ILoveTomBrady

You can't really hold it against Colvin that his hip shattered. That's just unnecessary.

Michael Smith can be reasonable enough when he isn't on ESPN. He's unfortunately all too willing to jump through their "say something bold (and inevitably stupid)" hoops.

I'm not going to be an obnoxious Pats fan on another team's forum. The Colts could win and I wouldn't be too shocked. Unlike SD, they've been in the playoffs before and aren't new to expectations. As for the last two regular season games they've played, those are pretty meaningless. The Pats were too hurt by injuries last year to beat good teams and they were a much inferior team earloier this year. The passing game was still being sorted out. Brady and Caldwell were not yet on the same page and Gaffney wasn't around yet. In spite of all of that NE turned the ball over 5 times or so and were still in the game, only losing by 7. Manning kept making plays rolling out of the pocket which he cannot be expected to make every time (he even completed one pass while falling down). As for the playoff games from 2+ years ago they don't mean much. They're good to measure how Manning handles playoff pressure and a BB defense though. I think the #2 defense in the league is being largely ignored. Holding SD (the #1 offense in football) to 21 when their average drive started around midfield was a terrific performance. I think the Indy defense is being largely overrated. Defense is definitely in NE's favor. Peyton is the wild card. If he plays a great game he's hard to beat, and NE would need to control the clock and score on almost every possession (which they've done to Indy in the past, though I don't know if this year's offense is up to it). He has traditionally struggled both against the 3-4 and in the playoffs. If he struggles I don't see how Indy can win this game.

Pats over Bears. I believe in defense in the playoffs as long as the offense doesn't downright suck (Baltimore).

I pretty much agree with you, but also add that fewer veterans will be cut for cap purposes. also, when a guy isn't locked up by his team he will cost a lot as a free agent.

i officially endorse this idea

that "Godly Patriots fan with pregnant wife viciously assaulted by evil Buffalo fans" piece was pure trash. I don't even live in Boston and I feel inclined to apologize for it. that shouldn't detract from the fact that Bill Polian is a bully who is willing to cross the line and assault a Jets employee. even better that it was over pumping artificial noise into a stadium, something the Colts have been accused of.

Wow, whoever says the Pats weren't ravaged by injuries last year is out-and-out clueless. Dillon was hurt all year, if I remember correctly he missed the Colts game. Harrison was out. Bruschi was coming back from a stroke and wasn't up to speed. I think seymour was out. The secondary was in shambles... Hobbs was forced to start as a rookie, and its not like he began the year starting so he didn't have many games under his belt yet. As for the Denver game in week 3... it is now week 9. I really wish they were facing off in week 14 or something, the deeper the Pats get into the season the better they get. Don't tell me you didn't see the difference between the week 1 and week 7 games against the Bills, where they won by 2 and 22, respectively. The Pats had no passing attack back then. All they had was a running game against the best run d in the AFC. Also, the Colts weakness is the run d so week 3 pats would still have had some success against them. The Pats were also still giving up the big plays on d back then, something they have eliminated in recent games. I'm not making an excuse for the loss, I'm saying that referencing it doesn't really get you very far. Enough defending the Pats. I am sick of the sudden pats love: they went from "lost too much" to "best in the afc" way too fast. I think the mediots are trying to make up for being stupid by going overboard. If the colts win this weekend they'll go back to fellating Peyton. Manning and the Colts offense looked great on Sunday. The d looked bad. I am concerned about stopping Manning but I remember feeling the same way before the Pats beat them in the past. This one can go either way, here's hoping the patriots end up on top.

that explanation would have been bearable if the play wasn't reviewed. what in the review was there to be unsure of? i like the fact that they review the refs and explain the calls, what frightens me is that the try to tell us these awful calls are the way they want it to be.

I haven't seen the bruschi play. The tv crew didn't pick up on it and I didn't dvr the game. assuming it was a penalty which would have granted a 1st down then it was huge, as Minny would have been pretty much guaranteed a td and a tie game. they actually punted after the interference call Yes, the Pats get quite a few calls go their way. During games, though, I notice calls go against them too. I never remember them afterwards though when they win, which is most of the time. Conversely, I remember the Pats getting screwed against Denver in the playoffs as if it happened yesterday (The Pats played poorly and I'm not saying that they deserved to win, I'm just saying that two crucial calls went against them). I bet if you went through the tape you could probably find some calls that went against denver: I don't remember them because I'm focused on the plays that screwed the Pats and denver fans don't remember them because they won. I honestly feel that the idea that the refs favor NE is a perception issue. which is more likely: 1) referees either consciously or unconsciously favor a team and make calls accordingly, or 2) selective memory and bias make us see favortism? as i previously stated, bad calls are typically remembered from the losing team's perspective (last year's AFC championship game being an exception). the pats win a lot of games, meaning you're much more likely to remember times their opponents are screwed. the pats often win close games, and you're more liekly to focus on bad calls in close games. add in the fact that officiating is atrocious, causing us to question refs (and their partiality) more freely, and this leads to an environment where calls that favor NE are more commonly focused on. also, many people don't like the pats and are looking for them to fall and will only remember that which makes the pats look bad. for example, this thread isn't the first time i've had someone say that just once they want to see the pats screwed by the refs just to have me say "did you see the denver game last year?" All of this said, the story could be broken tomorrow that an NFL conspiracy to help the Patriots win has existed for the last 5 years and I wouldn't be 100% surprised. maybe I've heard it enough that it doesn't seem outside the realm of possibility anymore. I'll definitely say that the 2001 team benefited from a lot of luck and the stars aligning perfectly. knowing how much the NFL loves promoting Manning and the Colts, though, I would expect any such conspiracy to favor them. The nfl hasn't changed/enforced rules to favor the pats these past few years.

