Posted by Null Protocol on 2006-01-11 17:46:14 +0000
With apologies to Jimmy Carter,
if you judge by the NFL Misery
Index, The Broncos are going down... they are unhappier.
Posted by tgl on 2006-01-11 18:26:12 +0000
Instead of NE and Denver playing this warlike game on the gridiron, maybe Uncle Jimmy could mediate the dispute.
Posted by buzzorhowl on 2006-01-12 01:16:42 +0000
Patriots win the whole thing.
Posted by dawnbixtler on 2006-01-12 01:38:34 +0000
Carter's a Broncos fan? Interesting.
I would have guessed the Falcons, or the Carolina Panthers or even DC's own Redskins...
The Pats are only getting 3 points with Vegas odds. Seems low, as they lost by 8 earlier in the year (coulda been even worse) and didn't get last weekend off, but I suppose more of the starting defense will be playing.
Anyone want to take the "over" on the Bears/Panthers game: 30 1/2 points?
Posted by buzzorhowl on 2006-01-12 05:56:11 +0000
Oooooh. Good bet.
Posted by buzzorhowl on 2006-01-12 06:23:38 +0000
Here's my shocker for the week: Redskins over Seahawks.
Posted by dawnbixtler on 2006-01-12 10:45:15 +0000
Colts over Steelers = "guarantee lock"?
Posted by bizquig3000 on 2006-01-12 15:45:35 +0000
Not a chance... My gut tells me all the home teams win (save for Carolina).
Posted by tgl on 2006-01-12 16:21:48 +0000
Whoa! The rs.n communities Number One Patsies fan is predicting Tom Brady's first loss of the post-season?
Posted by bizquig3000 on 2006-01-12 16:48:18 +0000
I'm just going with my gut feeling. This year they've done exceptionally well against crappy teams and got smoked by really accomplished teams. We've been decimated across the board, but we still have Tom Brady, so we can't use that excuse that "it really wasn't the Patriots." Do I want them to win? Hell yeah. I honestly feel if they beat the Broncos, the Pats are winning the Superbowl. But this will be a tough, tough, tough game. Broncos can run the ball, and Plummer has a rocket for an arm. And their defense aint too shabby. The Pats defense is playing good, but again, we're whupping crappy teams. At some point Brady's going to lose a post season game.
Having said that, one of my NYC buddies (lifelong Yankees and NY Giants fanatic) says that the Pats are winning everything. Why? He compares them to the Yankees with the belief that until somebody beats them or proves otherwise, the Pats are going to win the whole thing. I wish I shared that confidence.
Posted by buzzorhowl on 2006-01-12 19:38:29 +0000
The shitty Pats team that played the Broncos way back when only lost by eight. I like their momentum right now.
Posted by Null Protocol on 2006-01-14 20:40:53 +0000
Hell yes. I like their bass.
Posted by buzzorhowl on 2006-01-15 04:53:16 +0000
So much for that, eh?
Posted by Null Protocol on 2006-01-15 13:44:22 +0000
yeah. their bass wasn't as good as I thought.
I thought it was chocolate milk, but it was watered down yoo-hoo.
Posted by bizquig3000 on 2006-01-16 16:49:16 +0000
Fine defensive effort from the Pats, but Denver was just too much. Has anybody else bothered to mention this was the 56th game in the past three years the Pats have played? Exhaustion had to have kicked in at some point, regretfully, it was on Saturday.
Posted by tgl on 2006-01-16 17:42:19 +0000
8 extra games over three years does not exhaustion make.
Patriots turnovers were too much. That's all there is to it. That's not an excuse, but the reason for the loss. Champ Bailey made an excellent interception, and the Bronco's defense forced many fumbles. The Broncos didn't win because they gained less overall yardage (420 vs. 286) or because the Broncos had less time of possession. The Broncos won because they capitalized on every turnover the Pats made, and the Pats made 10 times the turnovers they usually do in a playoff game. Go figure.
Posted by buzzorhowl on 2006-01-16 17:52:26 +0000
Hate to say it, but they were due.
Posted by bizquig3000 on 2006-01-16 18:41:00 +0000
I agree with all your points, but theres a reason why teams that go deep in the NFL playoffs rarely consistantly go deep in the playoffs year after year and that is mainly due to serious wear and tear on their bodies and consistantly tougher schedules. (Chicago and Jacksonville reeled off a ton of wins due to opportunistic defenses and cushy schedules). There's a reason why nobody's done the NFL threepeat.
Posted by tgl on 2006-01-16 18:57:54 +0000
Those are reasons why it's difficult to win three Super Bowls in a row in general. (BTW, which is more difficult: 3/3 or 3/4?) The reason the Pats won't be attempting 3 out of 3 is that they turned over the ball 5 (6?) times on Saturday.
They were healthier (as a team) on Saturday than they were for the first half of the regular season. Was Troy Brown injured? Ellis Hobbs? Tom Brady? Adam Vinateiri? It's arguable that the defense, with the most injuries and hurt players (what happened to Bruschi?), out-performed the offense and special teams. All of the Broncos scoring drives came after ridiculous field position on account of a turnover made by the offense or special teams.
I think the reason the Patriots have been so successful over the past 4 years is that the system is not dependent on individual athletes routinely performing above average. Unless that athlete is Brady. He alone is the reason why they got so far this year. If you look at year after year, you see many outstanding performances from a variety of players. That is not so true of other teams, all of which have a lynchpin:
Ind.: Manning
Pitt.: Bettis (Roethlesberger?)
Carolina: Delhomme
Vikings: Moss
Who have the Seahawks got?
er, my argument is breaking down...
Posted by buzzorhowl on 2006-01-16 19:28:22 +0000
Moss is on the Raiders. Yow!
Posted by tgl on 2006-01-16 19:53:26 +0000
I know he's not on the Vikings any longer. When he was, he was the lynchpin. It certainly wasn't Culpepper. Or was that Owens?
Did Owens come from the Broncos? I'm confused.
Posted by buzzorhowl on 2006-01-16 19:58:58 +0000
Culpepper was supposed to be the lynchpin this year and went down, ruining one fantasy team per league.
Posted by dawnbixtler on 2006-01-16 20:22:14 +0000
Yep, turnovers killed the Pats, plain and simple.
I hate the "points of off turnovers" stat, because that is points (just like "2 out RBI's" in baseball).
When the kicker causes a fumble, you know you're in trouble, and the Pats got into trouble. It was a good run Brady, and I look forward to next year.