Peyton running up the score...

[Yehoodi]

So? You guys are acting like I'm not aware of a Jets/Pats rivalry, or like I'm not aware of the NY/BOS sports rivalry which only goes back over a 100 years, or like I'm not aware that Belichick spurned the Jets...

Belichick hadn't expressed any ill will or gone after the Jets in years previous. But in 2007, Mangini ticked Belichick off.

 

yes he did, and it started really the year prior when he left . . . BB had hired him as a DC and hoped he would be around for a while and not just one year and head to a division rival . .. yes he was upset at Spygate but there was more than just spygate . . . and yes the pats played with fire . .. but like the hockey fight analogy I mentioned before, they did not continue to punch and opponent while on the ice . . .well not anymore than anyone else would have done . . .

[amfootball]

yes he did, and it started really the year prior when he left . . . BB had hired him as a DC and hoped he would be around for a while and not just one year and head to a division rival . .. yes he was upset at Spygate but there was more than just spygate . . . and yes the pats played with fire . .. but like the hockey fight analogy I mentioned before, they did not continue to punch and opponent while on the ice . . .well not anymore than anyone else would have done . . .

Also the Jets were terrible that year. Not that they aren't terrible almost every season but compared to that Pats offense which was historic, they would have been pummeled whether or not Mangini squealed or not.

[BPM_Colt]

Where is that pot stir icon?

Not trying to stir anything up really. I just remember fans last year talking about Brady/Pats running it up on us last year

[jvan1973]

Supes, I think if you look at the two years of our beloved teams more closely and as an third party independent observer, your opinion will be different . . . so you I ask you a question after reviewing our teams actions insofar as the back up are concerned and how we acted when the games where in hand . . .

TEAMS BACK UP CONTRIBUTION

In the first 15 games of the respective seasons the teams back-ups contribution is as follows:

Colts back ups (all Sorgi)

3 games

33 snaps

5 possessions

2 knee downs

*Total time as QB of record 38:50 mins

Pats back ups (Cassell and Gutierrez)

5 games

37 snaps

8 possessions

1 kneel down

Total time as QB of record 34:50 mins**

*Time of record is the time the QB came into the game and was the QB for the team, so for example if a back up came in at the 7 min mark of the 4th and played the rest of the game I have that as 7 minutes at time of record . . .

**the pats back-up time in the game would have been longer but Cassel threw a pick six and Brady came back in the game for one possession in the Miami game, Cassel pick six made the game a 21 point game with 10:30 mins to go . . .

GAMES IN HAND (3 EACH)

Each team had games in which they pulled ahead late in the game (leading be a score or two and go a third one late in the 4^th). Also, each team had three games in which their QB was in a game past the point of no return for the opponent. The games are as follows:

New England

Buf game 1

Pats up 38-7 Brady got the ball with 0:23 in 3^rd for his 4^th possession of the half and ran a 5 min drive and scored a passing TD then came out

Wash Game

Pats up 45-0 and on his 2^nd possession of the half Brady took the ball at the 2:02 mark of the 3^rd qtr and drove a 9 min drive for a passing TD, then came out

Buf Game #2

Leading 49-10 Brady took the ball for the 2^nd possession of the half at the 6:02 mark and drove a 6 min drive for a rushing TD, then came out . . .

Indy

Hou Game

Colts lead the game 42-14, Manning never came out of the game, a late pick six by Carr made it a 49-14 win

Chic game

Leading 34-3 Manning took the ball for his 3^rd possession of the half at the 4:52 mark of the 3^rd and ran a 4 min drive resulting in a rushing TD, then came out

Det Game

Leading 34-9 manning took the ball for the 3^rd time of the half and at the 5:27 mark of the 3^rd and ran a 3 min drive resulting in a passing td, then came out . . .

Each team had three games in which perhaps some may question why the teams QB was in the game for his last possession, but each team had 3 each . . . other than the hou game, all the possession started in the 3^rd qtr with two of the pats involving Brady second possession of the half . . .

So I ask you then, as an independent observer of the fact pattern, if Team B has its back up in more games and essentially for the same number of snaps, time and actually more possessions as Team A’s back up, and each team has a possession in three games in which the game had gone past the point of no return for the team and they have their starting QB in the game, noting that Team B’s QB was only in for his second possession in two of the three said games . . . how it is then in your mind that Team B acted any different than Team A?

sorry I got your quote at the end . . .

my opinion will never change, the pats did not do any thing different that the colts, both had great offenses that were on fire for two years, lead by HOF QBs and if they each had a few games which there was a single possession in which some might say they should of been of the bench . . .but for me the 04 colts or the 07 pats, three possession do not define a season . . . most every team each year will have a game or two in which they had a possession when perhaps the starters should not have been in the game . . . the 04 colts and the 07 pats had three each . . .

