Yikes. I am eating my words about those Lions. They've apparently figured something out. Who saw their defense being this good?

Wow. Adrian Peterson.

...

I'm thinking 2000+ yards this season.

Patriots are 9-0. Are they going to go 16-0? I think so. Unless a serious upset takes place, then the Patriots will cruise through all of their remaining games into the playoffs, which I think the Patriots can also handle.

$%&#ing Patriots.

What a day. Adrian Peterson was very simply, phenomenal. He truly wowed everyone and yes, that was a rookie out there. Midway through the season and already over 1,000 yards, that is impressive.

And what the heck happen to the Colts? They dominated that game, they had it all cinched up and ready to seal. What a disappointing loss because I didn’t just pick them to win because I hate the Patriots but I thought they could win. They had shut down their offense, had them rattled, their defense was tired and no. They couldn’t close out the deal. What a sad loss that was.

Then again, my Cowboys won and are looking sweet.

Even though the Colts lost the game, they obviously showed that there is someone in the NFL that can play with the Patriots. At least that puts a question mark and what would otherwise seem to be an inevitable Super Bowl-champion Patriot team.

That’s what I thought as well. I was watching the NBC show before the Cowboys-Eagles games and I hated how Cris Collinsworth was going on and on about how the Patriots are the best team of all time. You tell that that was annoying even the emotionless Bob Costas.

I think it was apparent that the Patriots are beatable and that they do have flaws. Like I said before, they have zero running game, they rely on the pass too much (and we saw that when teams shut that down, things don’t go well) and the big play and their defense is not as physical as they used to be.

Both the Cowboys and Colts led in the second half against the Patriots and both showed that they could drive down the field on them. If only the Colts could have capitalized on a few drives that ended in field goals or mistakes.

I don't know if the 2007 Pats are the best team of all time, but they are damned good. It's true that the run game is their weakest element, but honestly, it's not actually weak.

I'm not sure that they have any serious competition during the regular season. The only real danger for them is complacency.

quote:

The only real danger for them is complacency.

That's a tough thing to deal with, but if they are undefeated, I doubt they will suffer the same fate as the 2005 Colts did. They were 13-0, lost to the Chargers in week 15, and sat their starters for the last 2 games of the season. This meant that the starters hadn't played for almost a month by the time the Steelers beat them in the playoffs. If NE is undefeated up until week 17, you can bet that Belichik will not be benching his players. I'm sure they want that 16-0 record.

I would say that the Patriots of this year are among the best teams ever. The best? It'll take the rest of the season to decide that. A lot of things can happen, and they've still got 7 games and the playoffs to go. Obviously the Colts are very good this season, as are the Cowboys, and the Patriots have already handled them. They're certainly the best team in the league at the moment.

quote:

Posted by FKA:

Both the Cowboys and Colts led in the second half against the Patriots and both showed that they could drive down the field on them

Man, I was pumped when Peyton scored with 9 minutes to go in the 4th. I thought the game was in the bag almost for sure. Once Brady threw that 55 yard pass to Moss on the 3 yard line, I started to get restless (for good reason, in hindsight)

The Patriots do have a decent running game, they just don't use it. Yesterday, Maroney was averaging 5 yards/carry until he got stopped a couple times for nothing, bringing the average down to 3.9 yards. The Colts only rushed for 14 more yards and only had three more rushes.

If you look at it, the Patriots' attack was really balanced. They had 28 rush attempts and 31 pass attempts.

quote:

Man, I was pumped when Peyton scored with 9 minutes to go in the 4th. I thought the game was in the bag almost for sure. Once Brady threw that 55 yard pass to Moss on the 3 yard line, I started to get restless (for good reason, in hindsight)

One lesson is learned: when you're up against the Patriots, the game is never in the bag

The Ravens are going to lose tonight. Both Chris McCallister and Samari Rolle are out. McNair and Ogden have been playing injured all season long. And I think it's chaos in the locker room. Lewis all but called for Billick's firing. And when Newsome and Bisciotti weigh Lewis vs Billick, whom do you think they are going to go with.

The funny thing is, neither the Ravens nor the Steelers are substantively different teams than they were last year. The Ravens were, arguably, improved, with the addition of McGahee in exchange for an old, tired Jamal Lewis. However, the Steelers are on fire. Some of that may be that Roethlisberger is finally really healthy, but I think more has to do with the quality of coaching. I think Cowher's heart wasn't in it, last year. He had his ring, and really didn't have the fire anymore.

quote:

Like I said before, they have zero running game, they rely on the pass too much (and we saw that when teams shut that down, things don’t go well) and the big play and their defense is not as physical as they used to be.

