Idle thoughts - The "on to Indy" edition

[Rob0729]

Indy beat the teams that were on their playoff schedule, one at home and one on the road. They couldn't do more than that.

I honestly think that too many of us have short memories. I remember a very similar situation in 2010 (meeting a team in the playoffs that the Pats humiliated a couple of months before) and the Jets crushed the hopes of all of us. The only difference is that this time the opponent has a QB that's dangerous.

The last team to go all in and win is the 2001 Pats, but you're right, there haven't been many.

Demarcus Where will be doing the same thing that Emanuel Sanders will be doing for the rest of the playoff season. Watching Danny Amendola play football.

No offense, but I hate when people bring up games from four years ago to counter the argument that a team the Pats are facing are not that good of a team. The Jets' comparison is only superficially relevant. Yes, it is a team that the Pats blew out in the regular season (they also lost to them in the regular season that year too which people fail to point out) and then lost to in the playoffs. Rex Ryan has had success against the Pats. Chuck Pagano and Andrew Luck have not. The Colts haven't even lost respectfully against the Patriots in their last three or four meetings. Their fortunes could change this weekend, but I doubt it.

BTW, I will counter with the Texans in 2012 where the Pats blew them out in the regular season and then went onto blowing them out in the playoffs.

Also, the 2001 Patriots were not an "all in" team. In fact, they were the opposite. They let the high price free agent walk (Chad Eaton) and replaced him with a bunch of scrap heap players or players considered over the hill at value prices. Going into the 2001 season, experts were touting the Pats as the worst team in football.

 

[1960Pats]

Right, but the point was more about the Colts and how much of Sunday's result is a credit to their play.....with the way the Broncos played, the Raiders would have beaten them.....in Denver

I was simply replying to your statement that Manning was awful. We all know (or should) that Manning plays poorly in the playoffs.

As for the rest, I didn't agree so I didn't feel the need to respond, mainly because it's possible that Indy had something to do with the poor play of the Broncos. I didn't feel the need to go back and forth over something so subjective.

 

[IllegalContact]

I was simply replying to your statement that Manning was awful. We all know (or should) that Manning plays poorly in the playoffs.

As for the rest, I didn't agree so I didn't feel the need to respond, mainly because it's possible that Indy had something to do with the poor play of the Broncos. I didn't feel the need to go back and forth over something so subjective.

I guess that's possible, but going by the after-effect in Denver, I'd have to say that Denver was the problem

 

[1960Pats]

No offense, but I hate when people bring up games from four years ago to counter the argument that a team the Pats are facing are not that good of a team. The Jets' comparison is only superficially relevant. Yes, it is a team that the Pats blew out in the regular season (they also lost to them in the regular season that year too which people fail to point out) and then lost to in the playoffs. Rex Ryan has had success against the Pats. Chuck Pagano and Andrew Luck have not. The Colts haven't even lost respectfully against the Patriots in their last three or four meetings. Their fortunes could change this weekend, but I doubt it.

Also, the 2001 Patriots were not an "all in" team. In fact, they were the opposite. They let the high price free agent walk (Chad Eaton) and replaced him with a bunch of scrap heap players or players considered over the hill at value prices. Going into the 2001 season, experts were touting the Pats as the worst team in football.

No offense, but I hate it when people post constant nonsense from the mouths of Felger and all the other dopesticks out there, but then I realize that we all have our crosses to bear so I let it go.

There are definitely similarities between the situations in 2010 and this game. Just because there are some differences it doesn't mean that the similarities don't exist. Plus, for all the differences that you claim make it better I can give you one that makes it worse. The QB then was Mark Sanchez.

The Pats brought in a record amount of FAs in 2001. Vrabel and Phifer turned out better than scrap heap players. So did a few others. I still talk to some of the "experts" who had the Pats written off back then, even as late as the playoffs. Who knows, you might have been one of those "experts" too. You probably gave our "scrap heap" players no chance against the Rams.

 

[1960Pats]

I guess that's possible, but going by the after-effect in Denver, I'd have to say that Denver was the problem

Maybe, maybe not. We do know that Manning and Talib sucked.

One thing I noticed during the game was the Indy OT's. They totally shut down the outside pass rush. Was that a result of poor play by Denver or great play by Indy?