EDIT: Sorry for the long post, but I felt the need to get all of the facts into the post to give the full view of the two season in questions . . . as you know I have a thingy with the "running up the score" label and how some try to add it to the 07 pats . . . but they were simply a powerful team that did what others have done in the past . . .

are you talking about the colts 2004 season? because if you are, you are way off on the minutes sorgi played

edit. Why did you leave outthe last game of the year? Sorgi played nearly the entire game.

[Superman]

Supes, I think if you look at the two years of our beloved teams more closely and as an third party independent observer, your opinion will be different . . . so you I ask you a question after reviewing our teams actions insofar as the back up are concerned and how we acted when the games where in hand . . .

 

 

 

This is all too much, man. I read your whole post, but about 80% of it is immaterial.

 

The number of snaps, minutes played, etc., by the backup quarterback is mostly irrelevant. It doesn't take into consideration how many of either team's games were out of question, nor does it take into consideration the point at which those games were basically over.

 

The Texans game you mentioned, I'm not sure, but I think Sorgi finished the game. He didn't attempt any passes or run with it, so he's not in the box score. I could be mistaken; no way to confirm right now. But even if he didn't, the Colts didn't attempt a pass after Manning's second interception. To be fair, this is the game anyone who thinks the Colts ever ran the score up should start with, because it's the closest one. Manning probably shouldn't have been throwing on the possession where he threw the pick-six. The rub is that the Colts had already kind of dialed their offense down on the two previous possessions. Stokley and Clark both scored touchdowns on long catch and runs, because the Texans were just terrible at tackling in that game. And those were the scores that really nailed the game down.

 

As jvan mentioned, you completely ignored the final game of the season, where Sorgi played all but the first series, I believe. (And if the point is that Manning was gunning for the record, or stat padding, that's a big deal right there. He threw 49 touchdowns through 15 games, essentially. If he wanted more, wouldn't he have played more in that last game?)

 

So I ask you then, as an independent observer of the fact pattern, if Team B has its back up in more games and essentially for the same number of snaps, time and actually more possessions as Team A’s back up, and each team has a possession in three games in which the game had gone past the point of no return for the team and they have their starting QB in the game, noting that Team B’s QB was only in for his second possession in two of the three said games . . . how it is then in your mind that Team B acted any different than Team A?

 

 

SMH... I can't believe this is just one question. Seriously, dude, look at the size of that thing.

 

 

My response is that I don't agree with your courtroom drama argument leading up to this question (you're an attorney, right?) I don't believe that the backup games/snaps is relevant; I don't agree that each team only had three games past the point of no return.

 

This argument is almost six years old. I can't believe I've been roped in again. You said your opinion isn't changing, and that's one thing you and I have in common here. Like I said, I don't care if the 2007 Pats ran the score up; I do think they rubbed it in a couple times that season, but it doesn't matter. I don't agree that the Colts did the same thing in 2004, and I think the worst response a Pats fan can give to accusations about 2007 is to bring up Colts 2004. Just say "Who cares? We were awesome, we were ticked off, we were on a mission, no one could stop us, and there's no apology necessary." 

 

Most relevant to the OP, the Broncos handling of the game against the Eagles on Sunday wasn't running up the score. Like I said earlier, securing a four score lead late in the third quarter isn't running up the score, IMO. It can be argued that the game was over before that last scoring drive, but I don't think a three touchdown lead in the third quarter is secure. I've seen too many comebacks to believe that. All it takes is a couple of fluke plays, and all of a sudden the game is tied.

[No 1 Manning Fan]

I have no issue with running up the score. Never have. Put up a 100 if you can. Defenses job to stop the offense. There just seems to be double standard with Brady and Manning in this regard but what else is new...

I don't take issue with Brady or Manning running up the score. It is on the coaches to call off the dogs in a blow out. Not doing so shows a lack of character on the part of the coaches. They could tell the offense to run the ball between the tackles and go for first downs instead of deep passes, or not to go for a punt block when the game is out of reach. It's not a double standard here on this forum. We don't think Brady is culpable for running up the score. We just don't like him around here.

[colts_mp]

You want to see running up the score?  just wait til Peyton comes back to Indy and see what he does to our defense.

