Pats can't keep settling for FGs - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to Game Commentary, Cheering & Venting

Pats can't keep settling for FGs

Moderator: Football Moderators

Postby nsulham » Sun Jan 16, 2005 8:11 pm

Can the Pats ever win a game without people baselessly claiming that the refs helped them win? I mean give it a break already.

Last year people complained and a new rule was instituted because of it. Now, WITH the new rule, the Colts still lose.

So you guys want a new rule established now or what?

:-t :-t :-t
Image
New England Patriots
The 53-man Dynasty
nsulham
Offensive Coordinator
Offensive Coordinator

User avatar
Mock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 726
Joined: 26 Dec 2002
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Your mom

Postby warrick95 » Sun Jan 16, 2005 8:13 pm

Transmogrifier wrote:
warrick95 wrote:
Transmogrifier wrote:Did you see those refs strip that ball from Wayne? Go Zebras!!


Honestly, do you not comprehend what others write? I said that, yes, the refs have been quite kind on the Pats (though I think the def pass int/holding call on the Pat scrub CB at the end was a bad call), that the Pats still would've beaten the Colts without the help. It might've been closer, but the result probably wouldn't have changed.

It's incredible how bellicose people on these boards can get just to try to make a "smartass" comment. Well congrats, you passed that test in flying colors.


Please. You were filling the board with these "it's 3 versus one" comments, saying the Zebras were helping the Pats. It's a human game. There are always, always missed calls. You have to give it up. The Colts stunk today, don't talk about the refs.

And, please becareful of flaming me. Thanks.


Fine, would 2 and change make you feel better? The Colts stunk, but that doesn't change what was clearly happening...

I flamed you because you indirectly flamed me through a smartass response that you are consequently wrongfully and incorrectly innocently going to say, was not directed at me.
"The son of Bobby Bowden once again proved he's as predictable as a Julia Roberts' movie.

And upon further review, just as sappy, too."
-Naples Daily News
warrick95
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar
Eagle EyePick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 1038
Joined: 27 May 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Trying to clog the leaky Bengals defense with plastic putty...

Postby warrick95 » Sun Jan 16, 2005 8:14 pm

I don't want a new rule established. I didn't want the old rule established, either. I want consistency in the calls of referees.

I'm giving the Pats credit for the win...they desreve it because they most certainly emphatically won. But that's not going to entirely cover what evidently happened in the game. I'll praise them although I most certainly do not like the team.
"The son of Bobby Bowden once again proved he's as predictable as a Julia Roberts' movie.

And upon further review, just as sappy, too."
-Naples Daily News
warrick95
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar
Eagle EyePick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 1038
Joined: 27 May 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Trying to clog the leaky Bengals defense with plastic putty...

Postby Transmogrifier » Sun Jan 16, 2005 8:16 pm

warrick95 wrote:
Transmogrifier wrote:
warrick95 wrote:
Transmogrifier wrote:Did you see those refs strip that ball from Wayne? Go Zebras!!


Honestly, do you not comprehend what others write? I said that, yes, the refs have been quite kind on the Pats (though I think the def pass int/holding call on the Pat scrub CB at the end was a bad call), that the Pats still would've beaten the Colts without the help. It might've been closer, but the result probably wouldn't have changed.

It's incredible how bellicose people on these boards can get just to try to make a "smartass" comment. Well congrats, you passed that test in flying colors.


Please. You were filling the board with these "it's 3 versus one" comments, saying the Zebras were helping the Pats. It's a human game. There are always, always missed calls. You have to give it up. The Colts stunk today, don't talk about the refs.

And, please becareful of flaming me. Thanks.


Fine, would 2 and change make you feel better? The Colts stunk, but that doesn't change what was clearly happening...

I flamed you because you indirectly flamed me through a smartass response that you are consequently wrongfully and incorrectly innocently going to say, was not directed at me.


Thanks for the quasi-apology. I never flamed you, by the way, and yes, it was directed at you.

It seems no matter how bad the Patriots beat the other team, the refs are somehow involved.

Do me a favor: If you honestly believe--as you say--that the Pats would have won without any percieved help from the refs, then don't talk about the refs.
Brady: a "very mediocre QB" - no1cowboysfan

Mitchell: "To me, the Patriots are not that good. ... We're the better team... A good team crushes that Patriot team. I'm telling you, they're not that good.'
Transmogrifier
Offensive Coordinator
Offensive Coordinator

User avatar

Posts: 711
Joined: 17 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby warrick95 » Sun Jan 16, 2005 8:24 pm

I'll stop. But I hope y'all lose next week. :-D
"The son of Bobby Bowden once again proved he's as predictable as a Julia Roberts' movie.