 

[IllegalContact]

Maybe, maybe not. We do know that Manning and Talib sucked.

One thing I noticed during the game was the Indy OT's. They totally shut down the outside pass rush. Was that a result of poor play by Denver or great play by Indy?

The colts were playing with the lead most of the game, and Luck only attempted 7 passes that were not considered short (only 2 in the first half).......maybe it was unimpressive because they didn't have to show much to beat the broncos......the broncos appeared to have given up before the game was out of reach

the team seemed prepared for what was going to happen after the game....it's as though they did not want to make the trip to foxboro...at least Manning probably knew what that trip would bring given his physical issues, so he cashed out and so did the rest of the team. Here lies the problem staying with bread and butter until it is too old to be effective

 

[Rob0729]

No offense, but I hate it when people post constant nonsense from the mouths of Felger and all the other dopesticks out there, but then I realize that we all have our crosses to bear so I let it go.

There are definitely similarities between the situations in 2010 and this game. Just because there are some differences it doesn't mean that the similarities don't exist. Plus, for all the differences that you claim make it better I can give you one that makes it worse. The QB then was Mark Sanchez.

The Pats brought in a record amount of FAs in 2001. Vrabel and Phifer turned out better than scrap heap players. So did a few others. I still talk to some of the "experts" who had the Pats written off back then, even as late as the playoffs. Who knows, you might have been one of those "experts" too. You probably gave our "scrap heap" players no chance against the Rams.

First of all, I never parrot Felger. I have a long history of giving my own opinions on this site.

Also, Rex Ryan and Mark Sanchez had beaten the Patriots several times before the playoff game. The Jets have shown that they could beat the Pats. The Pats have blown out the Colts under Pagano and Luck every time they faced them.

And what I said about the 2001 Patriots was right. Vrabel and Phifer were scrap heap players who happened to flourish in a change of scenery and a new system. Going "all in" means you acquire a bunch of high priced, marquee free agents in a chance to win that year while sacrificing future years. What the Pats' did in 2001 was the opposite of that. They brought in a bunch of value priced free agents that no one wanted. Just because they brought in a lot of free agents doesn't mean they were "all in". They didn't mortgage the future of their cap to win in 2001.

 

[Rob0729]

Maybe, maybe not. We do know that Manning and Talib sucked.

One thing I noticed during the game was the Indy OT's. They totally shut down the outside pass rush. Was that a result of poor play by Denver or great play by Indy?

It might be because people overrated Demarcus Ware and Von Miller (the media does it too). You do realize since the Pats have acquired Akeem Ayers that he has as more sacks as Ware does over the same timeframe (4 vs. 3)? In fact over that timeframe, Von Miller only has two more sacks than Ayers and he has only had two sacks in the last five games.

The fact of the matter is the Broncos' pass rush was dominant early in the season and just average down the stretch. Shutting down their outside pass rush is not as impressive as some people think.

 

[Buchanty]

The colts were playing with the lead most of the game, and Luck only attempted 7 passes that were not considered short (only 2 in the first half).......maybe it was unimpressive because they didn't have to show much to beat the broncos......the broncos appeared to have given up before the game was out of reach.

Agreed, and I am sure that the Colts were well aware of it too. I did remark at the time that following both of Luck's INT he was completely relaxed at the turnovers, even to the point of smiling. I don't think he was just exhibiting comfort in throwing what everyone equated to two punts, I am convinced he knew he had the game in the bag.

 

[patfanken]

Just to further expand on your comment about the 2001 Pats, Rob. Early of that year. Pro Football Weekly (the NY Times of football journalism of that time) published an article where they listed the 5 teams LEAST likely to get to a superbowl in the next 5 years. #1 on that list was our own NE Patriots.

Among the reasons they gave was their bad record (5-11) bad previous drafts (under the Bobbie Grier regime., bad cap situation, and iffy HC whose last 2 seasons as a HC had been bad.. Not exactly an accurate prediction, but at the time there weren't too many Pats fans who would have complained about the analysis.

