The refs killed us AGAIN!

[Fogbuster]

They made a great call when Wayne tripped over himself.

I was going to mention that. Also, the TD catch on the end line of the end zone, which the Colts challenged, it could have gone either way, it was so close (from my p-poor TV view).

The TB call was bad, as was the offensive PI on Troy. Ultra ticky-tacky.

No doubt that Polian and others put a ton of bugs in the ears of the refs about Patriot "thuggery" of receivers, especially Colts guys. That's what took away a lot of our aggressiveness on pass D. Rules need some tweaking.


//

 

[oldskool138]

I was going to mention that. Also, the TD catch on the end line of the end zone, which the Colts challenged, it could have gone either way, it was so close (from my p-poor TV view).

The TB call was bad, as was the offensive PI on Troy. Ultra ticky-tacky.

No doubt that Polian and others put a ton of bugs in the ears of the refs about Patriot "thuggery" of receivers, especially Colts guys. That's what took away a lot of our aggressiveness on pass D. Rules need some tweaking.


//

The pass D was plenty aggressive in the first half. I think Dean Pees played soft (not to lose) in the second half. I like Pees but I think he, along with McD got too gun-shy over the course of the game.

 

[frankiesfly]

Ok, No one else is saying it, so I am....The REFS wanted Pay-A-Ton to win...

Before you start jumping down my throat, lets take a quick look at a few key plays:

1) Pass Interference on Hobbs in the End Zone, Ball placed on the one.

Um...since when does jumping straight up, not touching the reciever at all and the ball hitting your back become Pass interfeierence => result led to 7 Points.

2) 3rd and 6 Colts Drive, an Offsides penalty on Pats gives the Colts a first down

Ok, last Time I checked, Offsides was only worth 5 yards, not 6? The refs said the spot was wrong and just gave it to them...=> result led to 7 Points

3) Offensive Pass Interference on Troy Brown after Watson had a first down at the 19

...That is so bogus after the Hobbs call, Troy didn't even touch him after 5 yards???? led to us punting after another bogus motion call and a Brady sack => Result No Pats TD and put us out of even FG range!

4) Banta-Cain gets hit with a roughing the passer Penalty, 15 yards and first down

I do admit that Banta-Cain was hitting Manning hard, but on that exact call he was blocked and just managed to bump him with his back...Ummm that was pure crap => result led to 7 Points

And the 2 Illegal motion and shift calls we had against us at critical times that were called when we had first downs, the one at the end of the game really stings...we could have run the clock out!

It was the pats to win or lose in the end, but they wouldn't be in that spot if the refs didn't put them there....How many times in critical games have the refs cost us in the past 2 years? how many Rule changes have they made because of us? lets face it, they want some one else to win, not the PATS.
:bricks:

I agree with ya.

 

[ajmitch81]

Look at the positives - and I'm digging here... But if the Colts win the title perhaps the NFL will finally stop trying to force feed Peyton Manning down our throats.

If this happens then maybe the NFL can go back to normal, and less emphasis will be placed on enforcing rules that allow a team like the Colts (and only the Colts) to run a perfect game plan each week with minimal obstruction from the defense.

Maybe our CB's will be allowed to be physical again, imagine that.....

Wishful thinking I'm sure, but what the heck...

 

[Gunnails]

Look at the positives - and I'm digging here... But if the Colts win the title perhaps the NFL will finally stop trying to force feed Peyton Manning down our throats.

If this happens then maybe the NFL can go back to normal, and less emphasis will be placed on enforcing rules that allow a team like the Colts (and only the Colts) to run a perfect game plan each week with minimal obstruction from the defense.

Maybe our CB's will be allowed to be physical again, imagine that.....

Wishful thinking I'm sure, but what the heck...

==========================================

Great point.

 

[PatrioticDynasty]

OK all,
I brought this topic to discussion not to whine, or complain, but to make my feelings about the post season officiating for The Pats in the last 2 years. My main point being that I just wanted a fair game played and not one that COULD be decided by the officials, That is not what they are there for...

They are there as police of the actual game played to supervise and assure that one side is not bending the rules or cheating, to make a fair game. Over the course of the Super Bowl era and the implementation of instant replay, they have become judges that are scrutinized on a microscopic level to the tenth degree.

The rules on which the game is based on has evolved into a rock-em sock-em score fest with most advantages now in favor of the Offensive teams BECAUSE of the tactical Defensive schemes that BB has implemented since his tenure with the patriots: changes to Hand checking, hands on receivers, bumping downfield, Pass interference, field goal blocks and blowing up the center, if receiver and defender catch ball at the same time, The tuck rule, Roughing the passer, hitting passer below Knees, 5 second max run-off of clock on any field goal attempt, and many more changes since 2001 SB.

