BREAKING NEWS....(NFL RELATED)

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

11-01-2007, 12:24 PM
pappag

In 2 of those games, Colts scored only 14 points in the 2nd half. In the Chicago game, they rushed the ball 39 times compare to throwing it 28 times.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven S. Dallas

From today's Boston Globe:

How's this for a four-game stretch of NFL greatness?

W, 49-14

W, 41-10

W, 41-9

W, 51-24

That quartet of one-sided scores comes to you courtesy of the 2004 Indianapolis Colts from a November-December period during which Peyton Manning and Co. annihilated the Texans, Bears, Lions, and Titans, respectively. And, you know it's funny, I don't remember one person whining about them running up the score.

In fact, quite the opposite happened. The Colts were celebrated as the bright and shining star of the NFL. Following the 51-24 win over Tennessee, the Indy Star's Bob Kravitz wrote, "At this point, we're not just watching football anymore. We're watching history. Every week, the Indianapolis Colts' offense uses the football field as its canvas, and every week, it creates an art form that is distinct from everything else in the copycat NFL."

Flash forward almost three years, and the very same Kravitz wrote about the juggernaut New England Patriots, "In the last three weeks, New England has scored 48, 49, and 52 points, inspiring inquiring minds to wonder, 'Did the Patriots pile on?' And every week, the obvious answer is, 'Duh.'"
11-01-2007, 12:25 PM
Steven S. Dallas

Yeah, because they had a running back. Both the Pats RBs are hurt; they're not going to go to Kevin Faulk and Heath Evans 40 times a game. Also, they have to keep throwing to Moss until he scores, or he'll start to sulk. Not like I give a shit whether they run up the score or not, I was fucking pissed when they lost the shutout against DC.
11-01-2007, 12:35 PM
Crock

Quote:

In 2 of those games, Colts scored only 14 points in the 2nd half. In the Chicago game, they rushed the ball 39 times compare to throwing it 28 times.

well on that note, didn't the Pats only score 7 points in the 2nd half against Miami? A winless team...
11-01-2007, 12:43 PM
pappag

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven S. Dallas

Yeah, because they had a running back. Both the Pats RBs are hurt[.]

Could've fooled me ... I thought the entire Pats team was injured.
11-01-2007, 01:24 PM
Brock Landers

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick Pappagiorgio

Could've fooled me ... I thought the entire Pats team was injured.

Nope, just the running backs. But since you watch sooo much football I thought youd know that.

By the way, your little theory of "kicking the field goal is whats expected" is total horseshit. Every football analyst and writer Ive heard over the past week has said the same thing: kicking the field goal for the easy 3 points IS running up the score. This includes Bill Parcells, who (on ESPN) said you keep playing until they stop you. No field goals. Because field goals run up the score.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick Pappagiorgio

Wrong - kicking the field goal in that situation is the expected thing. Have you not watched a blowout game where one Team A turns the ball over inside their own territory AND puts the Team B in fieldgoal range with a significant time left in the game? Significant meaning if they take a knee 3 times in a row, the clock will have yet to run out.

In case you haven't seen this scenario played out, Team B runs 3 times up the middle and kicks the fieldgoal. What Team B doesn't do (and what I've never seen in my 20+ years watching professional football) is go for it inside the redzone on 4th down late in the game.

I hope the Pats continue such play. Either a valuable player gets injured or they instill that much more motivation for a team with no hope in accomplishing anything for the season. If I was a member of the '72 Dolphins, I would begin ordering vast quantities of champagne.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick Pappagiorgio

Like I've said, you clearly haven't watched enough NFL in your life Brock to comprehend how this situation is played out. Talk to any coach at any level, and they will agree with me.

Like Parcells? Is he ok to ask?
11-01-2007, 01:29 PM
pappag

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock Landers

Nope, just the running backs. But since you watch sooo much football I thought youd know that.

It was a joke about how Belichick lists half his team as questionable with all playing the game in question. Thought that was beaten to death by now ... guess not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock Landers

Like Parcells? Is he ok to ask?

Yeah, he's still okay to ask. But don't forget that Cowher guy.
11-01-2007, 07:31 PM
montanaskier

no idea who to take this week. Leaning toward the Pats, but hard to pick against the defending Super Bowl Champs at home. What to do?
11-01-2007, 08:18 PM
Smacky

I'd go with the Pat's - Brady and all his receivers are in such rhythm right now, I don't think Sanders and the Colt's secondary will be able to touch them. Should be an entertaining shoot-out though with the highest ranked passing offense in the league against the top ranked pass defense. And I just read that Harrison might not be playing against the Pat's on Sunday: http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=090...o&confirm=true
That's huge.
11-01-2007, 10:04 PM
Steven S. Dallas

Just occurred to me- the last three weeks Sports Illustrated's cover has featured the Pats, the Celtics, and the Red Sox.

Ahhhhhh....
11-01-2007, 10:38 PM
nutcase

Quote:

Originally Posted by montanaskier

no idea who to take this week. Leaning toward the Pats, but hard to pick against the defending Super Bowl Champs at home. What to do?

I'm going to be shocked if the Pats lose. Those dickheads are just too good right now
11-01-2007, 11:17 PM
Chainsaw_Willie

I wish Belichick was coaching the Seahawks. I'd like to see them win games decisively because they're better than the other team.
11-02-2007, 07:17 AM
MassLiberal

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven S. Dallas

Just occurred to me- the last three weeks Sports Illustrated's cover has featured the Pats, the Celtics, and the Red Sox.

Ahhhhhh....

Soon to be followed by a shot of the BC Eagles as they drive towards a national championship game.

Who knows, maybe the bruins can actually bounce back this year. I'm giving them a probational trial run, as I do every fall, and so far they have impressed. They are holding onto 3rd period leads, converting power plays, and actually taking the body every once in a blue moon. Hell, maybe they'll even make the playoffs.

Remember when we used to believe that being on the cover of SI was a curse for Boston Sports teams?
11-02-2007, 07:52 AM
Brock Landers

Quote:

Originally Posted by MassLiberal

Soon to be followed by a shot of the BC Eagles as they drive towards a national championship game.

Who knows, maybe the bruins can actually bounce back this year. I'm giving them a probational trial run, as I do every fall, and so far they have impressed. They are holding onto 3rd period leads, converting power plays, and actually taking the body every once in a blue moon. Hell, maybe they'll even make the playoffs.

Remember when we used to believe that being on the cover of SI was a curse for Boston Sports teams?

The Bruins are suprising now. They fight all the time, and though Buffalo came back last night, the B's held and won it in OT. Good to see a scrappy team not afraid to stand up to one of the conference's better teams and come up with a big (for November) win.

Remember when Nomar was on the cover and everyone was like "holy shit, hes defintely on the sauce".

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page