Does 7 straight Colts losses eliminate them from the playoffs?

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from achie. Show achie's posts

    Re: Is 5 straight Colts losses all it takes to hear crickets from UD6?

    In Response to Re: Is 5 straight Colts losses all it takes to hear crickets from UD6?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Is 5 straight Colts losses all it takes to hear crickets from UD6? : I believe they haven't changed the playbook.  Maybe added to it but not changed it.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_England_Patriots_strategy If the pats system was different today than in 2002, then the opening sentence  made in this article wouldn't have made sense: http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4698837/branch-ochocinco-learns-quickly Here's another: http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/sports/pros_and_colleges/x873610888/Patriots-No-offensive-coordinator-No-problem and another: http://www.nesn.com/2011/09/dan-gronkowski-says-patriots-playbook-nearly-identical-to-josh-mcdaniels-broncos-offense.html Coaches are brought up in systems.  They don't change them just because they have taken on a new role within the team.  Tom Brady has played in the same offensive system since he arrived in Foxborough.
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]


    UD6, Have you actually read these websites to understand their context? From your commenst you havent. You are just BSing around. A historical account of PATS offensive and defensive systems over the years does not in anyway connote its current utilization. Geeeez If I get a just a dime for anytime you make a dumb assertion I'll be a very happy man.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from achie. Show achie's posts

    Re: Is 5 straight Colts losses all it takes to hear crickets from UD6?

    In Response to Re: Is 5 straight Colts losses all it takes to hear crickets from UD6?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Is 5 straight Colts losses all it takes to hear crickets from UD6? : Gln - as for the scott mitchell comment, yes he had one great year. Don't know if it was better than any of Manning's years, but more importantly, it was only 1 year in 3 that he was with Moore. The other 2 were marginal at best.  That said, yes, Moore is a great OC.  He's not the colts OC any longer.  In fact this is the 3rd year of a different OC for the colts.  Moore is with the Jets.  Although Moore is gone, the colts still run the same system, just as Brady has since he was drafted.  One of the things that Moore always says about his time with Manning is that it was best for him simply to provide concepts and then let Manning do the rest. 
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]


    Good. So then a sixth rounder (199th pick) comes into a system, learns the same sytem, wins 3 superbowls and several MVPS and several records. A first rounder (first pick) also learns the same system for approximately the same number of years if not more; wins one SB to date, wins several MVPs and some sets sveral records which have since been broken by the 6th rounder in the other system and you still do not see who is superior? 
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from AZPAT. Show AZPAT's posts

    Re: Is 5 straight Colts losses all it takes to hear crickets from UD6?

    In Response to Re: Is 5 straight Colts losses all it takes to hear crickets from UD6?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Is 5 straight Colts losses all it takes to hear crickets from UD6? : Gln - as for the scott mitchell comment, yes he had one great year. Don't know if it was better than any of Manning's years, but more importantly, it was only 1 year in 3 that he was with Moore. The other 2 were marginal at best.  That said, yes, Moore is a great OC.  He's not the colts OC any longer.  In fact this is the 3rd year of a different OC for the colts.  Moore is with the Jets.  Although Moore is gone, the colts still run the same system, just as Brady has since he was drafted.  One of the things that Moore always says about his time with Manning is that it was best for him simply to provide concepts and then let Manning do the rest. 
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]

    "Although Moore is gone, the colts still run the same system"

    FINALLY!!! Admission that Old Horse Face is a SYSTEM quarterback!  But, I guess that's OK at The Stable, whereas it's a bad thing when Brady's involved. Payaton MUST be the better QB seeing how he had better WR talent to throw to. Or, was that due to his system?

    "Manning is that it was best for him simply to provide concepts and then let Manning do the rest."

    Concepts? "Let's throw the ball deep to Harrison and Wayne". Now, THAT'S a "concept". Tough to freelance that "concept" surrounded by All Pro talent, right?

     
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from gln826. Show gln826's posts

    Re: Is 5 straight Colts losses all it takes to hear crickets from UD6?

    In Response to Re: Is 5 straight Colts losses all it takes to hear crickets from UD6?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Is 5 straight Colts losses all it takes to hear crickets from UD6? : LOL Gln - I provide evidence that Brady's played in the same system from the beginning (never had to learn a new playbook or nomenclature, as far as I can tell), yet without any evidence to support your point, you want me to say I am wrong.  Yeah, that makes sense. (That was sarcasm, gln). Look, I can't help it if you don't understand playbooks and systems. 
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]

    So, Bradys (3 SB's) as a "game manager" under Weiss, ok if you want to use that even though Brady tore apart Carolina's defense with throwing the ball (game manager...right, sarcasm back at ya).
    Under McD, when did he ever "Manage the game?"  With Dillon hurt, the Pats couldnt run the ball as effectively in the previous year, so Brady threw the ball all over the field (same system - without WR's, sure, makes sense). But Brady was getting hit all the time with the wide-open offense.
    Under O'B, especially this year, like I said it is a hybrid of the 2 offenses (without the gadget plays (Weiss).

