Pats vs. Colts - your prediction?

[MotF Bane]

Translation: "In other words, I can't use weather as an excuse."

Translation: There is no translation.

 

[Ackmed]

All of the cry baby pats fans are hilarious. Maybe you should try cheating again, or maybe you already are.

 

[JTsyo]

The angle that shows you where he was on the field obscures your view of when he caught it, and the angle that shows where he caught it doesn't show you where he was on the field. It looks like the ball was right around the yellow line when he had control of it; it was likely over the line, assuming the line is accurate. However, expecting the officials to get the spot exactly right when it's happening at full speed is unreasonable. They probably got it within 6-12" of the actual spot, which is pretty good. Fortunately the NFL allows you to challenge the spot. There's no excuse for having no timeouts left before the 2 minute warning. Even if they challenged, I'm not sure it would have been overturned if those are the only two angles.

He needs control and both legs down. I you watch his legs, he never gets them down, he hits the ground first. Instead of the a first down line, think of it as out of bounds. If you bobble the ball but then gain control but don't get both feet in you don't get a catch.

 

[Chaotic42]

If the Pats had won, it would have been an epic win despite being drowned out in noise in a hostile stadium. As it is now, they would have won if the
Colts didn't essentially cheat by having a dome.

Just practicing incase I ever move to New England.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

If the Pats had won, it would have been an epic win despite being drowned out in noise in a hostile stadium. As it is now, they would have won if the
Colts didn't essentially cheat by having a dome.

Just practicing incase I ever move to New England.

HAHAHAHA, well played sir!

 

[fustercluck]

I didn't understand how Pats/Colts defenses were the top two ranked in the league coming into this game. I've watched some of Pats and Colts' previous games and their defenses always look like swiss cheese to me. Not much of a defensive battle last night either.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

All of the cry baby pats fans are hilarious. Maybe you should try cheating again, or maybe you already are.

I enjoy Pats fans actually, though they are getting predictable. When the Pats lose, here are the excuses:

1. The refs "robbed us," despite the Pats losing 17 point leads twice. They focus on one single play that was certainly a critical play, but they entirely miss the point that they couldn't hold the lead.

2. We "own" Manning, ignoring the fact that Manning has beaten Brady 4 of the last 5 meetings.

3. We "dominate" in the playoffs -- ignoring the fact that they only lead 2-1 in playoff games -- hardly a dominating edge and they were favored to win both times they won while in Indy's win, they were favored but were down 18 and still came back and won.

4. But...but...Tom has 3 rings! Of course, this ignores the fact that Tom's defense and Adam V. played as major a role as he did and with reference to #1, were in their first Brady SB only because of horrific officiating against the Raiders (the "Tuck" rule).

5. They lose SB 42 and the excuses run all over the board, with my favorite in this thread being "Brady didn't play cornerback! That Tyree catch lost us that game, NOT Tom!" Of course no mention is made of "Mr. Clutch" guiding the Patriots to an embarrassing 14 points after smashing all sorts of records during the season, and everyone conveniently forgot the pre-SB interview when Brady was told that Plaxico Burress said the Pats would not score more than 17 pts. Brady laughed out loud and said something to the effect of "Yeah right, is Plaxico playing defense?" Open mouth, insert foot.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

I didn't understand how Pats/Colts defenses were the top two ranked in the league coming into this game. I've watched some of Pats and Colts' previous games and their defenses always look like swiss cheese to me. Not much of a defensive battle last night either.

I think they were #1 and #2 in the points allowed category, not in overall defense (in terms of yards).

 

[spidey07]

If the Pats had won, it would have been an epic win despite being drowned out in noise in a hostile stadium. As it is now, they would have won if the
Colts didn't essentially cheat by having a dome.

Just practicing incase I ever move to New England.

LOL! It's funny because it's true. Pats fans are the absolute worst.

 

[dbk]

Fight!!!

 

[thegimp03]

If I was at that game there's no way I'd have made it to work today. I'm not even a fan and I was really happy they beat the Patriots.

That being said, Belichick really shit the bed with that call. That call just goes to show the lack of respect he has for an undefeated Colts team. Glad it came back to bite him in the ass.

