Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by SVN, Oct 8, 2007.
Well stated by Romeo and he's spot on.
"You play to win the game!"
So when the Colts score late its running up the score. But when NE does it, it's called "playing to win the game".
How about if you don't turn everything into "Colts". Jesus. I frequent a Browns board but am smart enough to when when to play my card vs. when not to. Quit it.
Well I can go back to liking Romeo again. I've been rooting against the Browns up until now with them on our schedule but they're in the rear view mirror now.
Those words have never come out from me on this message board. So, please direct this to those on the board that say this about the Colts.
Always loved Romeo. I saw some good things out of the Browns yesterday. Loved how they never gave up and tried making a late run.
I still think they need quality depth in the backfield.
yes, why does EVERYTHING have to turn into the colts?
Come on Ryan, when "so far ahead" is ONLY 10 POINTS it's just called football.
There was still a minute left. The Browns have home-run potential with the likes of Braylon Edwards. They hit one long pass, suddenly you're looking at an onside kick with just a 3-point lead. You have to go for the touchdown to secure the victory.
As for pass vs. run, I'm sure BB & co. would have rather stuck with the ground game except for the little problem that scoring running touchdowns has been this team's one glaring weakness through week 5.
Why don't you go back to tipping cows or whatever you rural hicks do in Indiana? By the way, this is the New England Patriots message board not the Indianapolis Colts message board.
No cow tipping in Providence. Or that I know of.
I agree with the poster who said it wasn't running up the score or whatever.
Ryan, we've come to expect more of you here.
First, in an NFL game, with grown men playing for millions of dollars, I have no problem with "running up the score" for statistical or other reasons.
Second, Kicking a FG in that situation is more "running up the score" than going for a TD.
Why? Because, a FG has almost no utility in that situation - it still would've been a two-score game. Therefore, the FG would have been empty points - purely statistical, with limited value in the game.
A TD, on the other hand, would've effectively ended the game. As it was, we got stopped and they had to go 95 yards, score, and then score again - impossible. So, trying to definitively end the game is not running up the score, but I think you knew that and are just trying to stir things up.
Their paranoid, they are scared ! Why else would they be watching all the threads here instead of joining in on their own circle jerk on their own forum. Hard to get off when your scared !
No offense to the ladies.
I was scratching my head a bit about why BB didn't go for the FG, which I think would have effectively sealed the game (i.e., it's would have forced Cleveland to need 2 TDs instead of 1 TD and a FG). In the end, I think BB was just trying to avoid the risk of a Clevelend blocking the FG and running it back for a TD (no cheap scores).
In a similar vein, I think Hanson was punting out of bounds just to avoid Cribbs.
Um, it was a 10 point game. What in the world do you want the Patriots to do? I don't think anyone here would knock the Colts for scoring in a 10 point game.
Separate names with a comma.