32 of 37, 374 yards, 3 TDs, INTs

[braveheartcolt]

I hope Manning runs up the score all season long. Then if our Colts can't get it done, he lifts the Lombardi. Then it will all come down to dumped girlfriends and Uggs.

[Superman]

You totally missed the point Supes. I was in no way trying to reduce the results down to one game. The defense was the mainstay of those teams (2001, 2003, 2004). The offense was far less consistent.

That said...

 

People who want to bash the Patriots, and Brady in particular, make them sound like the '02 Bucs. The fact is, there were times during their 3/4 SB run that the offense picked up the slack. They weren't dominant as they were from '07 to last year, but they made big, timely plays when needed. 

 

Come to think of it, in their five SB appearances under Belichick, the Patriots' defense has either surrendered a lead or allowed the other team to tie the game in the 4th quarter in four of them. The Rams tied it up, the Panters took a lead and then tied it up (so twice in that game), and the Giants on two occasions took late leads to win those two.

 

That's not leaning on a defense, at least when you look at the title games in a vacuum. But I know what you're saying. Also keep in mind, that game against Tennesse was played in sub-zero temps and the Colts game was played in poor weather also. 

 

The weather didn't make Manning throw four interceptions. The Pats physical defense did (a little too physical, but still, that was the key to the game). 

 

I get your point. But when someone says that the Pats defense was instrumental in their championships, and you bring up one Super Bowl where the defense suffered a letdown, it just rings hollow. To me, at least. My point is that the Pats needed incredible efforts from the defense to get to the playoffs and to win once they got there. The fact that the defense didn't play well down the stretch in the Super Bowl doesn't undo how great they had been prior to that.

 

Not to mention, anything can happen in the Super Bowl (and playoffs in general). It's two really good teams against each other. Great defenses can struggle; great offenses can struggle; great quarterbacks can struggle; average quarterbacks can catch fire. This is why I'm so resistant to the idea of reducing anyone's career to a small sample size, allowing that sample to override everything else they've done.

[amfootball]

The weather didn't make Manning throw four interceptions. The Pats physical defense did (a little too physical, but still, that was the key to the game). 

 

I get your point. But when someone says that the Pats defense was instrumental in their championships, and you bring up one Super Bowl where the defense suffered a letdown, it just rings hollow. To me, at least. My point is that the Pats needed incredible efforts from the defense to get to the playoffs and to win once they got there. The fact that the defense didn't play well down the stretch in the Super Bowl doesn't undo how great they had been prior to that.

 

Not to mention, anything can happen in the Super Bowl (and playoffs in general). It's two really good teams against each other. Great defenses can struggle; great offenses can struggle; great quarterbacks can struggle; average quarterbacks can catch fire. This is why I'm so resistant to the idea of reducing anyone's career to a small sample size, allowing that sample to override everything else they've done.

Most forget that in 2001 Brady led the O to the sixth best in points scored. So to your point, as well as the defense played in the playoffs AND the special teams (who can forget Troy Brown and Adam), it was Brady and the O that got them to the #2 seed as much as the bend don't break defense. In 2003 and 2004 Brady went to the pro bowls those years so again the O was as instrumental as the D and the SB victories as GoPats pointed out where ultimately won by the offense when the D tuckered out in the fourth quarter and two others were lost when the D could not make the final stop against Eli.

[Superman]

Most forget that in 2001 Brady led the O to the sixth best in points scored. So to your point, as well as the defense played in the playoffs AND the special teams (who can forget Troy Brown and Adam), it was Brady and the O that got them to the #2 seed as much as the bend don't break defense. In 2003 and 2004 Brady went to the pro bowls those years so again the O was as instrumental as the D and the SB victories as GoPats pointed out where ultimately won by the offense when the D tuckered out in the fourth quarter and two others were lost when the D could not make the final stop against Eli.

 

You're funny. I'm not trying to discredit Brady or the Pats offense. I'm simply pointing out that the defense was instrumental to the Super Bowls, even the one where they gave up a bunch of points in the fourth quarter. Because without such a good defense (14.9 points/game in 2003, held the co-MVPs to 14 points in the playoffs), the Pats probably don't make it to the Super Bowl that year. One bad game (a bad quarter, really) doesn't undo that.

 

And what's really funny is that bolded line up there. You spend a lot of time talking ignoring how the Broncos defense blew the Ravens game last year, but never hesitate to bring up when the Pats defense comes up short in the playoffs.

 

Football is a team game. You don't usually have one unit playing so well that it doesn't matter what the other unit does, especially in the playoffs. No offense is perfect, neither is any defense. Sometimes one side has to bail the other side out, and sometimes one side gives back the hard earned gains of the other side. As great as Brady is, he needs help from his defense to win in the playoffs. Any quarterback does.

[amfootball]

You're funny. I'm not trying to discredit Brady or the Pats offense. I'm simply pointing out that the defense was instrumental to the Super Bowls, even the one where they gave up a bunch of points in the fourth quarter. Because without such a good defense (14.9 points/game in 2003, held the co-MVPs to 14 points in the playoffs), the Pats probably don't make it to the Super Bowl that year. One bad game (a bad quarter, really) doesn't undo that.