    Offense is a philosophy. Weiss's was a ball control offense. McD's was wide open "stop us if you can!"  O'B is creating mismatches (formations) and exploiting them, quick scoring or ball control (mostly quick scoring so far).

    Just because McD was under Weiss (as a QB coach) didnt mean he used Weiss's playbook.  Sure, he took things that worked (who wouldnt?) but the basis of his offense was very different from Weiss.  O'Brien was McD QB coach as well, and used a lot of what worked under McD, but, like I said, his is almost as different as McD was to Weiss.

    You can talk about the stretch with James, just because the Colts cant run it anymore with Addai or anyother RB you guys have, has nothing to do what the Pats can and can not do as an offense. This, also, doesnt change the fact Brady has run 3 different offenses since being a Patriot.  You can say what you want and have your opinions, but you dont see what we see every game with this team for 11 years.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Is 5 straight Colts losses all it takes to hear crickets from UD6?

    In Response to Re: Is 5 straight Colts losses all it takes to hear crickets from UD6?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Is 5 straight Colts losses all it takes to hear crickets from UD6? : Good. So then a sixth rounder (199th pick) comes into a system, learns the same sytem, wins 3 superbowls and several MVPS and several records. A first rounder (first pick) also learns the same system for approximately the same number of years if not more; wins one SB to date, wins several MVPs and some sets sveral records which have since been broken by the 6th rounder in the other system and you still do not see who is superior? 
    Posted by achie[/QUOTE]

    Sure I do.  The first rounder, because the 6th rdr won with the benefit of a dominant defense.  He wasn't asked to win but rather to manage.  The first rdr has had the pressure to win for his team because his FO developed a defense that could only be effective with a large lead, and sometimes that was not even enough. 

    All I need to do is see Bruschi's comment:  Apparently Manning was the difference. 

    He made the O and the D better. 
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Is 5 straight Colts losses all it takes to hear crickets from UD6?

    In Response to Re: Is 5 straight Colts losses all it takes to hear crickets from UD6?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Is 5 straight Colts losses all it takes to hear crickets from UD6? : "Although Moore is gone, the colts still run the same system" FINALLY!!! Admission that Old Horse Face is a SYSTEM quarterback!  But, I guess that's OK at The Stable, whereas it's a bad thing when Brady's involved. Payaton MUST be the better QB seeing how he had better WR talent to throw to. Or, was that due to his system? "Manning is that it was best for him simply to provide concepts and then let Manning do the rest." Concepts? "Let's throw the ball deep to Harrison and Wayne". Now, THAT'S a "concept". Tough to freelance that "concept" surrounded by All Pro talent, right?  
    Posted by AZPAT[/QUOTE]

    not really, at least as far as I am concerned. Every offense has a system. Its about what and how much the players are asked to do within it. Brady's play was managed while Manning was expected to be the offense.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from patthepatriot666. Show patthepatriot666's posts

    Re: Is 5 straight Colts losses all it takes to hear crickets from UD6?

    dont say beetlejuice 3x and dont say underdog 1X-
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from qball369. Show qball369's posts

    Re: Is 5 straight Colts losses all it takes to hear crickets from UD6?

    In Response to Re: Is 5 straight Colts losses all it takes to hear crickets from UD6?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Is 5 straight Colts losses all it takes to hear crickets from UD6? : Dude - I don't care what you say, the pats ran a conservative offense to manage games and allow the defense to dominate.  I don't care if they had a few games where they effectively opened things up.  That's just good game planning.  Saying Brady was a game manager isn't an insult.  It simply was all he needed to do given his defense's dominance. 
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]

    UD - you keep saying the Patriots D was 'dominant' in the early 2000's - and that is why the Patriots won playoff games - so I did a little bit of research - here is the Patriots total D ran from 2001 - 2010

    2001 - 6th
    2002 - 23th
    2003 - 7th
    2004 - 9th
    2005 - 26th
    2006 - 6th
    2007 - 4th
    2008 - 10th
    2009i - 11th
    2010 - 25th

    So while yes, the Patriots had some better than league average years on D - I certainly wouldn't qualify these stats as dominance

    For fun - I looked up Indy's ranks in those same years - take a look

    2001 - 31st
    2002 - 8 th
    2003 - 11th 
    2004 - 29th
    2005 - 11th
    2006 - 21th (Indy SB year)
    2007 - 3rd
    2008 - 11th
    2009 - 18  th
    2010 - 20th

    So, in 4 ( 1 short of half)of those years Indy had the better D statiscally - and Indy had the best single year rank of either team

    So, your hypothesis that the reason the Pats have won 3 SB vs 1SB for the Colts is entirely related to D does not seem to supported by the insignicant difference between the 2 teams D's over time

    Care to try again to explain Gomers long term playoff choking?