[AntonMcG]

Anton, I would kindly ask you to read my prior post to Superman and please provide for this forum your opinion of what running up the score . . . once we know what your opinion is on record of what running up the score, then we can continue our discussion which respect to NFL teams . . thank you . . .

 

Never once have you seen me say there is anything wrong with running up the score. Some Head Coachs have different interpretations of what a 'safe lead' is. And to your point, yes Belichick liked to use these situations to try different things.

 

My issue is with amfootball once again displaying their trollish behavior when comparing to very different situations. Manning came off the field when the game was done, not a minute after, but of course amfootball will not acknowledge that.

 

The thing is, most of us here are huge Manning fans, so yes, we want him to break the TD record. A TD record that I still believe should be his. Whether Brady was running up the score in 2007, or whether he was 'trying things' in a game situation, is irrelevant. The fact is he scored quite a few garbage time TDs that year. Manning has yet to do that this year, because there has still been the potential of a comeback.

[Gavin]

I don't take issue with Brady or Manning running up the score. It is on the coaches to call off the dogs in a blow out. Not doing so shows a lack of character on the part of the coaches. They could tell the offense to run the ball between the tackles and go for first downs instead of deep passes, or not to go for a punt block when the game is out of reach. It's not a double standard here on this forum. We don't think Brady is culpable for running up the score. We just don't like him around here.

if a play is there to be made you make it whether the score is close or a blowout wthere your 1st srringers are in or not, they are grown men, if they cant handle getting whipped and whine about it instead of doing something about it then that speaks to them being weak of mind

[AntonMcG]

I disagree. I don't think, even with a team that isn't playing well, that a three touchdown lead with 23 minutes left is safe. That final drive with Manning in sealed the deal. It took up 7 or 8 minutes, it extended the lead, and after that, there was zero danger.

This is independent of my thoughts on running up the score. I'm not the one who is fussing over this. I just don't think going up four scores on a drive that started midway through the 3rd quarter is running up the score.

 

Of course it's not and amfootball knows this.

[Jay Kirk]

You want to see running up the score?  just wait til Peyton comes back to Indy and see what he does to our defense.

You might be supprised how good of a game it is.Furthermore lets worry about the Seattle first 

[amfootball]

You might be supprised how good of a game it is.Furthermore lets worry about the Seattle first 

I agree. I think the Colts have a real chance to make it a game and even win given the brand of football they are playing. And for all the talk about Manning's motivation to win this game, I think Luck has a few motivations of his own. ;)

[GoPats]

I don't think it had anything to do with Spygate. That's just not Bill's MO.

Washington was the most obvious game and that was practicing 2 new plays withj 2 new WRs (Welker and Moss) with passes at the goaline. I saw those two exact passes played for real the following 2 weeks for when the game was on the line.

One of the definitions of running the score is intimidation. Brady said as much in that famous WEEI radio interview that went viral. Was there intimidation? There most certainly was. I watched teams get out of what they do best to TRY and counter NE that year and play right into our hands.

Only 3 teams did not and thus were not intimidated which I highly respected. That was the Steelers, Eagles, and Giants. The Steelers & Eagle games were fiercely competitive and they only lost by a FG or TD. Same with Giants in the regular season last game.

But the other teams were intimidated and it only made it worse for them.

Mission accomplished

 

Don't forget the Ravens... they would have ended the Patriots' win streak if not for a badly timed time-out call by none other than Rex Ryan, if I remember right!

 

But I do disagree with you regarding the motivation in 2007. Bruschi said this back in 2012:

 

“I was there in 2007. I remember when it broke out,” Bruschi said. “I remember everyone discrediting our past successes and our past championships. So all we did, we had motivation to go out there and beat everyone by 20 or beat everyone by 30. Or, at times, when we were beating them by 30, pour it on and beat them by 40. That was the only thing we could do was go answer on the field to prove how good we were as players and how good the coaches were on that football team. You go 16-0, an undefeated regular season and lose in the Super Bowl to the New York Giants. You think your point is proven right there.” 

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4721524/bruschi-comes-to-belichicks-defense

 

Maybe it was more the players' influence than Belichick's, and I hear what you're saying about what drives him, but I think the attempt to discredit what they'd done was certainly a motivating factor in how things rolled out that season. 

[GoPats]

 

The thing is, most of us here are huge Manning fans, so yes, we want him to break the TD record. A TD record that I still believe should be his. Whether Brady was running up the score in 2007, or whether he was 'trying things' in a game situation, is irrelevant. The fact is he scored quite a few garbage time TDs that year. Manning has yet to do that this year, because there has still been the potential of a comeback.