 

And what's really funny is that bolded line up there. You spend a lot of time talking ignoring how the Broncos defense blew the Ravens game last year, but never hesitate to bring up when the Pats defense comes up short in the playoffs.

 

Football is a team game. You don't usually have one unit playing so well that it doesn't matter what the other unit does, especially in the playoffs. No offense is perfect, neither is any defense. Sometimes one side has to bail the other side out, and sometimes one side gives back the hard earned gains of the other side. As great as Brady is, he needs help from his defense to win in the playoffs. Any quarterback does.

Glad you find things funny. I like when you lighten up. As the joker would say, "why so serious?" ;)

 

You missed my point as well. 2001 was not defense driven as the O was the sixth best in points scored and the D was sixth best in points allowed. The playoffs were a combo of O, D and special teams. Brady is the one that led the come back in the snow to the tune of over 300 yards in a blizzard and 13 unaswered points. Brady is also the one that led the winning drive in the SB. The D did its part but it was not dominate over the O. Not that year.

 

In 2001 and 2004, Brady went to the pro bowl those years so again to your point about not reducing a season down to one game, The O was doing more than its share with a very stout D. I don't disagree that it takes a team to win a ring. My point is Brady and the O were as big a part of those wins as was the D.

 

In terms of defending Brady vs Manning. I would never defend Brady in ANY playoff game in which he had three TOs. I don't care how the defense played or special teams. He is the best player on the field and that type of play is horrific and indefensible IMO. In those two SBs that he lost, he did not hand the other team 17 points. If he had then I would be laying the majority of the blame on him.

[chad72]

 

Not to mention, anything can happen in the Super Bowl (and playoffs in general). It's two really good teams against each other. Great defenses can struggle; great offenses can struggle; great quarterbacks can struggle; average quarterbacks can catch fire. This is why I'm so resistant to the idea of reducing anyone's career to a small sample size, allowing that sample to override everything else they've done.

 

Yep, I totally agree.

 

Brady can throw multiple picks vs Chargers in 2006 & 2007 in the divisional round and AFCCG respectively and still win because his D either stripped the ball (thanks Troy Brown because we got to host that AFCCG ) or his D forces punts and stops with no damage. Then throws 2 picks vs Ravens in 2011 and gets to SB thanks to Lee Evans dropping TD and Cundiff missing FG. The odds of a QB winning those games are lower but with Brady and the Pats, they do not seem to be earth shattering events for their teams, those turnovers. That is coaching, IMO, and team character for bouncing back.

 

Plus, regular season numbers, I have realized, don't matter as much once a team gets to the playoffs. How a team plays during playoff time has determined the fate of so many teams. 32nd ranked rushing D of the 2006 Colts, 32nd ranked pass D of the 2011 Pats, 32nd ranked rushing O of the 2011 Giants, 26th ranked D of the Saints in 2009 in yardage, you can throw all those numbers in the trash can. How they do opportunistically come playoff time matters THE MOST and determines their fate in the playoffs.

 

One thing about that dynasty D with Rodney Harrison, Ty Law, Mike Vrabel, Tedy Bruschi and a young Wilfork, they made plays when it mattered, they got stops when it mattered more times than not. I watched the Steelers in the 2010 SB. Despite Big Ben and Mendenhall accounting for 3 turnovers that gave the Packers 21 points with a short field, the Steelers' D still forced enough stops and gave Big Ben enough possessions to cut the lead to 25-28 before losing 25-31. Like I said before, the underlying character of a team that scratches and claws and makes a lot of little things happen to give their QB a chance to win with team help cannot be described just in tangibles. The Colts' D last year, no matter how it played in the first 3 quarters, when it had to give the ball back to Luck, did so and without that happening, Luck does not have those 4th qtr. comebacks.

[Superman]

Glad you find things funny. I like when you lighten up. As the joker would say, "why so serious?" ;)

 

You missed my point as well. 2001 was not defense driven as the O was the sixth best in points scored and the D was sixth best in points allowed. The playoffs were a combo of O, D and special teams. Brady is the one that led the come back in the snow to the tune of over 300 yards in a blizzard and 13 unaswered points. Brady is also the one that led the winning drive in the SB. The D did its part but it was not dominate over the O. Not that year.

 

In 2001 and 2004, Brady went to the pro bowl those years so again to your point about not reducing a season down to one game, The O was doing more than its share with a very stout D. I don't disagree that it takes a team to win a ring. My point is Brady and the O were as big a part of those wins as was the D.

 

 

 

I'm not understanding why you're defending the Patriots offense, or Tom Brady. I'm not undermining anything that they've done. I simply said the defense was instrumental. And I'm really not sure why we're talking about 2001. While the offense was statistically pretty good, they weren't so good that they were able to perform without big games from the defense. That defense shut down the Greatest Show on Turf, a team that had scored 45 and 29 points against their two previous playoff opponents. The Pats held them to 17.

 

Also relevant, the Pats were 6th in the league in points scored, but got 5 defensive touchdowns and 2 special teams touchdowns, leading the league in touchdowns scored not by the offense. The defense forced a fair amount of turnovers as well; 6th in interceptions, 9th in fumbles recovered. This led to the Pats offense being 8th in starting field position. They had an efficient and balanced offense, but that 6th in scoring stat isn't really indicative of how good the offense was.