And upon further review, just as sappy, too."
-Naples Daily News
warrick95
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar
Eagle EyePick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 1038
Joined: 27 May 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Trying to clog the leaky Bengals defense with plastic putty...

Postby deluxe_247 » Sun Jan 16, 2005 8:49 pm

the colts didnt play well today, and would have lost regardless of bad reffing.
Image
deluxe_247
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe RankerBig Sig ChampionMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe MusketeerWeb SupporterCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 15165
Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Giggity Giggity

Postby 34=Sweetness » Sun Jan 16, 2005 8:51 pm

Arggh, that was some of the worst playcalling I've seen by the Colts in a longtime. All they did were these dink and dump short slants and WR screens that got them nowhere. They veered from what got them where they were, the bomb. And it cost them. I don't know what causes it, but it seems that the Colts lose their balls everytime they play the Pats. I can't explain it. On a sidenote, I really wish that the Falcons or Eagles beat either team. I really don't plain like the Steelers, and I am really tired of all the bandwagon hopping onto New England teams and would like to see them lose. With the WS and 2/3 SB, everyones a Pats and BoSox fan now... the same people that were Cowboy and Yankee fans before... The worst part is now this gives more fuel to people who blindly say that Tom Brady is better than Peyton Manning (cough cough Terry Bradshaw). Nothing pisses me off more than this, because Manning absolutely owns Brady in every measurable aspect of passing. If this was the baseball side and somebody said that a player was better because he led better and had more rings, he would get TORN up by the statistical people over there. Seems like there is less of an emphasis on stats here...
ImageImage
34=Sweetness
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Mock(ing) DrafterPick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 Survivor
Posts: 4738
Joined: 21 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: AKA CubsFan7724

Postby Transmogrifier » Sun Jan 16, 2005 9:04 pm

34=Sweetness wrote:Arggh, that was some of the worst playcalling I've seen by the Colts in a longtime. All they did were these dink and dump short slants and WR screens that got them nowhere. They veered from what got them where they were, the bomb. And it cost them. I don't know what causes it, but it seems that the Colts lose their balls everytime they play the Pats. I can't explain it. On a sidenote, I really wish that the Falcons or Eagles beat either team. I really don't plain like the Steelers, and I am really tired of all the bandwagon hopping onto New England teams and would like to see them lose. With the WS and 2/3 SB, everyones a Pats and BoSox fan now... the same people that were Cowboy and Yankee fans before... The worst part is now this gives more fuel to people who blindly say that Tom Brady is better than Peyton Manning (cough cough Terry Bradshaw). Nothing pisses me off more than this, because Manning absolutely owns Brady in every measurable aspect of passing. If this was the baseball side and somebody said that a player was better because he led better and had more rings, he would get TORN up by the statistical people over there. Seems like there is less of an emphasis on stats here...


Comparing baseball and football is not fair. I'm one of the biggest anti-clutch baseball people there is, but football is another story. For one, I've never seen a study that disproves clutchness in football. And two, football is not a game of individual matchups, like baseball. It's much more of a team sport.

And, for what it's worth, if I had to win one game, I'd pick Brady over Manning every time.
Brady: a "very mediocre QB" - no1cowboysfan

Mitchell: "To me, the Patriots are not that good. ... We're the better team... A good team crushes that Patriot team. I'm telling you, they're not that good.'
Transmogrifier
Offensive Coordinator
Offensive Coordinator

User avatar

Posts: 711
Joined: 17 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby chcbb » Sun Jan 16, 2005 9:25 pm

34=Sweetness wrote:Arggh, that was some of the worst playcalling I've seen by the Colts in a longtime. All they did were these dink and dump short slants and WR screens that got them nowhere. They veered from what got them where they were, the bomb. And it cost them. I don't know what causes it, but it seems that the Colts lose their balls everytime they play the Pats. I can't explain it. On a sidenote, I really wish that the Falcons or Eagles beat either team. I really don't plain like the Steelers, and I am really tired of all the bandwagon hopping onto New England teams and would like to see them lose. With the WS and 2/3 SB, everyones a Pats and BoSox fan now... the same people that were Cowboy and Yankee fans before... The worst part is now this gives more fuel to people who blindly say that Tom Brady is better than Peyton Manning (cough cough Terry Bradshaw). Nothing pisses me off more than this, because Manning absolutely owns Brady in every measurable aspect of passing. If this was the baseball side and somebody said that a player was better because he led better and had more rings, he would get TORN up by the statistical people over there. Seems like there is less of an emphasis on stats here...