 

I appreciate this kind of fan honesty Anton. 

 

That said, I would chalk up least three of Manning's current 16 TD passes as "garbage time" scores. That's conservative. I do not hold it against him in the slightest, as I didn't hold it against Brady in 2007, but it's disingenuous to say that there was "the potential of a comeback" in one situation versus another, because that is an undefinable, subjective variable. How was the other team playing? What was the situation with momentum? Was there any precedent involved? 

 

Some of you just seem to want an unrealistic ideal to go along with the historic performance we're seeing from Manning this year. If he does break the record, it's almost like you'd want the Broncos to win every game 56-50. You can't throw 50+ TDs in the league without having a good share of garbage time scores. But again, that doesn't make it wrong or unsportsmanlike. It's striving for unprecedented excellence. 

 

Just enjoy it. 

[TAPLOOK]

I appreciate this kind of fan honesty Anton. 

 

That said, I would chalk up least three of Manning's current 16 TD passes as "garbage time" scores. That's conservative. I do not hold it against him in the slightest, as I didn't hold it against Brady in 2007, but it's disingenuous to say that there was "the potential of a comeback" in one situation versus another, because that is an undefinable, subjective variable. How was the other team playing? What was the situation with momentum? Was there any precedent involved? 

 

Some of you just seem to want an unrealistic ideal to go along with the historic performance we're seeing from Manning this year. If he does break the record, it's almost like you'd want the Broncos to win every game 56-50. You can't throw 50+ TDs in the league without having a good share of garbage time scores. But again, that doesn't make it wrong or unsportsmanlike. It's striving for unprecedented excellence. 

 

Just enjoy it. 

 

NAILED IT! Excellent post.

[No 1 Manning Fan]

if a play is there to be made you make it whether the score is close or a blowout wthere your 1st srringers are in or not, they are grown men, if they cant handle getting whipped and whine about it instead of doing something about it then that speaks to them being weak of mind

So you're saying that there should be no sportsmanship anymore. Okay. You should not only beat someone, but you should embarrass them wherever the opportunity presents itself. Interesting.

[BOTT]

You want to see running up the score?  just wait til Peyton comes back to Indy and see what he does to our defense.

Go stick it up your backside

[Gavin]

So you're saying that there should be no sportsmanship anymore. Okay. You should not only beat someone, but you should embarrass them wherever the opportunity presents itself. Interesting.

Sportsmanship is shaking hands after the game regardless if you took a butt whoopin after a game or not or at least aknowledging that your opponent was better then you on that day. Should a boxer not go for a knockout when he has a guy on the ropes just because he has a guy cornered? No....you finish it out, sportsmanship can be defined in different ways, its in the eye of the beholder

[jvan1973]

Go stick it up your backside

harsh

[Superman]

Sportsmanship is shaking hands after the game regardless if you took a butt whoopin after a game or not or at least aknowledging that your opponent was better then you on that day. Should a boxer not go for a knockout when he has a guy on the ropes just because he has a guy cornered? No....you finish it out, sportsmanship can be defined in different ways, its in the eye of the beholder

 

Boxing analogy misses the mark. You win by knocking the opponent out, and until the final bell rings, you can lose by being knocked out. You can win the first 11 rounds, and lose by knockout in the last second of the last round.

 

In football, and many other sports, there is sometimes a time when the outcome is not in question. 

[Gavin]

Boxing analogy misses the mark. You win by knocking the opponent out, and until the final bell rings, you can lose by being knocked out. You can win the first 11 rounds, and lose by knockout in the last second of the last round.

 

In football, and many other sports, there is sometimes a time when the outcome is not in question. 

But just like in boxing if you leave yourself vulnerable in one area then the offense would be a fool not to take it and be all over it

[Superman]

But just like in boxing if you leave yourself vulnerable in one area then the offense would be a fool not to take it and be all over it

 

Like Herm Edwards said, you play to win the game. Once you have the game won, taking advantage of the other team's weaknesses isn't necessary.

 

Again, I'm not saying this to argue that running up the score is morally wrong or anything. I really don't care. But like you said, people have different opinions of sportsmanship.

[Superman]

Manning came out of the game at roughly the same spot in the game Luck did today...

 

I just noticed this. Manning came out of the game earlier than Luck did, and with a smaller lead.