 

But back to the point -- the Patriots defense was really good, despite the letdown against the Panthers.

 

In terms of defending Brady vs Manning. I would never defend Brady in ANY playoff game in which he had three TOs. I don't care how the defense played or special teams. He is the best player on the field and that type of play is horrific and indefensible IMO. In those two SBs that he lost, he did not hand the other team 17 points. If he had then I would be laying the majority of the blame on him.

 

 

Horrific and indefensible? The outrage!

 

The Broncos defense gave up 28 points. At home. Including the huge mistake at the end of regulation. They didn't exactly do their share in that game. Nothing great about Manning's performance, but the defense took the field with 1:09 in the game, with a 7 point lead, at home, against a team with no timeouts, 77 yards away from their end zone. Did the defense let the team down? I submit that they did. We can talk about all the other things that happened in that game, but there is simply no question that the defense came undone with the game on the line.

 

And the only reason I bring this up is because you're quick to point out how the Pats defense gave up the lead to the Giants in the Super Bowl. But the Pats never put the defense out there with 1:09 in the game, with a 7 point lead, against a team with no timeouts, 77 yards away from their end zone. In the last Super Bowl, the Giants took over with 3:46 left, only down two points. The previous one, the Giants got the ball with 2:42 left, only down 4. Those defensive letdowns cost the Pats the game (despite the offense not playing well in either game), but the reason the Broncos lost is because Manning had turned the ball over way earlier in the game? You're swinging a two-edged sword, and it's comical.

[chad72]

You're swinging a two-edged sword, and it's comical.

 

Worse than her Brady homerism is her Manning disparagement. It shouldn't take this thread for you to know that.

[Superman]

Yep, I totally agree.

 

Brady can throw multiple picks vs Chargers in 2006 & 2007 in the divisional round and AFCCG respectively and still win because his D either stripped the ball (thanks Troy Brown because we got to host that AFCCG ) or his D forces punts and stops with no damage. Then throws 2 picks vs Ravens in 2011 and gets to SB thanks to Lee Evans dropping TD and Cundiff missing FG. The odds of a QB winning those games are lower but with Brady and the Pats, they do not seem to be earth shattering events for their teams, those turnovers. That is coaching, IMO, and team character for bouncing back.

 

Plus, regular season numbers, I have realized, don't matter as much once a team gets to the playoffs. How a team plays during playoff time has determined the fate of so many teams. 32nd ranked rushing D of the 2006 Colts, 32nd ranked pass D of the 2011 Pats, 32nd ranked rushing O of the 2011 Giants, 26th ranked D of the Saints in 2009 in yardage, you can throw all those numbers in the trash can. How they do opportunistically come playoff time matters THE MOST and determines their fate in the playoffs.

 

One thing about that dynasty D with Rodney Harrison, Ty Law, Mike Vrabel, Tedy Bruschi and a young Wilfork, they made plays when it mattered, they got stops when it mattered more times than not. I watched the Steelers in the 2010 SB. Despite Big Ben and Mendenhall accounting for 3 turnovers that gave the Packers 21 points with a short field, the Steelers' D still forced enough stops and gave Big Ben enough possessions to cut the lead to 25-28 before losing 25-31. Like I said before, the underlying character of a team that scratches and claws and makes a lot of little things happen to give their QB a chance to win with team help cannot be described just in tangibles. The Colts' D last year, no matter how it played in the first 3 quarters, when it had to give the ball back to Luck, did so and without that happening, Luck does not have those 4th qtr. comebacks.

 

 

Excellent points. Brady had 3 picks and a fumble (not lost) against the Chargers in 2006, but they scraped by because Marlon McCree fumbled one of them late in the game. Their defense forced three other turnovers, while the offense sputtered. But the winners get to write the history books, and we never remember any of that.

 

And, like you said, what a team does in the regular season doesn't translate to what happens in the playoffs. The Ravens were awesome in the playoffs, but looked like trash heading in. Remember how everyone considered them the best matchup for the Colts? Yeah, then they dismantled us, and scored 38 against the Broncos, 28 against the Pats, and 34 against the Niners. The 2007 Giants were a mess, Coughlin was gonna get fired, Eli was erratic... Then they knock off the Pats in the Super Bowl, Coughlin is one of the best coaches of all time, Eli is super clutch, and here they are still together six years later (with another ring in there). It's all about who gets hot.

[amfootball]

 

I'm not understanding why you're defending the Patriots offense, or Tom Brady. I'm not undermining anything that they've done. I simply said the defense was instrumental. And I'm really not sure why we're talking about 2001. While the offense was statistically pretty good, they weren't so good that they were able to perform without big games from the defense. That defense shut down the Greatest Show on Turf, a team that had scored 45 and 29 points against their two previous playoff opponents. The Pats held them to 17.

 

Also relevant, the Pats were 6th in the league in points scored, but got 5 defensive touchdowns and 2 special teams touchdowns, leading the league in touchdowns scored not by the offense. The defense forced a fair amount of turnovers as well; 6th in interceptions, 9th in fumbles recovered. This led to the Pats offense being 8th in starting field position. They had an efficient and balanced offense, but that 6th in scoring stat isn't really indicative of how good the offense was.