 

[BUTCH1]

I enjoy Pats fans actually, though they are getting predictable. When the Pats lose, here are the excuses:

1. The refs "robbed us," despite the Pats losing 17 point leads twice. They focus on one single play that was certainly a critical play, but they entirely miss the point that they couldn't hold the lead.

2. We "own" Manning, ignoring the fact that Manning has beaten Brady 4 of the last 5 meetings.

3. We "dominate" in the playoffs -- ignoring the fact that they only lead 2-1 in playoff games -- hardly a dominating edge and they were favored to win both times they won while in Indy's win, they were favored but were down 18 and still came back and won.

4. But...but...Tom has 3 rings! Of course, this ignores the fact that Tom's defense and Adam V. played as major a role as he did and with reference to #1, were in their first Brady SB only because of horrific officiating against the Raiders (the "Tuck" rule).

5. They lose SB 42 and the excuses run all over the board, with my favorite in this thread being "Brady didn't play cornerback! That Tyree catch lost us that game, NOT Tom!" Of course no mention is made of "Mr. Clutch" guiding the Patriots to an embarrassing 14 points after smashing all sorts of records during the season, and everyone conveniently forgot the pre-SB interview when Brady was told that Plaxico Burress said the Pats would not score more than 17 pts. Brady laughed at loud and said something to the effect of "Yeah right, is Plaxico playing defense?" Open mouth, insert foot.

Hey, Dingbat, HE GOT THEM THE LEAD IN THAT GAME WITH 2 AND CHANGE TO PLAY, HE DID HIS JOB. Did you watch the game? most of the time Brady was getting killed by an excellent Giant "D" line that played their ass off, can't score many points if your constantly getting ball-peened into the turf by a 310lb lineman. I don't care WHO the QB is, it starts up front with blocking. Lemme guess, Payton would just toss a DE aside and put up 45 points right?..

 

[Azurik]

I saw that too, but it made a lot of assumptions that might not have applied to the Pats. Just because Manning had driven twice doesn't mean he could do it again, given the time constraints. And regardless, 70 yds with time pressure vs. 30 yards with no time pressure isn't a tough decision to make. I can understand what he was thinking, but I think that given what was on the line, it was not a good risk.

Although I am dissapointed in the way things turned out, I do not blame Bill and disagree with your assessment. 60-70 yards with 2 minutes and 3 timeouts is plenty of time. Plenty... especially for a QB of either Brady's and Manning's calibre. The problem is that the Pats didn't have any more timeouts and that ended any chances they may have had.

It's not so much that he didn't trust his defense, but he also had faith in his offense to pull 2 yards. If they made that, it would have been game, set and match as you say and this morning BB would have been hailed as a god. We are not the coach and we can play couch coach all we want, but he had a method to his "madness".

Overall, the Pats seem more of a dominant team. My problem with them is they become ultra conservative in their playcalling once they had a good lead. I realize they're trying to burn time, but I feel as though if they were playing like it was 1st quarter... or that they were behind and did what they did in the first 3 quarters, they would have been fine.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

The fact is that the Pats had the game won last night and completely threw it away. It was eerily similar to the 2006 AFC Championship game. The Pats and Colts might meet again this year and the Pats may very well win. You won't hear excuses from me if that happens; you'll hear me state my disappointment with the Colts, what they did wrong, and leave it at that.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Although I am dissapointed in the way things turned out, I do not blame Bill and disagree with your assessment. 60-70 yards with 2 minutes and 3 timeouts is plenty of time. Plenty... especially for a QB of either Brady's and Manning's calibre. The problem is that the Pats didn't have any more timeouts and that ended any chances they may have had.

You are right that 2 minutes is plenty of time to go 70 yards, but the Colts, IIRC, only had a single timeout left. They had to go into the end zone -- field goal range would not have done it. There is a decent chance Manning would've pulled it off anyway, I realize that. But to give him a short field with 2 minutes is insane. I disagree with the people saying that Belichick would be getting roasted in the media if they punted and Manning won the game -- the Pats defense might get roasted, but no one could blame Bill for his decision.

