Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by shmessy, Oct 17, 2007.
Wow! Just wow!
Now we all know that simple extrapolations can often lead to ridiculously wrong conclusions (projecting the height of your 4 yr old at adulthood based on the current growth rate) but the stats DO illustrate how freakin' dominating and rapacious this club is. On a freakin' tear.
it is very impressive but so so early...
Let's be cautious for sure, but you know, it's not really THAT early anymore.
Obviously, injuries can ruin anything. But after the Redskins a week from Sunday, we're halfway there, with 3 more of these division games to come in the second half. It's not that early.
Pats are definitely on a tear. Not quite as good as mid season '04 for the Colts, but pretty close
Actually, they are ahead.
But NE plays quite a few games up north come late Nov and Dec so I don't expect them to end at that level.
congratulations for this thread being turned into another colt related thread.
I guess it depends on how you define it, but mid season of '04 from about week 5 to 13, pick any 6 game stretch and the O was dominating. Here's some stuff that someone came up with:
"133 - 195-1875 yards and 27 TD's and 4 INT's for a 130 passer rating.Our offense scored 28 TD's OVER THAT SIX GAME STRETCH!
Brady is 148-204 1771 yards 21 TD's and 2 INT's(amazing) for a 128.9 rating.The NE offense has scored 26 TD's.
In that season,the Colts are the only team in history to have 3 wr's to go over a 1000 yards and have at least 10 TD's each.NE's 3 wr's are not going to come close to that.Also,Edge had almost 1600 yrds rushing that year and our TE's(clark and Pollard) had 11 TD's."
Nothing more than a reprint from the ColdHardFootballFacts website.
3 Points Baby, 3 Points for the Colts offense against backup Patriots cornerbacks.
See, that's the difference between Colts fans and Pats fans. What difference does it make as to who's scoring them, as long as they are scoring them?
Yes! We absolutely got our ass kicked that day. There are probably some Colts fans out there that would be willing to break that one down to the whys and wherefores. In '03, before the game, I stated before the game started that the only way we lose is if the refs screw us. Some say that was the case. In '04, as soon as CBS came on the air live, I knew it was over. Dark and cold brotha. The bio-rhythms just weren't there. Two biggest eggs ever laid, 41-0 and 21-3.
And you ARE scoring them at a slightly slower pace than that stretch for the Colts.
I think NE could actually get there. The RB numbers won't look quite as good, but I think Welker and Stallworth might continue their hot streak for awhile. And all RMoss has to do is show up.
We should be talking about this maybe in week 15.
For now I just want to enjoy the show.
As in, "Getcha pop coan ready"??
Why don't we compare apples to apples instead of a portion of the season? First six games of the 2004 NFL season for the Colts and the first six games of the 2007 NFL season for the Patriots:
Sure, go right ahead. It just so happens that our pansies came in that stretch b/w games 5-13
It just so happens that the Colts defense of 2004 does not even come close in comparison to the Patriots defense of 2007.
which is why this PATS team, is LIGHTYEARS better then the colts TEAM...
and we ALL know football is a TEAM game rit?
Unfortunately, some Colts fans don't understand the word defense.
Well, honestly though, a lot of the focus has been on the offense. Of course, low point totals for the opposition help with the margin of victory. That is probably just as much a function of the largely inept QB's you have faced.
Your D-Line is certainly better at stuffing the run, But on back, I wouldn't say you guys are light years ahead. AT is a very nice addition, so I cannot ignore that. Luckily, it's OUR O that plays your D. In any event, am looking forward to this upcoming challenge. I'm just glad to be able to say that I actually now can look forward to seeing our defense on the field. There are some playmakers, and they are fun to watch. The nice thing is, Jax gives us a nice tune up to polish the run D, and although Carolina is a bit weaker than expected, Steve Smith presents a nice warm up for our secondary. As long as our guys are still standing after those two road games, I think we have a shot.
This is football viagra at it's best! If you erection does not subside in four hours
please see your doctor immediately!
Tony Romo was good enough to beat the Colts last year.
I hardly consider Carson Palmer inept.
You should hardly talk about the lame ass offenses the Colts defense have played this year. The Colts defense have faced the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Houston Texans without their best running back(s) and the Houston Texans and the Denver Broncos without their best wide receiver. Meanwhile, the Tennessee Titans wide receivers do not scare anyone in the NFL and the New Orleans Saints offense did nothing their first four games of the 2007 NFL season.
Wins, 16 (currently 15 by three teams)
Points, 613 (currently 556 by 1998 Vikings)
Point differential, +23.0 PPG (currently +19.8 by 1962 Packers)
Touchdown passes, 56 (currently 51 by 2004 Colts)
Touchdowns, 77 (currently 70 by 1984
Moss was on that 98 vikings team with carter yes.....hmmm.
but really, nobody sets season long records after week 6. If they come, fine. If they don't, fine. As long as we're playing in february, i'm good.
2007 Pats: 230 points in 6 games.
1990 Pats: 181 points in 16 games.
1991 Pats: 211 points in 16 games.
1992 Pats: 205 points in 16 games.
Granted those teams were awful, but outscoring those teams in just over one-third of the amount of games in nuts.
Where'd you squirrel away those stats?
I did. And now my Doctor has one too!
P.S. "in nuts" -> "is nuts". Oops.
Attended a few of the '92 games, and they were awful but loveable. It took the Pats 10 games to get their first win, against Indy and they only had 2 wins all year. We had Scott Zolak at QB in one of those wins. I don't know why we didn't keep him, instead of drafting some guy named Drew......
Separate names with a comma.