 

But back to the point -- the Patriots defense was really good, despite the letdown against the Panthers.

 

 

Horrific and indefensible? The outrage!

 

The Broncos defense gave up 28 points. At home. Including the huge mistake at the end of regulation. They didn't exactly do their share in that game. Nothing great about Manning's performance, but the defense took the field with 1:09 in the game, with a 7 point lead, at home, against a team with no timeouts, 77 yards away from their end zone. Did the defense let the team down? I submit that they did. We can talk about all the other things that happened in that game, but there is simply no question that the defense came undone with the game on the line.

 

And the only reason I bring this up is because you're quick to point out how the Pats defense gave up the lead to the Giants in the Super Bowl. But the Pats never put the defense out there with 1:09 in the game, with a 7 point lead, against a team with no timeouts, 77 yards away from their end zone. In the last Super Bowl, the Giants took over with 3:46 left, only down two points. The previous one, the Giants got the ball with 2:42 left, only down 4. Those defensive letdowns cost the Pats the game (despite the offense not playing well in either game), but the reason the Broncos lost is because Manning had turned the ball over way earlier in the game? You're swinging a two-edged sword, and it's comical.

You did not say the defense was instrumental. You were arguing that you cannot judge the defenses poor play based on the second half of the Carolina SB because it was one game. I was using that same logic to talk about the Pats offense in '01-'04 and the fact that not only was it ranked sixt in points scored in 2001 but over those champ years it averaged 23/24 points a game and that was under the OLD rules and Brady went to the pro bowl two of those three champ years.

 

The point about the defense letting up the lead in the SBs was not to defend Brady but to point out that the defense was not as stout as some like to believe during those championship years and Brady often had to bail them out to win those first two SBs and then they were not able to get the key stop the last two.

[amfootball]

Worse than her Brady homerism is her Manning disparagement. It shouldn't take this thread for you to know that.

lol. It only seems to be up here where a HoF QB can have three TOs and that is considered a good game and one he should have won. Never would I say that about Brady in any playoff game no matter how the defense or ST played especially if he had a pick six and his other two were on the short field leading to 10 more points.

[Superman]

You did not say the defense was instrumental. 

 

Explicitly, verbatim? I guess not. But that was clearly my point when I said "when someone says that the Pats defense was instrumental in their championships..." 

 

 

You were arguing that you cannot judge the defenses poor play based on the second half of the Carolina SB because it was one game. I was using that same logic to talk about the Pats offense in '01-'04 and the fact that not only was it ranked sixt in points scored in 2001 but over those champ years it averaged 23/24 points a game and that was under the OLD rules and Brady went to the pro bowl two of those three champ years.

 

 

 

How on earth is that the same logic? The only reason those two subjects are even related is because they're both about the Patriots. Other than that, one has nothing to do with the other.

 

 

The point about the defense letting up the lead in the SBs was not to defend Brady but to point out that the defense was not as stout as some like to believe during those championship years and Brady often had to bail them out to win those first two SBs and then they were not able to get the key stop the last two.

 

 

No, that's not what the point was. GoPats responded to a comment about the Pats defense by saying that they didn't do a good job in the 4th quarter against the Panthers. My response was simply pointing out that one bad game doesn't undo all the other good that the Pats defense had done, much of which was the reason the Pats were in that game to begin with. We were not talking about the Pats offense, me and GoPats. We were talking about the defense.

 

On a bigger scale, I say again, it's comical that you point out how the Pats defense couldn't get key stops in a couple of Super Bowls, but refuse to acknowledge the simple truth that a defensive lapse took a win away from the Broncos. You'd rather lay the blame on Manning exclusively than admit that the Broncos defense blew the game with less than a minute to go in the 4th quarter. If you'd simply acknowledge that fact, without qualifying it with all the outrage -- Manning turned the ball over three times in that game!!! It's all his fault, and you're too big of a homer to admit it! -- you would earn some credibility around here.

[Superman]

lol. It only seems to be up here where a HoF QB can have three TOs and that is considered a good game and one he should have won. Never would I say that about Brady in any playoff game no matter how the defense or ST played especially if he had a pick six and his other two were on the short field leading to 10 more points.

 

Who called it a good game?

 

They should have won; despite all the other happenings, the Broncos had the lead with a minute to go. Doesn't mean Manning had a great game. Means the defense blew it at the end.

 

Sometimes, good quarterbacks have bad games, and their team still wins. Chad mentioned the divisional game between the Chargers and Pats in 2006. Rivers didn't have a good game, but the Chargers should have won. Brady didn't have a good game, but the Pats still won. It happens.

[amfootball]

 

Explicitly, verbatim? I guess not. But that was clearly my point when I said "when someone says that the Pats defense was instrumental in their championships..." 

 

 

 

How on earth is that the same logic? The only reason those two subjects are even related is because they're both about the Patriots. Other than that, one has nothing to do with the other.