stop crapping on boston fans. obvioubsly there will be bandwagon fans with any championship team but for us diehard sox/pats fans these championships were looong overdue. so you can say what you want but i'm going to to enjoy the success while it lasts. and if/when indy or whatever other team y'all are for win, i won't be trying downplay your success. this crap is so stupid. to quote napoleon dynamite; "freakin idiots!!!" and ps, yes, in a one game must win situation, of course i'd take brady over manning. why? just look at recent history; brady, 2 superbowl mvps in 3 years; manning, well, no superbowl apperances ever. you need to differentiate the statistical fantasy success from actual success in big games.
chcbb
Defensive Assistant
Defensive Assistant

User avatar

Posts: 501
Joined: 12 May 2004
Home Cafe: Football

Postby eaglesrule » Sun Jan 16, 2005 10:21 pm

" Nothing pisses me off more than this, because Manning absolutely owns Brady in every measurable aspect of passing. If this was the baseball side and somebody said that a player was better because he led better and had more rings, he would get TORN up by the statistical people over there."


I think this argument is bs -- and this is not intended to be mean about you personally.

I know I have a bad rep around here lately for being a "ring" person. so be it. But in this instance, (I do understand the arguments others have about this as a major measure, so for me it is a chicken or the egg dillema) I have to think that probably brady is "better".

Manning has enjoyed extreme statsical success.

HOWEVER, the team concept is predicated on his abilities, and he seems to fail the team in that sense. (the point I am about to make incidentally is why I give marino less leeway than I might give someone else) The colts blew their wad on offense, more specifically, they loaded peyton up with the best O money could buy figuring that the overloaded O presented the best chance to win, rather than making it D centric or more balanced.

I personally believe that the mark of a great QB isn't racking up statiscal accolades, rather, it is executing the offenseive game plan in order to give your team the best chance to win. It seems peyton fails to do this. (incidentally, I have the same knock against donovan ...) the team, in all likelihood (yea there are dumb coaches -- so this might not ALWAYS apply -- but dungy is not a dumb coach.

yea brady doesn't have to do as much as peyton, but on the other hand, what he does have to do has its own degree of difficulty. Peyton can afford a mistake or two in general, because he is explosive enough, the totality of the offense, mistakes an all benefit the colts. In contrast, with a "game manger" (although, I don't buy that brady is simply a "game manager") may have less big plays to manage, but an even bigger premium is put on not making mistakes. Peyton is allowed more mistakesthan a brady or someone like that would be given. so, in my mind, you can't solely compare total Offensive stats. The mark of who "won" in my opinion is did manning make more big plays than brady avoided mistakes.

It sounds stupid, but playing not to lose/make mistakes is uniquely difficult in its own way. When you are put in a position to produce from someone like brady's perspective, you had better produce, because the margin for erro in a relative sense is much less than someone like manning enjoys.

I do think that sometimes people lose sight of that fact. I don't think you can fault a guy for executing the game plan he is given.

I guess (sorry for the long post) when you get down to it -- if we are talking about the qb's left, I would say that big ben is the ultimate in "don't make mistakes". Brady is less so, but in that same veign. He is given more leeway than big ben, but certainly less so than cpepp or manning. I think with the last two, some understanding that they will bomb it out, get big plays, but sometimes, that will bite you is understood. mcnabb is an amalgam of the two qb's ideologies. he doesn't air it out or have the super duper big days that manning/cpepp enjoy -- he does "manage the game" in a lot of sense, but not to the degree the first two make.

I omitted vick as he is a unique talent.

I think that you have to judge qb's in context of what they are assigned to do, and whether they perform within that context. If peyton got his stats today and really put points on the board and they lost, then you have to point the finger at the colts organziation. But he didn't.

Say what you will about the weather or the pats d, but the fact is unassailable that peyton had the stastical qb benchmark this season. they have three receivers who were ungodly. two talented offensive tight ends. a running back, who in his own right would have a team built around his talents. you can lament the colts d (rightfully so) HOWEVER, peyton didn't uphold his end of the bargain IMO. coverage or not, 3 pts is pathetic. The team bet the farm on his ability to pu points up (that was their strategy) and he failed it. Brady however, executed the plan, completed passes that were absoloutely necessary and won the game.

I guess at the end of the day, I think it is BOGUS that people worship the way he is the "offensive coordinator" for the colts, but suddenly blame the defense when they lose.

In almost every case the successful nfl teams have a strategy dependant on what they expect of their qb's. I can't think of a team (other than the ravens or old giants) and in those cases, I would say that lewis and taylor almost assumed the role that the qb would take (they were essentially the "qb" of the defense).

basically, how peyton came up with three points today i sbeyond me. almost eeryone was saying "ne is ripe for the picking" -- they were hurt etc, and peyton came up small. at what point to we place the arrow of blame at him?
eaglesrule
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2843
Joined: 3 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Football

PreviousNext

Return to Game Commentary, Cheering & Venting

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 9:44 hours
(and 45 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


  • Fantasy Football
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact