlek]

I have no idea what that means. Two years? "True contenders?" Good QB's "carry" their teams all the time. Good Coaching makes up for many other deficits, plus a little luck (no pun intended) and a few calls going your way.

Two years is an eternity in an NFL, where the future is always now. On paper, the 2001 Pats were a long way away from being contenders for an SB in October, but we all know how that turned out. No one thought the 07 Giants were going to contend in November and we also, unfortunately, know how that turned out.

In 2001 NE was voted by NFL GMs to be the least likely team to win a SB in the next 5 years. They won three.

Any team good enough to consistently make the playoffs is good enough to win the SB. We fans just love to retroactively pretend there is some magic formula that explains all the odd bounces. That's why I will never buy into the whole "championship caliber" nonsense. Indy had the worst run defense in the history of the league in 2006. Championship caliber? The Giants had a negative point differential in 2011. Championship caliber? Every team has parts that aren't championship caliber. Even bad ones have parts that are. And there are no bad teams playing in January.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

...

I look for the Pats to be a three point favorite when the lines come out on Sunday.

So, I woke today to see that Vegas has the Pats as 3 point dogs. What do the smart money guys know that I don't know?

Do they assume that this is the only way to get people to bet on the Pats? But, folks who know the game know that Luck is a gunslinger whom a BB defense is designed to exploit for turnovers.

Home Field? The Pats know Lucas as well as all but their Divisional opponents fields.

If this doesn't get close to PK by game day, I'll admit that I truly know nothing about betting on NFL games.

Then, I saw that Peter King had the same thought in MMQB this morning: "As if anyone needed another lesson, gambling on football is fool’s gold; the Steelers looked like the ’07 Patriots the last two weeks and came to the Meadowlands to play a team on an eight-game losing streak—and Pittsburgh got drilled. We wake this morning to learn the 2014 Patriots, nearly flawless the past five games, are field-goal ‘dogs at Indianapolis Sunday night. Keep your money in your pocket. I repeat, keep your money in your pocket."

That's why I'm so grateful to Alamo for his weekly contest...it gives me a place to "bet" without throwing my money away.

 

[A man named Brady]

I have no idea what that means. Two years? "True contenders?" Good QB's "carry" their teams all the time. Good Coaching makes up for many other deficits, plus a little luck (no pun intended) and a few calls going your way.

Two years is an eternity in an NFL, where the future is always now. On paper, the 2001 Pats were a long way away from being contenders for an SB in October, but we all know how that turned out. No one thought the 07 Giants were going to contend in November and we also, unfortunately, know how that turned out.

True contender is a team that can win the championship. They don't have all the pieces yet, especially on defense. And no, no QB can carry a bad team to a championship. They would be one of the worse teams in the league without him

 

[A man named Brady]

There's a large gap between the Broncos/Patriots and everyone else in the AFC. Teams like the Ravens,Colts,Steelers,Chiefs, are all good but have serious holes and flaws.

To use a wrestling phrase, those teams are mid carders

 

[PatsFanSince74]

In 2001 NE was voted by NFL GMs to be the least likely team to win a SB in the next 5 years. They won three.

Any team good enough to consistently make the playoffs is good enough to win the SB. We fans just love to retroactively pretend there is some magic formula that explains all the odd bounces. That's why I will never buy into the whole "championship caliber" nonsense. Indy had the worse run defense in the history of the league in 2006. Championship caliber? The Giants had a negative point differential in 2011. Championship caliber? Every team has parts that aren't championship caliber. Even bad ones have parts that are. And there are no bad teams playing in January.

Absolutely agree.

The difference between success and failure is a QB, Coaching, a few plays that get made or don't get made and then a couple of good calls/breaks.

The 06 Colts had Peyton Manning up against a really weak NFC champion after a call went their way on fourth down against the Pats in the AFCCG. The Giants got the benefit of a miracle catch and a couple of non-calls for holding on the same damn play in 08 and then the Welker drop and a great Eli--Manningham throw and catch in 11. Both teams put themselves in a position to win and then figured out how to do so. And, just to be clear, they fully deserved to do so: the above is not "sour grapes," just saying that "it is what it is," much as the Tuck call reversal "was what it was."

And, indeed, there are "no bad teams playing in January." That's why I've always admired Kraft's simply and oft-stated objective for the Pats going into each season: win the Division be competitive in the Playoffs. Not, "be the #1 or #2 seed" or "win the SB." Just be one of the good teams playing in January and take it from there.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

True contender is a team that can win the championship. They don't have all the pieces yet, especially on defense. And no, no QB can carry a bad team to a championship. They would be one of the worse teams in the league without him

"a team that can win the championship?" The Giants weren't "true contenders" in either 07 or 11.

No team, in the cap and FA era, can, by definition "have all the pieces." The 01 Pats sure as heck didn't. Nor did the 06 Colts nor the 07/10 Giants. The 03, 04 and 07 Pats did have "all the pieces" and that worked two out of three times, but it's no guarantee, ever.