 

 

 

No, that's not what the point was. GoPats responded to a comment about the Pats defense by saying that they didn't do a good job in the 4th quarter against the Panthers. My response was simply pointing out that one bad game doesn't undo all the other good that the Pats defense had done, much of which was the reason the Pats were in that game to begin with. We were not talking about the Pats offense, me and GoPats. We were talking about the defense.

 

On a bigger scale, I say again, it's comical that you point out how the Pats defense couldn't get key stops in a couple of Super Bowls, but refuse to acknowledge the simple truth that a defensive lapse took a win away from the Broncos. You'd rather lay the blame on Manning exclusively than admit that the Broncos defense blew the game with less than a minute to go in the 4th quarter. If you'd simply acknowledge that fact, without qualifying it with all the outrage -- Manning turned the ball over three times in that game!!! It's all his fault, and you're too big of a homer to admit it! -- you would earn some credibility around here.

 

I know you were talking defense with GoPats and my response was not directly at you but pointing out that the offense is often overlooked as well. As GoPats said, it was not the 2002 Bucs. lol. I was just backing that up with some stats on the O. And then you seemed to have gotten offended and then brought Manning in as you usually do when he has nothing to do with the debate.

 

In terms of the Broncos, I never laid all the blame on Manning but said he was most at fault because he is the HoF QB and the best player on the field. He was not "good enough." It was one of his worst playoff games. Moore's defensive blunder did not cost them the game, it only tied it. Manning then took a knee with 31 seconds, had multiple possessions that he did nothing with and threw the fatal pick that was one of the worst decisions I have ever seen him make in a big spot.

 

I was not defending Brady in the SBs but pointing to the fact that his defense was not as great as some want to believe. They often wilted late in SBs and who can forget the 2006 AFCCG when they blew the biggest lead ever in AFCCG history. That was the thrust of my argument.

[amfootball]

Who called it a good game?

 

They should have won; despite all the other happenings, the Broncos had the lead with a minute to go. Doesn't mean Manning had a great game. Means the defense blew it at the end.

 

Sometimes, good quarterbacks have bad games, and their team still wins. Chad mentioned the divisional game between the Chargers and Pats in 2006. Rivers didn't have a good game, but the Chargers should have won. Brady didn't have a good game, but the Pats still won. It happens.

You have said it was "good enough" in the past. It wasn't. Not by a long shot. Even Manning would say that.

[shecolt]

I know you were talking defense with GoPats and my response was not directly at you but pointing out that the offense is often overlooked as well. As GoPats said, it was not the 2002 Bucs. lol. I was just backing that up with some stats on the O. And then you seemed to have gotten offended and then brought Manning in as you usually do when he has nothing to do with the debate.

 

In terms of the Broncos, I never laid all the blame on Manning but said he was most at fault because he is the HoF QB and the best player on the field. He was not "good enough." It was one of his worst playoff games. Moore's defensive blunder did not cost them the game, it only tied it. Manning then took a knee with 31 seconds, had multiple possessions that he did nothing with and threw the fatal pick that was one of the worst decisions I have ever seen him make in a big spot.

 

I was not defending Brady in the SBs but pointing to the fact that his defense was not as great as some want to believe. They often wilted late in SBs and who can forget the 2006 AFCCG when they blew the biggest lead ever in AFCCG history. That was the thrust of my argument.

 

To be fair, this thread was intended to be about Manning; but started to go off track when another Patriot fan felt the need to poopoo what Peyton has accomplished this year.

[shecolt]

Glad you find things funny. I like when you lighten up. As the joker would say, "why so serious?" ;)

 

You missed my point as well. 2001 was not defense driven as the O was the sixth best in points scored and the D was sixth best in points allowed. The playoffs were a combo of O, D and special teams. Brady is the one that led the come back in the snow to the tune of over 300 yards in a blizzard and 13 unaswered points. Brady is also the one that led the winning drive in the SB. The D did its part but it was not dominate over the O. Not that year.

 

In 2001 and 2004, Brady went to the pro bowl those years so again to your point about not reducing a season down to one game, The O was doing more than its share with a very stout D. I don't disagree that it takes a team to win a ring. My point is Brady and the O were as big a part of those wins as was the D.

 

In terms of defending Brady vs Manning. I would never defend Brady in ANY playoff game in which he had three TOs. I don't care how the defense played or special teams. He is the best player on the field and that type of play is horrific and indefensible IMO. In those two SBs that he lost, he did not hand the other team 17 points. If he had then I would be laying the majority of the blame on him.

 

 

Most forget that in 2001 Brady led the O to the sixth best in points scored. So to your point, as well as the defense played in the playoffs AND the special teams (who can forget Troy Brown and Adam), it was Brady and the O that got them to the #2 seed as much as the bend don't break defense. In 2003 and 2004 Brady went to the pro bowls those years so again the O was as instrumental as the D and the SB victories as GoPats pointed out where ultimately won by the offense when the D tuckered out in the fourth quarter and two others were lost when the D could not make the final stop against Eli.

 

You've lost me here which isn't your fault, but merely a reflection on my inability to understand.

 

Although I don't know how many pro bowls Brady actually went to; I think he has been selected to eight. 

 

So my question to you (or anyone else who wants to answer) is: 

 

Why are 2001, 2003, and 2004 more significant than any other years?