BTW- I think we all should be willing to admit that 2001 was our little outlier. Our year where everything broke right and all the stars lined up, and we caught all the breaks, much like it did for the Giants Packers and Ravens the years that they won, I bet Bill was surprised as anyone. IMO 2003 was supposed to be the year after 2 more years of building.. Its also my opinion that that 2002 team was more a reflection of where the team really was. It had better talent I thought, but wasn't nearly as good a TEAM and the record reflected it. BB put it all together in 2003

 

[SacPete1]

I would not underestimate the potential of the Colts for one second. They hammered Denver and given the calls that went against them and a few missed Int's, the score could easily have been a lot worse.

This year more than any other year I can remember has shown me that prior week's performance or a matchup earlier in the year cannot be relied on like maybe years' past as a measure of future performance.

When the Colts got blown out in Dallas, I thought there was no way they were going to win a game on the road the rest of the way.

That being said, it doesn't diminish my confidence in the Patriots this weekend mainly because there is no team as versatile and as resilient as them. I would love to see a comfortable win but I'm fully expecting the Colts to prepare and execute as well as they possibly can.

 

[pencilneckgeek]

It might be because people overrated Demarcus Ware and Von Miller (the media does it too). You do realize since the Pats have acquired Akeem Ayers that he has as more sacks as Ware does over the same timeframe (4 vs. 3)? In fact over that timeframe, Von Miller only has two more sacks than Ayers and he has only had two sacks in the last five games.

The fact of the matter is the Broncos' pass rush was dominant early in the season and just average down the stretch. Shutting down their outside pass rush is not as impressive as some people think.

I think that does more to illustrate the importance of complimentary football to the measurables that get bandied about to illustrate the quality of a player or unit than it points to a decline in Denver's defensive performance. The failings of Miller and Ware were reflective of an offense that was not as effective at blowing-out the opposition late in the year. The Denver offense was effective running the ball and did score enough to win, but they did not spend much of the second half of the season leading by double digits through most of the game, as they had during 6 of their first 8 games. As a result, Miller and Ware could not count on the quarterback dropping-back virtually every down, and therefore did not have the same chance to pad their stats by teeing-off without worrying about the run.

 

[tombonneau]

You're an idiot if you're dismissing Indy (not saying anyone here is, just in general). We won last game vs them cause of our running game. Indy was missing their 2 best dlinemen in Arthur Jones and Cory Redding. They will be active this week. We're not gonna be able to run nearly as effectively. And Stork is most likely out.

I guess I'm an idiot then.

Pats can of course lose, but man a lot would have to go wrong. Figure Luck is good for 2-3 turnovers for which he somehow gets a free pass. That alone should spell doom for Indy.

Yes they have some DL back and we'll be w/o Stork, but lineups have been different the last three times they've played and it hasn't mattered, BB just has Pagano/Luck figured out until I see otherwise. This couldn't have broken any better for the Pats.

 

[supafly]

I think there's a misconception that the Indy secondary somehow sucks. That isn't true.

Greg Toler, Vontae Davis, Mike Adams (led the team with 6 INTs, including 2 off of Brady in November), and LeRon Landry all contributed to a top 12 passing defense this year.

They may not be "great," but they're hardly horrible.

 

[supafly]

do not understand why we are playing so late and Seattle is playing so early?? That does not make much sense to me..

Every year "championship Sunday" consists of games taking place at 3:00pm and 6:30pm, with each conference rotating between the two time slots.

In 2011, we played early--defeating Baltimore. We then sat back and watched SF and the NYG at 6:30.

In 2012, we lost to Baltimore---late, at 6:30.

In 2013, we lost at Denver--early in the afternoon, at 3:00.

This year, it reverts back to the late evening time slot.

 

[Sticky Caulk]

https://vine.co/v/ODKWh0rUTe0

That play alone tells me the Colts are exactly the same team New England has stomped, repeatedly, since 'Suck for Luck'. Sure, the Patriots shouldn't overlook them. That goes without saying. I don't see any reason fans should pretend this team deserve respect or should be 'feared' from our point of view.

 

[supafly]

I still cannot take the Colts all that seriously. They had an easy path to the AFC Championship Game. They are a soft team that beat up on two softer teams.

Cincy hasn't won a playoff game with Andy Dalton at the helm despite getting their every year he has been in the league.