That is what I am Pissed about, I know we lost and we gave it our all, I Just want to know who holds the refs accountable when they don't police a game, but are forced or coerced into making rash judgments...

I know They are human, and humans make mistakes, and can be manipulated...
EX: I agree if Caldwell would have jumped up and down they would have thrown the flag, but why does it have to come to that? Why do they have to huddle for 5 min then say "there was no penalty on that play" why can't they stick to their guns...why are the rules now put forth if they are unsure about a play it is ruled incomplete to cover their *****, don't blow the whistle, let the play continue, or inadvertent whistle...opps sorry. No I beg to differ and that is what I am sick of....

I am a Patriots Fan from '73, I've sat in the crappy metal bleachers with my rain frozen ***** stuck to that bench, I have nothing to whine about...

I just want an Officiating overhaul, there is only so many amendments to a rule before it becomes ridiculous and the game isn't a game anymore...

I want to thank all the participants in my post, most of you had some good points, I just want the football that I remembered as a kid, That's all...

PD

 

[spacecrime]

Losing that game in the manner that we did hurts a lot. Give the guy some slack. He is hurt, too.

You can go back and see the post I replied to, but I can tell you that I gave him slack when he said the refs cost us the game. It was when he said people who complain that the refs cost us the game weren't whining, that the slack grew taut.

Yeah, they feel bad and lash out. Fine. But they are still lashing out and crying like little girls after a boy put a frog down their dress.

Losing like we did hurts me, too. But I see no reason we can't say that the COlts outplayed us BECAUSE THEY DID! Anyone who watched the second half and cannot say the Colts outplayed us is in denial. And if they say we played better but the refs cost us the game, they are in denial and stupid. And whining.

Pats fans take a lot of heat for being arrogant, and that is cool. I would hate to think that from now on we will be pissy little whiners and teh Colts fans be arrogant.

 

[PatrioticDynasty]

..... But they are still lashing out and crying like little girls after a boy put a frog down their dress......
Pats fans take a lot of heat for being arrogant, and that is cool. I would hate to think that from now on we will be pissy little whiners and teh Colts fans be arrogant.

What the hell man? did you not read my last post? I NEVER said the colts didn't outplay us....Did you watch the game? From your reaction you are ok with everything that happened I assume, If I am wrong then Please clarify...

For the last time, it is over, done deal...Why make nasty and unintelligent Remarks about my reaction to the Game? you can dispute it, or have some kind of intelligent riposte besides "frogs down their dress" that is very sophomorical man....

*Also, since when it is cool to be arrogant? I don't think any Patriot player is arrogant, there maybe a few immature rookies; but the majority of the team from the holder to the GM are nothing but confident well spoken Men who don't put anyone under the bus, even in the loss they showed nothing but class.....where is the arrogance in that?

PD.

 

[MrBigglesWorth]

I cant tell you how many times, in the second half, I yelled at the TV screen, "Get the hell out of that damned "soft" defense."

The soft defense had to do with no pass rush, look at the tape on the drive right before half time. no pass rush there. that's when it started.

have to play soft when rashad baker in there. and look how dallas clark got behind the defense?

 

[Oswlek]

Thats my point...and that is why I was yelling to get the hell out of the soft defense. They stopped rushing Manning.... And with Manning, you cant do that.

Sometimes, IMO, if you know you may have a weakness in the secondary, you need to apply the pressure on the Qb, forcing him tomove, maybe be one second off, and who knows what might happen..

But when you go soft, like they did, it can only come back and haunt you when its a team like the Colts who are willing to open up their offense at any time, and, of course, the no huddle....which makes we say again..

Was Josh McDaniels sitting around all day with his head up his ass ..why not use the no huddle for the Pats too, especially when the offense was stagnant in the 2nd half.

This game, and a key, key game at that, was lost by the coaches, much moreso than the players.

NEM, the pass rush did not stop because of play calling, it stopped because the defense did not have the speed to get by guys not the strength to go through them.

It was not poor play calling. In fact, NE sent more than 4 men very often in the second half. They just didn't get there.

 

[Oswlek]

There really was very little, if any, stunting, or movement, from the defensive line, and/or linebackers.

I never saw a safety even move up in the 2nd half.

We really backed off and played it way, too soft, and as I said, from early in the 3rd quarter, all I kept yelling at the tv were the words, "get the hell out of that soft defense."

The point is that the guys were gassed. There was no strategy that was going to help them improve. They were done.

 

[Oswlek]

Yeah, the Pats offense never let them get off the field long enough to catch a breath......

And yet you criticize the decision to go away from the hurry up offense.......

Everyone makes mistakes, but you have taken ctritiquing to an art form, NEM.

 

[Oswlek]

The hurry up offense, IMO, would have kept our offense ont he field longer because I believe we would have moved the ball, beenmore successful, and probably scored more points.

You, obvioulsy didnt look deep enough into the reason we needed to go to the no huddle.

Without the no huddle, in the 2nd half, we had 7 posessions, and the longest one was for only 6 plays in total.....

In the regular huddle offense, we were giving the Colts defense enough time to make substitutions, based on the situation, and to adjust at the line...

The no huddle, while maybe taking a few seconds less per play, overaall may have been more succesful, and may have double the number of plays lwe lran , per series, and taken more time off the clock while netting more points and thus, giving the defense more time to rest, especially if a conversion after TD was required.

So, in your hast to criticize me, you really dont see the potential positive side of going to the no huddle.

If it had worked, which I believe that it would have, then the time of the posessions by the Pats would have been much longer, in time, than the measly seconds they used in their posessions using the huddle offense.

So, as you see, the crtique you were , allegedly, accusing me of making no sense, makes a lot of sense if you take a few moments to absorb it and not attempt to make your comment personal.

I am sure that you would much rather have had two touchdowns instead of squandering eight points and only getting two field goals, in the second half, and the o huddle just may have been the tool that could have furnished thos points...and adding those eight points, correct me if I am wrong..WE WIN THE GAME...right?

The thing is, unless NE is so successful that they are byond reproach....you have the same criticism after every game. It is hard to take someone seriously when they have the same answer regardless of the circumstances surrounding the team.

 

[MrBigglesWorth]

There really was very little, if any, stunting, or movement, from the defensive line, and/or linebackers.

I never saw a safety even move up in the 2nd half.

We really backed off and played it way, too soft, and as I said, from early in the 3rd quarter, all I kept yelling at the tv were the words, "get the hell out of that soft defense."

Dallas Clark got behind the safeties at the end of the game. If they brought a safety up they would have gotten burned more.

Also they has Rashad Baker in the game. Hawkins was fatigued.

Didn't have the personnel

 

[MrBigglesWorth]

The hurry up offense, IMO, would have kept our offense ont he field longer because I believe we would have moved the ball, beenmore successful, and probably scored more points.

You, obvioulsy didnt look deep enough into the reason we needed to go to the no huddle.

Without the no huddle, in the 2nd half, we had 7 posessions, and the longest one was for only 6 plays in total.....

In the regular huddle offense, we were giving the Colts defense enough time to make substitutions, based on the situation, and to adjust at the line...

The no huddle, while maybe taking a few seconds less per play, overaall may have been more succesful, and may have double the number of plays lwe lran , per series, and taken more time off the clock while netting more points and thus, giving the defense more time to rest, especially if a conversion after TD was required.

So, in your hast to criticize me, you really dont see the potential positive side of going to the no huddle.

If it had worked, which I believe that it would have, then the time of the posessions by the Pats would have been much longer, in time, than the measly seconds they used in their posessions using the huddle offense.

So, as you see, the crtique you were , allegedly, accusing me of making no sense, makes a lot of sense if you take a few moments to absorb it and not attempt to make your comment personal.

I am sure that you would much rather have had two touchdowns instead of squandering eight points and only getting two field goals, in the second half, and the no huddle just may have been the tool that could have furnished those points...and adding those eight points, correct me if I am wrong..WE WIN THE GAME...right?

Now, can we say, for sure, that is what would have happened? No, of cours enot..but the offesne wasnt going anywhere with what was being tried. Common sense says, if it aint working, try something else.. Would you agree with that?

So, the no huddle was an option that wasnt even tried by Josh. Ignorance, stubborness, stupidity??? I dont know. But what I do know is that something needed to be changed, and it wasnt, plain and simple.

Well I think you're right. I don't think the Pats should ahve changed personnel at all. After all there was no Kevin Faulk, no Dillon, Jackson barely plays. So I think they should stay with the basic 3 wr formation with Evans or Maroney in the backfield. Afterall if first down doesn't work with 3 wr formation then 2nd down should work, and if 2nd doesn't work try the same formation with the 3rd. You're bound to trick the Colts eventually. You don't need variety.