[Superman]

You have said it was "good enough" in the past. It wasn't. Not by a long shot. Even Manning would say that.

 

 

"Good enough" is much different in meaning than "good." One implies that something is sufficient for the task at hand or a particular set of circumstances. The other is a standalone assessment of the quality of one thing or another, not necessarily in relation to anything else. 

 

Tom Brady didn't play "good" in SB42. But he did play "good enough" for the Patriots to win. See the difference?

 

So when I say Manning played "good enough" for the Broncos to win that game last year, it's subject to the fact that they had a one touchdown lead with 1:09 left. That's entirely different than saying he had a good game. I've said many times that he didn't have a good game.

 

Also, my comments about him playing "good enough" in that game were respective to questions about his health moving forward, and how his condition might be affected by cold weather. It has never meant that I think Manning is okay with turning the ball over three times in a playoff game, so long as his team has a lead late in the game. 

[Superman]

I know you were talking defense with GoPats and my response was not directly at you but pointing out that the offense is often overlooked as well. As GoPats said, it was not the 2002 Bucs. lol. I was just backing that up with some stats on the O. And then you seemed to have gotten offended and then brought Manning in as you usually do when he has nothing to do with the debate.

 

In terms of the Broncos, I never laid all the blame on Manning but said he was most at fault because he is the HoF QB and the best player on the field. He was not "good enough." It was one of his worst playoff games. Moore's defensive blunder did not cost them the game, it only tied it. Manning then took a knee with 31 seconds, had multiple possessions that he did nothing with and threw the fatal pick that was one of the worst decisions I have ever seen him make in a big spot.

 

I was not defending Brady in the SBs but pointing to the fact that his defense was not as great as some want to believe. They often wilted late in SBs and who can forget the 2006 AFCCG when they blew the biggest lead ever in AFCCG history. That was the thrust of my argument.

 

To the bolded, oh my word. Moore's defensive blunder most certainly did cost them the game. It was 3rd and 3 from 70 yards away, with less than a minute left, and the Ravens had no timeouts. That play was the single biggest play of the game. The Broncos' win probability was in the high 90s before that play.

 

And if you think my comments about the Broncos/Ravens game were prompted by me being offended, I'll just say that you're wrong, and leave it at that.

[amfootball]

"Good enough" is much different in meaning than "good." One implies that something is sufficient for the task at hand or a particular set of circumstances. The other is a standalone assessment of the quality of one thing or another, not necessarily in relation to anything else. 

 

Tom Brady didn't play "good" in SB42. But he did play "good enough" for the Patriots to win. See the difference?

 

So when I say Manning played "good enough" for the Broncos to win that game last year, it's subject to the fact that they had a one touchdown lead with 1:09 left. That's entirely different than saying he had a good game. I've said many times that he didn't have a good game.

 

Also, my comments about him playing "good enough" in that game were respective to questions about his health moving forward, and how his condition might be affected by cold weather. It has never meant that I think Manning is okay with turning the ball over three times in a playoff game, so long as his team has a lead late in the game. 

No matter how you define it was not good or good enough. His TOs led to 17 points and he scored 21. That is a +4 differential. He was only in the game at the end because his special teams gave him 14 points otherwise it is a Ravens blow out. Either way, you are wrong. Rahim Moore made one bad play, Manning made three with his final pick costing them the game.

[braveheartcolt]

No matter how you define it was not good or good enough. His TOs led to 17 points and he scored 21. That is a +4 differential. He was only in the game at the end because his special teams gave him 14 points otherwise it is a Ravens blow out. Either way, you are wrong. Rahim Moore made one bad play, Manning made three with his final pick costing them the game.

Look up 'team game'. I'm no Peyton crazee, but your attacks are pathetic. Let it go. Brady is the best ever, we all know.

Go away.

[amfootball]

To the bolded, oh my word. Moore's defensive blunder most certainly did cost them the game. It was 3rd and 3 from 70 yards away, with less than a minute left, and the Ravens had no timeouts. That play was the single biggest play of the game. The Broncos' win probability was in the high 90s before that play.

 

And if you think my comments about the Broncos/Ravens game were prompted by me being offended, I'll just say that you're wrong, and leave it at that.

The game was turned when Manning threw a pick six after being up 7-0. The percentages of games won when the defense scores is close to 90 percent, http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/dallas-cowboys/headlines/20101215-defensive-touchdowns-lead-to-wins-in-most-nfl-games.ece

 

You combine that with his special teams giving him not one but TWO TD scores and it is a guaranteed win IF he does not turn over the ball. So blame Moore all you want but it was Manning's play throughout the game that had it a one score game with a minute to go when it should have been a blow out.

[Moose Of Woe]

The game was turned when Manning threw a pick six after being up 7-0. The percentages of games won when the defense scores is close to 90 percent, http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/dallas-cowboys/headlines/20101215-defensive-touchdowns-lead-to-wins-in-most-nfl-games.ece

 

 

http://www.denverbroncos.com/multimedia/videos/NFLN-Broncos-vs-Ravens-Highlights/58574de6-66bd-48a9-a112-950016274bff

 

1:45

 

Blatant PI on Decker not called. Tipped pass for the INT. Part of the 21 point swing courtesy of the refs. Manning threw the ball in the perfect spot. If Decker didn't have a hand hooking around his waist that was a catch. Not only is a first down taken away, a free seven points are given to the Ravens.