 

[spidey07]

Although I am dissapointed in the way things turned out, I do not blame Bill and disagree with your assessment. 60-70 yards with 2 minutes and 3 timeouts is plenty of time. Plenty... especially for a QB of either Brady's and Manning's calibre. The problem is that the Pats didn't have any more timeouts and that ended any chances they may have had.

It's not so much that he didn't trust his defense, but he also had faith in his offense to pull 2 yards. If they made that, it would have been game, set and match as you say and this morning BB would have been hailed as a god. We are not the coach and we can play couch coach all we want, but he had a method to his "madness".

Overall, the Pats seem more of a dominant team. My problem with them is they become ultra conservative in their playcalling once they had a good lead. I realize they're trying to burn time, but I feel as though if they were playing like it was 1st quarter... or that they were behind and did what they did in the first 3 quarters, they would have been fine.

Good assessment. I figured my colts were done, most all of the game they got out played. But championship teams find ways to win so they say, and the Pats gave us every opportunity. It's like the last two Colts game - we should have lost them, but we didn't. Like this one, we should have lost, but we didn't.

Brady's post game interview said it best "it's a game of inches". Yes, yes it is. This game only solidifies that and it's not ever over till :00. This will go down as game of the year for the NFL, IMHO.

 

[mshan]

"Stabile’s call was problematic because he couldn’t have seen where Faulk caught the pass. Faulk was turned away from Stabile as he brought the ball in. The ref was therefore screened by Faulk’s back and shoulder pads – plus at least some part of Colts defender Melvin Bullitt(notes). He had no view of the ball, Faulk’s hands or Faulk’s chest.

There was no way Stabile saw the play. He ruled anyway. He must have assumed that Faulk was still juggling the ball when he planted both feet. (Personally, I think he had possession). By making a decision he couldn’t accurately make, he spotted the ball just short of the first down."

"Replays show Faulk had jumped in the air and initially batted the ball up. Stabile could see that. Faulk, however, then cradled it into his chest as he planted one foot on each side of the 30 before being pushed down."

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=dw-belichickpats111609&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

Looks like they actually converted on 4th and 2 and a ref that couldn't see play called the play incorrectly.

Patriots did still seem to blow those two earlier time outs, though.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=dw-belichickpats111609&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

Looks like they actually converted on 4th and 2 and a ref that couldn't see play called the play incorrectly.

Patriots did still seem to blow those two earlier time outs, though.

I don't have time to read the whole article at the moment, but the NFL VP of officiating released a statement which was read during the pre-game of the Ravens and Browns game last night. He basically said that it was an extremely close call, but the official was in the right place at the right time and that replay would not have overturned the call on the field.

Calls like that are very hard to make due to positioning on the field and the speed of the game. Keep in mind that the ball is not spotted where the guy's feet come down but rather, it is spotted where the player is holding it when he establishes control and possession. Faulk could've had both feet over the 30 but if he were falling backwards when control and possession were established, it would be marked accordingly.

At any rate, it is possible the call was wrong, but it was extremely close (a matter of inches) and that is really a weak excuse given that the Pats had 17 point leads twice in the game and blew their timeouts with poor clock management. They can point to that play and complain if they want, but the fact is that they had numerous opportunities and didn't put the Colts away. It should not have to come down to a single play under those circumstances.

EDIT: I skimmed the article. How on earth do you conclude "they actually converted on 4th and 2" from that article, when the author himself isn't sure but thinks they might have?

 

[Gibson486]

I find it amazing....people keep saying how they hate pats fans and stuff and belicheat this, and brady is not clutch...the game is over, the colts won, the pats blew the lead....so what? It's football...no lead is safe, especially with those two overrated Ds (say what you want, but the colts secondary is just as bad as the pats). What does "spygate" have to do with this game? Why do people keep bringing it up? If anything, this game showed that both teams are no joke and both teams are in the top 5 offensively this year. Both teams can very well go all the way and both teams could very well meet in the playoffs. If that happens, that will be one awesome game.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

I find it amazing....people keep saying how they hate pats fans and stuff and belicheat this, and brady is not clutch...the game is over, the colts won, the pats blew the lead....so what? It's football...no lead is safe, especially with those two overrated Ds (say what you want, but the colts secondary is just as bad as the pats). What does "spygate" have to do with this game? Why do people keep bringing it up? If anything, this game showed that both teams are no joke and both teams are in the top 5 offensively this year. Both teams can very well go all the way and both teams could very well meet in the playoffs. If that happens, that will be one awesome game.

