If I ever thought Prisco made sense...

[ALP]

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?

doesnt matter which game prisco is talking about, he referred to last seasons AFCCG and he said something completely stupid about it...i dont get why ur defending the article...do YOU also think our offense last yr had nothing to do with the poor showing of our Defense in the second half of the colts game?

 

[Fixit]

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?

Excuse me, I think you dropped something:

Did that have anything to do with Brady not having good receivers? Didn't think so.

If Brady had anything resembling what they have now, Indy gets blown out last year. Having good receivers means more first downs and more time of possession. It means that your defense gets more rest, therefore they play better when they do take the field. And you may have missed this bit of football trivia, but when your team has the ball, the other team's offense tends to be on the sidelines.

This is not that difficult to grasp. Prisco said that Brady's lack of receivers had nothing to do with Indy winning the AFCCG. That's flat-out ******ed.

 

[alamo]

This is not that difficult to grasp. Prisco said that Brady's lack of receivers had nothing to do with Indy winning the AFCCG. That's flat-out ******ed.

Actually, he never once in that article said anything about why Indy won that game, because that's not the question he was answering. Of course if Brady had scored more points in the second half then we would have won, but that's irrelevent to his article. He was pointing out that Indy has in the past shown ability which might next week allow them to keep up with the Patriots scoring machine.

I continue to insist that this entire thread is based on reading things into that article which aren't there, simply because some people here will disparage certain authors without even thinking about whether a particular article has any merit. Sorry, but Prisco/Borges/King/Easterbrook etc gained their reputations not because they are always wrong but because some of what they write is outrageous. Much of what they write is perfectly reasonable and sometimes even insightful. Anyone applying a simplistic "this guy's always an idiot" view is just showing how simplistic they themselves are.

 

[Fixit]

Actually, he never once in that article said anything about why Indy won that game, because that's not the question he was answering. Of course if Brady had scored more points in the second half then we would have won, but that's irrelevent to his article. He was pointing out that Indy has in the past shown ability which might next week allow them to keep up with the Patriots scoring machine.

I continue to insist that this entire thread is based on reading things into that article which aren't there, simply because some people here will disparage certain authors without even thinking about whether a particular article has any merit. Sorry, but Prisco/Borges/King/Easterbrook etc gained their reputations not because they are always wrong but because some of what they write is outrageous. Much of what they write is perfectly reasonable and sometimes even insightful. Anyone applying a simplistic "this guy's always an idiot" view is just showing how simplistic they themselves are.

You're actually worrying me. How can one misread this?

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.

He's directly stating that Brady's lack of receivers had nothing whatsoever to do with Indy hanging 32 in the second half.

Not to mention, his key for how Indy can beat New England is "you have to outscore them." That's some cutting-edge stuff right there!

 

[ALP]

Actually, he never once in that article said anything about why Indy won that game, because that's not the question he was answering. Of course if Brady had scored more points in the second half then we would have won, but that's irrelevent to his article. He was pointing out that Indy has in the past shown ability which might next week allow them to keep up with the Patriots scoring machine.

I continue to insist that this entire thread is based on reading things into that article which aren't there, simply because some people here will disparage certain authors without even thinking about whether a particular article has any merit. Sorry, but Prisco/Borges/King/Easterbrook etc gained their reputations not because they are always wrong but because some of what they write is outrageous. Much of what they write is perfectly reasonable and sometimes even insightful. Anyone applying a simplistic "this guy's always an idiot" view is just showing how simplistic they themselves are.

man, i sure hope you misunderstood the article and just dont want to see it...mistakes are made, relax...
im not trying to bash on anyone...but Prisco clearly says that the pats lack of receivers had nothing wutsoever to do with the Colts success on the offensive side of the ball...which all common sense shows it does....

rit? u just missed that part, which happens...the subject of the article IS, u are right, about this seasons game and how the colts can beat the pats...but he does mention about last years playoff game...

 

[bradmahn]

man, i sure hope you misunderstood the article and just dont want to see it...mistakes are made, relax...
im not trying to bash on anyone...but Prisco clearly says that the pats lack of receivers had nothing wutsoever to do with the Colts success on the offensive side of the ball...which all common sense shows it does....

rit? u just missed that part, which happens...the subject of the article IS, u are right, about this seasons game and how the colts can beat the pats...but he does mention about last years playoff game...

Whoops. Forget about that.

 

[Patriotic Fervor]

Actually, he never once in that article said anything about why Indy won that game, because that's not the question he was answering. Of course if Brady had scored more points in the second half then we would have won, but that's irrelevent to his article. He was pointing out that Indy has in the past shown ability which might next week allow them to keep up with the Patriots scoring machine.

I continue to insist that this entire thread is based on reading things into that article which aren't there, simply because some people here will disparage certain authors without even thinking about whether a particular article has any merit. Sorry, but Prisco/Borges/King/Easterbrook etc gained their reputations not because they are always wrong but because some of what they write is outrageous. Much of what they write is perfectly reasonable and sometimes even insightful. Anyone applying a simplistic "this guy's always an idiot" view is just showing how simplistic they themselves are.

This article is more than a bit like reading some intelligentsia journals in 1938 stating that, if there is another war, France will prevail because of the Maginot Line.

This guy guy is still fighting last year's war. A lot of things have changed, on both sides of the ball. Truly, in this case, the past is prologue.

Even in the best of circumstances (!), a shoot out strategy is risky at best, and a prescription for disaster at worst.

But I, for one, hope that Prisco is working on the game plan with Dungy, and it follows these lines.

Of course, it won't follow that script in real life, because there's a reason why Dungy does what he does in life, and Prisco does what he does.

This was not a particularly insightful article, but then, Prisco is hardly an insightful writer.

 

[Joker]

Insightful Colt fan is an oxymoron