 

I snapped the picture there so you can see the football's position, as in it's a perfect pass. If you watch the video Decker is being hooked well before the football even comes in to view.

 

You can blame the second INT on Manning in OT as that was just a boneheaded throw.  Manning's overtime INT and Moore's blunder would have been non factors If the refs called a halfway decent game.

 

That was just terrible call/non call that screwed Denver. There were three more, and all were just as bad/blatant as that picture. One of which killed a DEN drive, two of which extended Ravens drives that led to 14 points.

[jvan1973]

The game was turned when Manning threw a pick six after being up 7-0. The percentages of games won when the defense scores is close to 90 percent, http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/dallas-cowboys/headlines/20101215-defensive-touchdowns-lead-to-wins-in-most-nfl-games.ece

You combine that with his special teams giving him not one but TWO TD scores and it is a guaranteed win IF he does not turn over the ball. So blame Moore all you want but it was Manning's play throughout the game that had it a one score game with a minute to go when it should have been a blow out.

how many points did Tommy put up against the ravens the next week? hint, it was less than 21

[bayone]

http://www.denverbroncos.com/multimedia/videos/NFLN-Broncos-vs-Ravens-Highlights/58574de6-66bd-48a9-a112-950016274bff

 

1:45

 

Blatant PI on Decker not called. Tipped pass for the INT. Part of the 21 point swing courtesy of the refs. Manning threw the ball in the perfect spot. If Decker didn't have a hand hooking around his waist that was a catch. Not only is a first down taken away, a free seven points are given to the Ravens.

 

I snapped the picture there so you can see the football's position, as in it's a perfect pass. If you watch the video Decker is being hooked well before the football even comes in to view.

 

You can blame the second INT on Manning in OT as that was just a boneheaded throw.  Manning's overtime INT and Moore's blunder would have been non factors If the refs called a halfway decent game.

 

That was just terrible call/non call that screwed Denver. There were three more, and all were just as bad/blatant as that picture. One of which killed a DEN drive, two of which extended Ravens drives that led to 14 points.

 

 

 

If u watch the video if I remember right u also saw Decker after  defender made contact & Deckers  head snap back or some weird body motion, Just saw u had video, even announcer said was interference and should of been flagged   but ref not in position to see it probably announcer said & yes in slow mo Decker's head goes back somewhat

 

just came on thread to see why its still being discussed the threads title, thats all

 

anyway cant believe still discussing this, , I am not getting into this again, have done in to many threads already

 

& if Prater just kicked that FG earthlier and not the dirt, , are just to many issues to regurgitate again

 

 

have a good day all

[amfootball]

http://www.denverbroncos.com/multimedia/videos/NFLN-Broncos-vs-Ravens-Highlights/58574de6-66bd-48a9-a112-950016274bff

 

1:45

 

Blatant PI on Decker not called. Tipped pass for the INT. Part of the 21 point swing courtesy of the refs. Manning threw the ball in the perfect spot. If Decker didn't have a hand hooking around his waist that was a catch. Not only is a first down taken away, a free seven points are given to the Ravens.

 

I snapped the picture there so you can see the football's position, as in it's a perfect pass. If you watch the video Decker is being hooked well before the football even comes in to view.

 

You can blame the second INT on Manning in OT as that was just a boneheaded throw.  Manning's overtime INT and Moore's blunder would have been non factors If the refs called a halfway decent game.

 

That was just terrible call/non call that screwed Denver. There were three more, and all were just as bad/blatant as that picture. One of which killed a DEN drive, two of which extended Ravens drives that led to 14 points.

We can argue calls all day long. There were some on the Ravens not called as well. That pick six completely changed the momentum of the game. PI calls have to be more blatant than that to get called in the playoffs. The SB had the play at the end as well when it could have been defensive holding but it was borderline as well and the refs let the players play which they generally do in the post season.

[Gramz]

We can argue calls all day long. There were some on the Ravens not called as well. That pick six completely changed the momentum of the game. PI calls have to be more blatant than that to get called in the playoffs. The SB had the play at the end as well when it could have been defensive holding but it was borderline as well and the refs let the players play which they generally do in the post season.

I think they are really missing you on the Pats Forum.  

Perhaps you could take a break here and pay them a Visit.  ;)  

[amfootball]

I think they are really missing you on the Pats Forum.  

Perhaps you could take a break here and pay them a Visit.   ;)  

Come on Gramz, you would miss me more.

 

All Gronk and Amendola talk on Pats boards as I am sure you can suspect. Most are upset with Bill if he is rushing either player back. You really can't win sometimes. 

[Susie Q]

Come on Gramz, you would miss me more.

 

All Gronk and Amendola talk on Pats boards as I am sure you can suspect. Most are upset with Bill if he is rushing either player back. You really can't win sometimes. 

Well maybe Gramz would miss you more ( But Very Unlikely ) but I for one and I know there are many others that wouldn't miss you in the least. 

 

Maybe we can take a poll to see how many want you to stay.