I beg to differ - when Maroney plays, they have a good running game. In five of six games with Maroney, they've had 100 yards rushing. In fact, even with Sammy Morris and Kevin Faulk filling in for Maroney in the middle three games, the Patriots mustered a running attack. In 7 of 9 games, the Patriots have managed 100 yards rushing, and in 3, there has been a single 100-yard rusher (Week 3 Maroney, Weeks 4 & 5 Morris). The Patriots are 8th in the league in rushing YPG. That's better than San Diego, a team I would definitely call a running team. They're rushing an average of 32 times per game, also 4 times more than San Diego. Compare that to 34 pass attempts per game for New England! Is that not balanced? It's definitely not "zero running game" (You want zero running game? Look no further than the Packers. At 72 rushing yards per game, they are 7 yards worse than any other team. They also happen to be 7-1. You don't need a running game to win games, and even if you did, then the Patriots are definitely running it enough to win games.) and, at 132 yards per game, it's a convincing complement to their 296 passing yards per game.

I will definitely agree with you that if you shut down a team's main option (as passing turns out to be for the Patriots, albeit only by a difference of 2 attempts per game), then the team will struggle. That's pretty basic, is it not? I will also agree with you that their defense did not play as well as it did in other games. This is simple also. Consider the fact that the Patriots defense is 4th in yards allowed, 5th in points allowed, 1st in %3rd down conversion percent, and 2nd in least amount of time on the field. I think everyone can agree that this is pretty good. When they play the #8 passing and #7 rushing offense of the Colts, they're obviously not going to do as well as they are against, let's say, the anemic Miami Dolphins. As for the big plays, I cannot disagree with you more. Consider the fact that the Colts had not allowed a play of longer than 25 yards until the Patriots-Colts game. Then, when the defense needed to stop them most, they gave up a 55-yard play and a 33-yard play, setting up two New England touchdowns. Neither team played as well as they had in their first 7 or 8 games. When you play a harder team, you're not going to score as many points, you're going to allow more points, and you're going to make more turnovers than usual. Brady threw 2 interceptions; Manning tossed an interception and lost a fumble. The New England defense gave up two massive defensive pass interference penalties; the Indy defense gave up two massive pass plays. Claiming that the fact that New England struggled more means that they "should have" lost is nonsense - Indianapolis struggled more in this game than they did in their other seven games, and it doesn't mean that they "should have" won or lost. Both teams struggled to win; one team won. The game was actually a spectacular game to watch, and one of the more balanced games I've seen this year.

Besides, "coulda, woulda, shoulda" doesn't change the fact: New England won the game, and they deserve the win like any win.

I think I went 5-8 this week, before tonight. My lead is in serious jeopardy.

I just don't understand how you continue to disrespect a team that's defeated the consensus second and third best teams in the NFL, one of whom just won the Super Bowl. Obviously it's premature to call them the best team of all time, but it's pretty obvious they're playing fantastic football. IMHO, any argument with the quality of the football they're playing is pointless.

11-2 for me. I guessed right on a lot, and picked a stupid upset (Phi over Dal - wishful thinking). SD vs Min took me by complete surprise.

quote:

Originally posted by MajorNougat:
I just don't understand how you continue to disrespect a team that's defeated the consensus second and third best teams in the NFL, one of whom just won the Super Bowl. Obviously it's premature to call them the best team of all time, but it's pretty obvious they're playing fantastic football. IMHO, any argument with the quality of the football they're playing is pointless.

Yeah, well I guess that’s what makes you, you and me, me. I will say this though: for one, I am not a stats guy. Sure you guys can say they have this and that and whatever but I don’t care. I watch the game and see what I see. Maybe the numbers show they had a running game but I didn’t see that. Sure Brady’s numbers look great but to me, from what I see in the game, they are highly inflated. And I dislike them even more because I can just tell that they are a bunch of stuck-up, conceited guys—coaches all the way down to the players.

But that’s just what I think, so I don’t love them like you all do, get over it. And it doesn’t matter anyways because they are not going to go undefeated and they are not going to win the Super Bowl.

quote:

Originally posted by FragileKidA:
But that’s just what I think, so I don’t love them like you all do, get over it.

Few of us even like them, let alone love them. We just all see the obvious fact that they won on the road against the second and third best teams in the league. It doesn't take stats to recognize that's an impressive accomplishment.

There's a difference between liking a team and admiring a team. I'm no Pats fan, but I appreciate the fact they're playing excellent football. They've beat the good teams and slaughtered the rest. I think barring a Brady or Moss injury, they'll probably go undefeated.

I sort of feel the same way about the Pats I feel about the Yankees in baseball. They've assembled a top-notch team and they play well, but it's more fun to root against them.

Yeah that’s what I mean, they did win on the road against the second and arguably, third best teams in the league. I just don’t think they are invisible and although those wins are impressive, it showed that they are obviously still flawed. But before anyone else comes on to tell me I am wrong, don’t. It’s OK, I am over it.