The Broncos were a shell of themselves and I quite frankly think they all quit somewhere in the 3rd quarter when they saw that Manning was incapable of leading a drive and wimped out on a 3rd and five with about 20 yards to run for the first and thrown to the guy in tight coverage.

I am actually agreeing with Felger on this one. I think the Colts are pretty much the same team the Pats have beat on during the Luck era. Luck is still the same guy who can make terrific throws but will make incredibly stupid and costly mistakes (the Broncos just couldn't capitalize).

As for the Broncos, they are proof why you don't go "all in". The last team to win the Super Bowl going "all in" might have been the Broncos in the late 90s. They will have some tough choices to make. I might dump Demarcus Ware who was great the first six weeks of the season (7 sacks) and done little since (3 sacks in 10 regular season games and the playoffs). They might want to let Manning go and use that money to keep their pending free agents.

The bookies don't stay wealthy due to things being nearly as one-sided as some people like to claim around here.

It's all about how our team comes out and plays. When they're good, they can compete with anyone. When they're bad, they can get caught flat-footed, allowing the underdog to win.

We all heard the same thing last week about how "Baltimore only beat one team with a winning record, leading to a 1-6 mark on the season," and that didn't mean a damn thing--nor does it ever. How about all of the "Jump Ball Joe" comments despite the fact that he has a 24 TD--to--4 INT (2 coming last week) ratio in his last ELEVEN playoff games? Either of those comments that we heard all week ended up meaning anything, so I'm taking any Colts comments with a grain of salt as well.

We'll obviously need the defense to play much better than allowing the 31 points like they did last week, or Indy can certainly pose a threat.

One last concern would be Brady and his poor play in the AFCCG lately (post 2004). In the divisional rounds and SB's he's 12-4, yet in the conference championship he's either lost (IND, BAL, DEN) or barely won while playing very poorly (SD, BAL). He also has an 8 TD--to--9 INT ratio in those games.

The bottom line is that N.England "should" win.....yet we end up saying that just about every year, don't we? I definitely agree that things have set up quite nicely for us, so let's hope that they can take proper advantage of the situation!

 

[Oswlek]

The Pats brought in a record amount of FAs in 2001. Vrabel and Phifer turned out better than scrap heap players. So did a few others. I still talk to some of the "experts" who had the Pats written off back then, even as late as the playoffs. Who knows, you might have been one of those "experts" too. You probably gave our "scrap heap" players no chance against the Rams.

FWIW, this reply totally misses the point of Rob's comment. 2001 was the exact opposite of an "all in" approach. Bill even said (to some coach that escapes me right now) after the kick went through, "can you believe we won the f***ing super bowl with this team?"

 

[Halifax_Pats_Fan]

- Continued great play from Collins, this dude is a stud.
- Like to see C. Jones come alive a little bit. Had a good game re: Ravens, got to get to Luck this week
- Running game...come on, let's go..
- Calling T. Wright....how about some two TE sets....would like to see more Wright in this game...

 

[RobertWeathers]

One last concern would be Brady and his poor play in the AFCCG lately (post 2004). In the divisional rounds and SB's he's 12-4, yet in the conference championship he's either lost (IND, BAL, DEN) or barely won while playing very poorly (SD, BAL). He also has an 8 TD--to--9 INT ratio in those games.

I'll take a stab at the circumstances for each game and come up with some reasoning/excuses.

2001 vs Pitt- Was playing pretty well IMO until his ankle got rolled up on.
2003 vs Indy- He was so-so. D carried them
2004 vs Pitt- He was great
2006 vs Indy- Uneven. if Brown/Caldwell make their catches who knows
2007 vs SD- Below average. Suffered high ankle sprain in game so not sure...
2011 vs BAL- Very average but just enough vs a tough D
2012 vs BAL- Same. Welker drop on 3rd down in 3rd Q didn't help.
2013 vs DEN- Actually I don't think TB played that bad. Missed on the JE throw but they were so depleted at WR and TE. DEN had a good run D so...

Either way the net-net is..
TB plays great, the D plays well- Pats win.
TB plays so-so and the D plays well- Pats win.
TB plays so-so, D plays so-so or stinks- Pats lose every time.