[amfootball]

Well maybe Gramz would miss you more ( But Very Unlikely ) but I for one and I know there are many others that wouldn't miss you in the least. 

[Moose Of Woe]

We can argue calls all day long. There were some on the Ravens not called as well.

 

As obvious as that and the "PI" on Bailey? Where?

 

There's nothing to argue. Anyone with two eyes can see both calls were absolute garbage and led to Ravens touchdowns. The Ravens had nothing go against them of that magnitude.

 

It took those two calls/non calls, a debatable tuck rule/fumble non call that led to 7,  a dirt field goal and Moore fail to even send it in to OT. Then, once in OT, the refs gave Boldin a 3rd and 8 catch on the Ravens 22 that clearly hit the ground.

 

 

Well, I don't dislike you. I hate everyone equally. xD

[amfootball]

As obvious as that and the "PI" on Bailey? Where?

 

There's nothing to argue. Anyone with two eyes can see both calls were absolute garbage and led to Ravens touchdowns. The Ravens had nothing go against them of that magnitude.

 

It took those two calls/non calls, a debatable tuck rule/fumble non call that led to 7,  a dirt field goal and Moore fail to even send it in to OT. Then, once in OT, the refs gave Boldin a 3rd and 8 catch on the Ravens 22 that clearly hit the ground.

 

 

Well, I don't dislike you. I hate everyone equally. xD

I like you too even if you have a lot of excuses for #18. lol. There were some calls in the Pats game too but I see you didn't mention those.   As Lewis would say to us both, "If God is for you who can be against you?"

[Superman]

No matter how you define it was not good or good enough. His TOs led to 17 points and he scored 21. That is a +4 differential. He was only in the game at the end because his special teams gave him 14 points otherwise it is a Ravens blow out. Either way, you are wrong. Rahim Moore made one bad play, Manning made three with his final pick costing them the game.

 

 

The game was turned when Manning threw a pick six after being up 7-0. The percentages of games won when the defense scores is close to 90 percent, http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/dallas-cowboys/headlines/20101215-defensive-touchdowns-lead-to-wins-in-most-nfl-games.ece

 

You combine that with his special teams giving him not one but TWO TD scores and it is a guaranteed win IF he does not turn over the ball. So blame Moore all you want but it was Manning's play throughout the game that had it a one score game with a minute to go when it should have been a blow out.

 

I'm just gonna let my previous posts stand as a response to this, because I've already made my point a hundred times here. We obviously don't agree.

[jvan1973]

I like you too even if you have a lot of excuses for #18. lol. There were some calls in the Pats game too but I see you didn't mention those. As Lewis would say to us both, "If God is for you who can be against you?"

i like how you continue to ignore the fact Manning had a better game than Brady against the ravens in the playoffs

[amfootball]

i like how you continue to ignore the fact Manning had a better game than Brady against the ravens in the playoffs

I responded to this on the other thead as you constantly bring it up like it is some point in Manning's favor. It's not. They both led three scoring drives (21 pts to 13 pts) and Manning had three turnovers to Brady's two with a pick six which pretty much nullifies the edge in points socred. And Manning was handed 14 points by his special teams and still lost. And of course, Manning had the final fatal pick to end the game with perhaps the worst decision and worst throw of his career.

 

FYI - this is not a playoff game to try to tout Manning. You may want to find another of his 9 wins. I can certainly find better ones for Brady out of his 17.

 

All that matters is who is holding the trophy at the end. Flacco outplayed them all. Hard to believe but kudos to him.

[Dustin]

 They both led three scoring drives and Manning had three turnovers to Brady's two. 

 

The Broncos had 3 TD drives to the Patriots 1 TD and 2 field goals. 

 

And if you adjust for tipped INTs, Manning had two turnovers to Brady's 1.

[amfootball]

The Broncos had 3 TD drives to the Patriots 1 TD and 2 field goals. 

 

And if you adjust for tipped INTs, Manning had two turnovers to Brady's 1.

And Manning's pick six gave the Ravens 7 points which nullifies the point differential.

 

I don't make adjustments or excuses but I know that is the norm up here for #18.

[Dustin]

And Manning's pick six gave the Ravens 7 points which nullifies the point differential.

 

Yeah, except it was a tipped pass and an obvious PI. If you can't admit that than you're hilariously bias.

 

 

I don't make adjustments or excuses but I know that is the norm up here for #18.

 

You don't make excuses? lulz

[Gramz]

And Manning's pick six gave the Ravens 7 points which nullifies the point differentail.

 

I don't make adjusts or excuses but I know that is the norm at here for #18.

We ALL know Tom is your favorite, and you'll never see the Greatness or accomplishments of #18, and  that is your perogative. 

 

But, give it a Rest.....Please,  I beg you....  

[amfootball]

Yeah, except it was a tipped pass and an obvious PI. If you can't admit that than you're hilariously bias.

 

 

 

You don't make excuses? lulz

So obvious, it wasn't called. lol.  I have made zero excuses for Brady's game vs. the Ravens and have continually laid the majority of the blame on him for the loss despite his defense not giving a good showing at all. 13 points and two TOs is not nearly good enough for the best QB of his generation.