I can understand people being tired of seeing Brady winning. But I'll tell you one thing...I'll never get tired of seeing Peyton Manning lose!! He couldn't win in Tennessee, although Tee Martin was able to, and he can't win in Indianapolis, whatta choke artist. As for the players who were not available for the game Saturday: S Harrison, S Gus Scott, CB Chad Scott, CB Starks, CB Poole, CB Gay (all but Gay , who played in week 2, were in the lineup in week one). And lets not overlook the losses on the O-line w/ C Koppen and T Light who were replaced by two first year linemen. I understand that all teams have their share of injuries, but in NO way will their lineup next year be the same as what we saw in Denver, as some of you seem to be insinuating.
rage, you're certainly right about who wasn't there; however, after what happened the last time Denver and NE played, I don't see how anyone could view not having Starks on Saturday as a bad thing. In fact, I think you'd probably agree with me that NE's pass coverage could have been better, but did not suck and pretty much did the job when it mattered. But for sure, it would have helped having Harrison, Gay, Poole and certainly Light (dunno that much about Scott). I understand that all teams have their share of injuries, but in NO way will their lineup next year be the same as what we saw in Denver, as some of you seem to be insinuating. I think people are insinuating that for different reasons. Early in the thread someone was suggesting that players whose contracts were up would bail left and right, now that the bloom is off the rose. I'd disagree with that strongly, and argue that anyone who thinks so doesn't understand the nature of the New England "bloom", which I think is here to stay as long as Kraft and Belichick keep running the team the way they are. Also, this isn't exactly the first reality check that New England's been served up; non-Pats fans will make much of it, but really, is it that much different than not making the playoffs in '03, or ending their winning streak last year? Seems like the same story to me. Neither of those was a crippling blow; both, I think, were occasions for the team to take a deep breath, re-evaluate, and re-commit to a winning formula. Will there be some faces gone next year? For sure; there have been every year, rings or no rings (remember that guy, whatsisname, Ty Law, and who was it, Lawyer somebody or other?). But you're not gonna see a pack of rats leaving the sinking ship, because the ship isn't sinking...and even if there are pastures elsewhere that are greener with money for some of them, others will choose to take the longer view and bet on the Pats as the team that's likely to take them further in their career.
and who was it, Lawyer somebody or other?). Lawyer Milloy. What people have to realize is that the Patriots were very capable of winning that game with their injuries, but the turnovers killed them. And, if all those people on your team get injured, maybe you need to reevaluate your offseason conditioning program.
Wow. Pretty sure she knew Lawyer Milloy's last name. And hell, Ty Law might be back next year. Also, please stop repeating that chestnut about injuries = offseason conditioning program problems. Until someone can prove a causal connection, it just sounds silly.
And hell, Ty Law might be back next year. I heard that rumor too. Wouldn't be a bad thing at all, if he came back with the right attitude (not that his was bad, exactly, but he had a year's vacation as far as the Pats are concerned, ya know?). Also, please stop repeating that chestnut about injuries = offseason conditioning program problems. Until someone can prove a causal connection, it just sounds silly. It's a milspeak/corporate America standard answer: "more/better training" as a fix to everything. NFL football is a punishing sport, and there are certain injuries, like concussion, that no amount of conditioning can prevent. Furthermore, as regards the Pats, my impression is that they have a real work ethic, and that they're not exactly slack in the conditioning department.
i def. would not say that the broncos "beat" the patriots in any way! new englands offense dominated the entire game, especially the second half! when you look at the stats, the pats won in every way. brady threw for 340 yards, they ran for 60- the obvious deciding factor was the turnovers- and these 5 turnovers were more like giveaways-not takeaways. the pats defense held the broncos to a total of 266 yards and the broncos run (2nd in the league) was dominated and controlled to the bitter end, with anderson gaining a mere 69 yards. plummer faced great pressure in the second half of the game and didnt even break 200 yards. honestly...the broncos played like shit! lets look at how they scored. the most controversial interference call in the playoffs gave them about 50 yards and left them on the 1 with 4 attempts to score. t.brown fumbles and the broncs put out together their only scoring drive of the game--4 yards. brady donates to the champ baily fund and champ returns the generosity with a 100 yard return through the isolated and empty backfield... then fumbles at the 1 (mind you..another controversial game deciding call by the refs). once again, denver had 4 downs to convert for the td. there you have it...that is 21 points with all of the credit earned by....the pats offense/special teams! the two field goals are from 50 and 37--neither able to give great credit to the offense for good positioning. with all this, think about it and bring this bronco performance to the next game against pitt. unless the steelers come in with a game full of follys, the broncos are doomed with the way their offense played against the pats! and do not be so quick to write off the pats, if there is any team that can learn from their mistakes and come back ten times stronger--its the NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS DYNASTY!!! ONE YEAR DOESNT MEAN ITS OVER!
i def. would not say that the broncos "beat" the patriots in any way! Well, other than the one way that matters.
Well, other than the one way that matters. There it is. All a self-respecting Pats fan can say now is, "See you next year," and move on.
But let's see what the Broncs can do against the Steelers. It will be a battle. Defensive guru, Dick LeBeau, will have a few surprises waiting for Jake.
Speakingnvowels, it doesn't matter who wins the game, a win is a win and a loss is a loss. And there is no way the Pats are going to win again because next year is the Lions year!
For the first time in 3 years I get to say.."wait till next year"..and as I recall 3 years ago when I said it was the beginning of back2back superbowls..but hey, who knows. I'm thinking five superbowls this decade, but then again, that's just me. Having lived in Washington state for 20+ years, I've had to listen to just about everyone use the "wait till next year" line, unfortunately, they'll have to say it again. As for what Pittsburgh has in store for the Broncos, can't wait to see what the refs in Denver has in store for them.. I've watched MANY AFC west games, having lived in Seattle, and teams can't just go in there and win. I realize turnovers killed the Pats, but I think the pass interference penalty broke them. And after watching all the calls against the Steelers..the no call P.I., the no call on the offsides/false start, the interception, and in case no one else noticed, but after the ball was ready for play the time keepers were not starting the clock till the ball was hiked when the Steelers had the ball in the fourth quarter..Knowing what happens in Denver, the Steelers will have alot going against them
you know the thing with the clock situation, i noticed that and it was pissing me off, i was telling my wife about it during the 4th. I guess joey porter doesn't sound like a dumbass now. I wonder what the NFL would have said if the steelers had lost the game??? Sorry guys the officials blew the game for yall? they are just lucky they dodged a huge bullet. Regardless of who wins this weekend and the superbowl, i am enjoying the fact that it won't be the colts and their "great" quarterback manning. I still don't know why everyone is always on his jock? he has proven since college and now in the pros that he falls apart in big games.
Any chance of this stopping the damn trend on ESPN.com for all sports? "Boston, Boston, New York, New York, New York, Boston, New York, Boston, Boston, New York..." Nope...
rleeys, the best chance would be to get about ten million people to move elsewhere, preferably in one large concentration. That might not even do it -- a lot of people now living elsewhere grew up on Boston or New York sports, and still follow the teams -- but it would be a start.
Or to move ESPN so it wasn't right in the middle.