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from oklahomapatriot. Show oklahomapatriot's posts

    Re: Is 5 straight Colts losses all it takes to hear crickets from UD6?

    Dolts are going 0-16
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from gln826. Show gln826's posts

    Re: Is 5 straight Colts losses all it takes to hear crickets from UD6?

    In Response to Re: Is 5 straight Colts losses all it takes to hear crickets from UD6?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Is 5 straight Colts losses all it takes to hear crickets from UD6? : UD - you keep saying the Patriots D was 'dominant' in the early 2000's - and that is why the Patriots won playoff games - so I did a little bit of research - here is the Patriots total D ran from 2001 - 2010 2001 - 6th 2002 - 23th 2003 - 7th 2004 - 9th 2005 - 26th 2006 - 6th 2007 - 4th 2008 - 10th 2009i - 11th 2010 - 25th So while yes, the Patriots had some better than league average years on D - I certainly wouldn't qualify these stats as dominance For fun - I looked up Indy's ranks in those same years - take a look 2001 - 31st 2002 - 8 th 2003 - 11th  2004 - 29th 2005 - 11th 2006 - 21th (Indy SB year) 2007 - 3rd 2008 - 11th 2009 - 18  th 2010 - 20th So, in 4 ( 1 short of half)of those years Indy had the better D statiscally - and Indy had the best single year rank of either team So, your hypothesis that the reason the Pats have won 3 SB vs 1SB for the Colts is entirely related to D does not seem to supported by the insignicant difference between the 2 teams D's over time Care to try again to explain Gomers long term playoff choking?
    Posted by qball369[/QUOTE]

    Doesnt matter, the kid wants to believe what he wants to believe. Doesnt matter what the facts say, he will use his opinion as a fact.   I am basically done with this tool, back to bashing him especially when he is a hyproctite (which means always).
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from qball369. Show qball369's posts

    Re: Is 5 straight Colts losses all it takes to hear crickets from UD6?

    UD - I can't believe you didn't come around to rebutt this - I am deeply disappointed - but not terribly surprised
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Is 5 straight Colts losses all it takes to hear crickets from UD6?

    Q - can't be on this board all of the time, although I know you and pretty much everyone else wishes I was. 

    Anyway - to your point.  I don't know what you were measuring there in terms of team defense.  I measure points.  And based on that in the past 10 years (01-10), the pats D was ranked in the top 10 8 of those 10 years and in the top 6 6 of those 10 years. 

    Further, I consider the playoffs a different animal.  Here are the defensive points totals and their turnovers in that game over the past 10 years: 

    13(0), 17(4), 17(3), 14(1), 14(5), 29(1), 3(3), 27(4), 21(4), 3(2), 27(1)L, 16(2), 21(4), 38(1)L, 20(2), 12(2), 17(1)L, 33(2)L, 28(0)L

    In losses the pats d gave up just under 29 pts/game.  In wins they gave up just over 16 pts/game

    By contrast the colts: 

    41(0)L, 10(3), 31(1), 24(2)L, 24(1), 20(0)L, 21(2)L, 8(3), 6(4), 34(1), 17(5), 28(1)L, 23(2)L, 3(4), 17(1), 31(0)L, 17(1)L

    In losses the colts d has gave up almost 26 pts/game.  In wins they gave up less than 19. 

    Even in wins the pats were a FG better than the colts. 

    Finally, don't forget that 2 of the colts losses regardless of anything else could have been changed if: in one game Vanderjagt hits a game tying FG to send the game into OT (vinatieri never missed for Brady), in the other game Caldwell doesn't call timeout giving the Jets the time they need to set up a play to put them in FG range with time running out. 
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from gln826. Show gln826's posts

    Re: Is 5 straight Colts losses all it takes to hear crickets from UD6?

    How many times are you going to cry about Vanderjagt?  If your boy, Peyton "the greatest player in the history of the planet," could have done something a little bit more during the rest of the game it wouldnt have come down to a FG attempt.  Because the "greatest player in the history of the planet" wouldnt leave it up to his "idiot kicker" to bail him out!
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Is 5 straight Colts losses all it takes to hear crickets from UD6?

    In Response to Re: Is 5 straight Colts losses all it takes to hear crickets from UD6?:
    [QUOTE]How many times are you going to cry about Vanderjagt?  If your boy, Peyton "the greatest player in the history of the planet," could have done something a little bit more during the rest of the game it wouldnt have come down to a FG attempt.  Because the "greatest player in the history of the planet" wouldnt leave it up to his "idiot kicker" to bail him out!
    Posted by gln826[/QUOTE]

    Gln, its not complaining when it is the truth, and my last post didn't even include Vandy's missed OT FG in the 00 playoffs vs. Miami to win the game since we were only going from 01-10.  