I don't know much about the Pats defense, so I can't comment on that. The Colts are missing 3 starters from their secondary and currently start 2 rookies. Honestly, they have played pretty well given the circumstances, but a QB like Tom Brady will put up a lot of yards against young guys like that any day of the week. Jerraud Powers (one of the rookie CBs) has played well pretty consistently, and the other guy (Jacob Lacey) has played pretty well given that he is an undrafted FA. Of course Bob Sanders is out (again), but it is time to move on and cut him and bring in some veterans with the salary they free up.

 

[a123456]

I think going for it on 4th down was the right call. Most stats sites seem to call it even or consider it the better call, too. But even if the call gives an 80% chance of winning or whatever the real probability is, there's still the 20% chance of losing. Sure, punting and losing gives better job security and less media scrutiny but that doesn't seem like it would be an issue in this case. Manning had just gone through the tired Pats D like it was swiss cheese with the no-huddle, less than 2 minute, 79 yard drive.

I don't see that Faulk call getting overturned on challenge. It's a very close spot and it didn't look like there would be clear evidence against just like if it had been called a first down, the Colts would have lost the challenge the other way.

Coaches take the offensive gamble all the time to run out the clock. Pats did it against Atlanta and it worked so no one really cared. This week, the Jags did it with MJD's knee at the 1. If they had fumbled the snap on the FG and lost, I'm sure Del Rio would have been getting roasted in the media even if it was the higher percentage call.

I hope both teams meet again in the playoffs. Should be a good game again.

 

[mugs]

the Pats had 17 point leads twice in the game

I don't know why people keep saying that, it's irrelevant. You don't have to win the game by any more than 1 point. You can blow 17 point leads all you want and still win. If they had been given the first down they would have won the game (an ugly win is still a win).

 

[SunnyD]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=dw-belichickpats111609&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

Looks like they actually converted on 4th and 2 and a ref that couldn't see play called the play incorrectly.

Patriots did still seem to blow those two earlier time outs, though.

I saw the reply several times. The author of that article is wrong. Faulk had only one foot down behind the 30. His other foot never came down until he was already on his back on the turf, well behind the first down. It all came down to the spot of the ball, which was correct.

As for the coach - it was his call. It was a smart gamble that lost. Personally, I would have made Peyton have to go 70 yards down the field. Either way, there's a big chance he'd have beat the defense either way - and he did.

Game over, Colts won, Pats lost, the call was called and that's what happened. Big deal.

 

[EightySix Four]

Mark my words, it will be the Colts in the last few seconds of the game by one point.

 

[crownjules]

I enjoy Pats fans actually, though they are getting predictable. When the Pats lose, here are the excuses:

4. But...but...Tom has 3 rings! Of course, this ignores the fact that Tom's defense and Adam V. played as major a role as he did and with reference to #1, were in their first Brady SB only because of horrific officiating against the Raiders (the "Tuck" rule).

Most of the other points can simply be attributed to the bandwagon fans, those who have only watched the Patriots since the 2000-2001 season. They'll cry foul and not criticize the team for the bad things that happened that they COULD control - Maroney fumbling a TD and Brady throw a pick instead of a TD.

However, I wanted to address this point. The Colt's won their SB 29-17. Manning threw for one TD and one INT. All other points were scored on FGs (3), a pick-6, and a kickoff return as well as a strong defense (although the Bears were a poor opponent and the NFC was noticeably weak in comparison to the AFC that year, the Colts had a solid D). So if you treat Brady's rings like that you clearly have no choice but to discount Peyton's single ring since it wasn't like he went out and tore it up in his SB appearance. In fact, that entire SB run by the Colts was more on the merits of their defense and kicking then the strength and accuracy of Manning's arm. In those 4 games, Manning threw 3 TDs and 7 INTs including an absolute stinker vs. Baltimore (QB rating of 39.6!).

edit: And to be clear, I'm just illustrating my point. I really don't discount either QBs based on the supposed strength or weakness of their surrounding teams.