the maroney return was immediately after and effectively negated minnesota's punt return. that was 1 out of 4 touchdowns attributed to special teams. That was one of 2 scores in the 3rd. as for the crappy calls... the PI was at the minnesota 27. You might believe that, had the PI call not happened, minnesota would have driven 70 yards for a touchdown. lets look at the results of their other drives: punt, int, int, end of half, punt, downs, punt, int, punt, downs, int. It looks like a punt or int would have been a much more likely result of the drive. 70 yards to go on a day the offense can't muster anything is far from the refs taking points away. and the wiggins call was made with the score 24-7 with minn on the NE 38. definitely took away a field goal chance, and even if minny magically got into the end zone it would have simply made it 24-14 it hurt but once more wasn't a guaranteed touchdown taken away. Whatever, i've already said they were crappy calls. we're just going to have to agree to disagree if you think that a couple crappy calls on non-scoring plays at all affected that game. if you watched it you saw a Vikings defense that couldn't do much of anything to stop NE's passing attack, and a NE defense which chased johnson from the game. i should probably just let this thread die. i'm happy to discuss the viewpoint that the Pats get all the calls, but when i get drawn into questions of whether the pats would have won a 31-7 game had a couple non-critical (not involvinjg change of possession or putting/taking points off the board) calls not been made i feel silly.

I do wonder if King's family is ok with him dating Brady and Jeter. Every time he writes "all that brady/jeter does is win" I want to strangle him. A sportswriter and refs are distinctly different people though and just because some writers have crushes on the Pats doesn't have anything to do with game calls. Thankfully Peter King doesn't ref games. A holding penalty would turn into storytime. "Holding, #80, offense. Let me tell you about my daughter's softball team. They played the #1 team in the country and, while they lost, they showed determination and sportsmanship blah blah blah"

do you see this blue box above this type? it has a header QUOTE(XXX). You know what that is? that's called "quoting" someone, and the following post is responding specifically to whatever is quoted. my post was responding to someone who was talking as if the calls had any impact on who won the game. If you bothered to read my other posts you'd see that i agreed the refs were horrible in Monday's game. And Timmo1805, I thought the refs turning a blind eye to Dillon was wrong. The league has set a tough standard when it comes to conduct, and ignored that standard on that play. It should have been called. I'd normally agree with you on plays changing a game, but Monday's game wasn't even close. It was as exception.

Did you catch the part where NE scored at will? Did you notice that the Vikings offense didn't score a single point against the NE defense? But you're right, hypothetically if the Vikings score and if hypothetically Brady and Co. are stopped then the Vikings would have been down by only 10 with the ball and if they were able to score again and stop NE again and.... I understand the "what if" game, but not when one team dominated another. The turning point ended up being the opening drive when NE went spread and Minnesota couldn't do a thing to stop them. Minnesota went into the game knowing they didn't have a very good offense and the key would be containing NE, which they could not.

oh, there are definitely a lot of questionable calls that go the Pats way. I fully agreed on at least 2 last night that were just atrocious, the offensive PI and the wiggins catch. the problem is that calls go against all teams, so it comes down to which ones are remembered. Pats fans will not remember bad calls that went against them in games they won. who cares, we won. The losing team's fans are much more likely to remember bad calls that went against them while playing the Pats. Also, bad calls are more likely to be remembered in close games where one score could have changed the outcome. let's see, the Pats win a lot of games and win by a lot of close scores. This maximizes the possibility of opposing fans remembering bad calls. also, i think a lot goes down to the nature of football. So many plays can be crucial, or viewed as potentially crucial. lets say it's an everyday 3rd down in the 2nd quarter. team gets stopped and is forced to punt. no big deal. what if on the play the refs missed an obvious penalty and the team should have gotten a 1st down. Now fans can look at that missed call as being a big deal, because the team COULD have driven for a score had they been given the chance. Or, conversely, a 1st down is negated by a holding call and the team is forced to punt. the fans will swear that if not for the holding call the team would have definitely scored. both of the horrible calls last night, the offensive PI and wiggins catch/non-catch fall into this category. neither involved change of possession or scoring plays. had neither been called, the vikings would simply have had a chance to continue driving, and based on how the NE defense manhandled Minnesota it is much more likey the drives would have ended prematurely anyway. i can keep throwing out examples: there is a kickoff that is returned to midfield, but a crummy illegal block call brings it back all the way to the 15. fans for the return team are screaming that the refs screwed them out of points, when in reality there is a good chance the team stalls at midfield and is forced to punt. it is 1st and 10, a bad pass interference is called on the defense giving the offense 15 yards. the offense still would have had 2 downs to get 10 yards but that gets forgotten. this all leads to a lot of speculation, and most of it is done out of frustration which combines with a natural bias to form a less natural, stronger bias. so basically my point is: bad calls go against everyone, you just remember the bad ones when you play the pats because you lost and the games are close. also, the nature of football is that at any time a game-changing play can occur which causes us to treat every bad call as crucial.