    You wouldn't call it complaining if Vinatieri had missed 2 of those fg's needed to win or extend games.  Had that happened, you might be short 2 SB's.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sam-Adams. Show Sam-Adams's posts

    Re: Is 5 straight Colts losses all it takes to hear crickets from UD6?

    UD6,

    Haven't had a chance to talk to you about this. What's going on out there? Is the D just giving up because they don't believe they can win without him?
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsRfineIn09. Show PatsRfineIn09's posts

    Re: Is 5 straight Colts losses all it takes to hear crickets from UD6?

    In Response to Re: Is 5 straight Colts losses all it takes to hear crickets from UD6?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Is 5 straight Colts losses all it takes to hear crickets from UD6? : Gln, its not complaining when it is the truth, and my last post didn't even include Vandy's missed OT FG in the 00 playoffs vs. Miami to win the game since we were only going from 01-10.   You wouldn't call it complaining if Vinatieri had missed 2 of those fg's needed to win or extend games.  Had that happened, you might be short 2 SB's.
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]
    You have completely lost it UD. Football is a team game, it is wrong to pin the loss on 1 guy, the other 52 guys and the coach deserve equal blame. You are playing the blame game and Vanderjerk is the scapegoat. I am sure if you rewatch those games objectively you will see other players to ''blame'' besides the kicker. Weak.
     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsRfineIn09. Show PatsRfineIn09's posts

    Re: Is 6 straight Colts losses all it takes to make me giddy?

    In Response to Re: Is 6 straight Colts losses all it takes to make me giddy?:
    [QUOTE]Gomer's retirement press conference will make me giddy.
    Posted by Patsfansince1966[/QUOTE]
    That won't happen until all the season ticket holders are payed up right before week 1 of 2012.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rocky. Show Rocky's posts

    Re: Is 5 straight Colts losses all it takes to hear crickets from UD6?

    In Response to Re: Is 5 straight Colts losses all it takes to hear crickets from UD6?:
    [QUOTE]Q - can't be on this board all of the time, although I know you and pretty much everyone else wishes I was.  Anyway - to your point.  I don't know what you were measuring there in terms of team defense.  I measure points.  And based on that in the past 10 years (01-10), the pats D was ranked in the top 10 8 of those 10 years and in the top 6 6 of those 10 years.  Further, I consider the playoffs a different animal.  Here are the defensive points totals and their turnovers in that game over the past 10 years:  13(0), 17(4), 17(3), 14(1), 14(5), 29(1), 3(3), 27(4), 21(4), 3(2), 27(1)L , 16(2), 21(4), 38(1)L , 20(2), 12(2), 17(1)L , 33(2)L , 28(0)L In losses the pats d gave up just under 29 pts/game.  In wins they gave up just over 16 pts/game By contrast the colts:  41(0)L , 10(3), 31(1), 24(2)L , 24(1), 20(0)L , 21(2)L , 8(3), 6(4), 34(1), 17(5), 28(1)L , 23(2)L , 3(4), 17(1), 31(0)L , 17(1)L In losses the colts d has gave up almost 26 pts/game.  In wins they gave up less than 19.  Even in wins the pats were a FG better than the colts.  Finally, don't forget that 2 of the colts losses regardless of anything else could have been changed if: in one game Vanderjagt hits a game tying FG to send the game into OT (vinatieri never missed for Brady), in the other game Caldwell doesn't call timeout giving the Jets the time they need to set up a play to put them in FG range with time running out. 
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]


    Shoot!  I missed Underdogggg!
     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from gln826. Show gln826's posts

    Re: Is 5 straight Colts losses all it takes to hear crickets from UD6?

    In Response to Re: Is 5 straight Colts losses all it takes to hear crickets from UD6?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Is 5 straight Colts losses all it takes to hear crickets from UD6? : Gln, its not complaining when it is the truth, and my last post didn't even include Vandy's missed OT FG in the 00 playoffs vs. Miami to win the game since we were only going from 01-10.   You wouldn't call it complaining if Vinatieri had missed 2 of those fg's needed to win or extend games.  Had that happened, you might be short 2 SB's.
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]

    When you cry about it all the time, it is complaining!  Boo-hoo, a couple missed FG's.
    Here is a truth, if Obama lost the election, he wouldnt be the President, or if the Colts beat the Saints in the SB, Manning would have 2 rings.  Here is another "truth," if you didnt cry about Vanderjact all the time, you wouldnt be a "cry baby."
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from vafan2004. Show vafan2004's posts

    Re: Is 6 straight Colts losses all it takes to make me giddy?

    Yes, but their record could very well net them a high draft pick. 
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share