It's a truism that "no QB can carry a bad team to a championship," but the Colts this year are not a "bad team," and neither were those Giants teams nor that Colts team.

There are very few "bad teams" in the NFL; this year maybe three to five and we all know who they are. The Colts aren't one of them. So, we'll just have to disagree on that latter point.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

There's a large gap between the Broncos/Patriots and everyone else in the AFC. Teams like the Ravens,Colts,Steelers,Chiefs, are all good but have serious holes and flaws.

To use a wrestling phrase, those teams are mid carders

Every good team has flaws, and the Pats flaws have been discussed at length out here. The Broncos alone have mortgaged the future to minimize their current flaws to try to squeeze one more run out of their investment in Peyton (who, at 38 is the same age as was Elway when he retired).

As Parcells often says, "You are what your record says you are." Right now, I could see any one of Denver, Pats, Indy, KC and whichever team emerges from the bloodbath in the North in the AFCCG and going to the SB.

We know all about TB, BB and Peyton, but Luck and Andy Reid are real equalizers as well. Whoever wins the North will be battle-hardened and a real threat in the Playoffs.

It will come down to who's playing really well in December/January and avoids any big injuries; the Pats can afford no more major injuries, after losing Mayo and Ridley...TB goes without saying, but fingers especially firmly crossed for any one of Gronk, Revis and Wilfork, BTW, all of whom have lost seasons to injury before.

 

[PATSNUTme]

what we do know is with Andrew Luck playing, it's going to be an ugly game.

 

[RIpats88]

Defense wins championships usually, and I dont think the Colts have enough on that side of the ball to win one. You cant win a shoot-out every week. and Luck passes so much that they are bound to have some turnovers.

our secondary is just the one that can limit luck and cause some turnovers when Luck makes his boneheaded decisions.

 

[rochrist]

So, I woke today to see that Vegas has the Pats as 3 point dogs. What do the smart money guys know that I don't know?

Do they assume that this is the only way to get people to bet on the Pats? But, folks who know the game know that Luck is a gunslinger whom a BB defense is designed to exploit for turnovers.

Home Field? The Pats know Lucas as well as all but their Divisional opponents fields.

If this doesn't get close to PK by game day, I'll admit that I truly know nothing about betting on NFL games.

Then, I saw that Peter King had the same thought in MMQB this morning: "As if anyone needed another lesson, gambling on football is fool’s gold; the Steelers looked like the ’07 Patriots the last two weeks and came to the Meadowlands to play a team on an eight-game losing streak—and Pittsburgh got drilled. We wake this morning to learn the 2014 Patriots, nearly flawless the past five games, are field-goal ‘dogs at Indianapolis Sunday night. Keep your money in your pocket. I repeat, keep your money in your pocket."

That's why I'm so grateful to Alamo for his weekly contest...it gives me a place to "bet" without throwing my money away.

They know that's what it will take to even out the money.

 

[Oswlek]

They know that's what it will take to even out the money.

Seems like an odd point if that is your goal. NE is a public team and they just destroyed the Broncos.

I know it is widely stated that lines are set purely to balance betting, but I've heard of numerous times when Vegas set trap bets.

 

[rochrist]

Seems like an odd point if that is your goal. NE is a public team and they just destroyed the Broncos.

I know it is widely stated that lines are set purely to balance betting, but I've heard of numerous times when Vegas set trap bets.

I don't know that much about the whole betting thing, but my understanding is that the Las Vegas line isn't an attempt to predict the game, but rather an attempt to draw roughly equal betting on both sides of the wager. If that part is right, who knows about the rest? I assume Indy with Luck is a pretty popular team, game is in Indy, lots of people hate the Pats... .shrug.

 

[Guts]

Bradshaw has been playing well usually those types of physical running backs have gave us problems if the run D sustains, I will feel very good about our chances to win at Indy. Not worried about our secondary Luck will get his yards, but I'm more than certain our boys will get a turnover. As for our offense not worried at all with Brady and Gronk fired up tough to stop

 

[Oswlek]

I don't know that much about the whole betting thing, but my understanding is that the Las Vegas line isn't an attempt to predict the game, but rather an attempt to draw roughly equal betting on both sides of the wager. If that part is right, who knows about the rest? I assume Indy with Luck is a pretty popular team, game is in Indy, lots of people hate the Pats... .shrug.

You are correct. It is not a prediction. But that doesn't mean they won't on occasion take advantage of situations when public opinion goes against insider information.

Indy is a popular team, but they aren't at the level that NE is. The Patriots are regularly given 1 to 1.5 points more than another team in their situation.

 

[chasa]

no

 

[PatsFanSince74]

They know that's what it will take to even out the money.

See my second point. I acknowledge that. My point is that, in this case, I don't get it.