[No 1 Manning Fan]

Sportsmanship is shaking hands after the game regardless if you took a butt whoopin after a game or not or at least aknowledging that your opponent was better then you on that day. Should a boxer not go for a knockout when he has a guy on the ropes just because he has a guy cornered? No....you finish it out, sportsmanship can be defined in different ways, its in the eye of the beholder

The boxer analogy doesn't work because the only way to be assured of the victory is by knock out or stoppage. But I get your point. Sportsmanship does depend on your point of view.

[Buck Showalter]

have not & will not read this entire thread, (so maybe this has been mentioned) but if anyone wants to sniff the TD record you gotta be aggressive, wish 18 would've been allowed to be a little more aggressive during the Polian/Dungy years...

[18Manning]

have not & will not read this entire thread, (so maybe this has been mentioned) but if anyone wants to sniff the TD record you gotta be aggressive, wish 18 would've been allowed to be a little more aggressive during the Polian/Dungy years...

Didn't he get pulled early from a few games the year he broke the TD record?

[Buck Showalter]

Didn't he get pulled early from a few games the year he broke the TD record?

Yes...

[No 1 Manning Fan]

Didn't he get pulled early from a few games the year he broke the TD record?

He most certainly did. That last game against the Broncos I believe really * me off. I was like, 'well, let's just stop all of the momentum right before the playoffs... again!!!'

Of course, think we ended up winning the divisional game.

[MAC]

Sportsmanship is shaking hands after the game regardless if you took a butt whoopin after a game or not or at least aknowledging that your opponent was better then you on that day. Should a boxer not go for a knockout when he has a guy on the ropes just because he has a guy cornered? No....you finish it out, sportsmanship can be defined in different ways, its in the eye of the beholder

No actually, sportsmanship means sportsmanship. It's about being respectful and fair - never forgetting that the opponent is a human being too, always remembering how you would feel if you were on the other side of the situation. It isn't in the eye of the beholder at all.

 

Your example is talking about not being a poor loser. There is more to sportsmanship than that - such as not being a poor winner. All the loser can do is resist the temptation to punch a poor winner in the head. It's the winner who controls the situation by definition - such as not putting the loser in the position in which they feel the need to attack in the first place.

 

The objective is to win the game. Going above and beyond that with the clear objective of humiliating your opponent is not only poor sportsmanship, it's self-defeating. Such actions usually come back to bite you where it hurts.

 

At the end of the day you have to look at yourself in the mirror. It's NOT commendable to kick someone when they're down.

[MAC]

He most certainly did. That last game against the Broncos I believe really ticked me off. I was like, 'well, let's just stop all of the momentum right before the playoffs... again!!!'

Of course, think we ended up winning the divisional game.

Uh, yeah. They dominated them. The Colts knew that the regular season game was meaningless so they played it very vanilla. Dominating THAT game would have either shown all their cards and ticked the Broncos off making the playoff game much more difficult, or perhaps (I don't recall) leading to them playing a different opponent whom they might not have felt they matched up with as well.

 

I understand both sides of the debate as to whether "to sit or not to sit", but this isn't the best example to chose. They played it about perfect.

[braveheartcolt]

It is better to 'run up the score' like Peyton, than 'run down the score' like brother Eli.

That is how interested I am in this debate, although any team relaxing and being comfortable with a three score lead in the 3rd quarter is just dumb. We were terrible v the Lions for most of the game last year, and scored two TD's in 4 minutes. If we had bucked up our ideas at the start of the 4th, we could have overturned a four score deficit at least.

So for the first time in years....I challenge you, GoPats, to a duel!

[Yehoodi]

are you talking about the colts 2004 season? because if you are, you are way off on the minutes sorgi played

edit. Why did you leave outthe last game of the year? Sorgi played nearly the entire game.

 

my numbers are not off but a great margin as you may thing . . . I checked them by hand at the NFL.com website. . . but I will double check them now and provide links for your reference . . .

 

My point was to address the running up the score and how the teams acted when they had a lead, not whether they rested their starters, thereby making the last game irrelevant to the discussion. . . the point in question has to do with how teams acted when they had a lead in hand and how the teams acted in the 4th qtr; and specifically, if and when they pulled the starter and put in the replacement after they had a big lead during a game . . . as Manning did not play past the first possession of the last game there was no big lead to gain and therefore no starter being pulled in the discussion in the last game and therefore not relevant to the point in question . . . what the colts did in game 16 has zero relevance to what they did with a big lead late in a game earlier in the season, and this is the specific point in question . . . did the colts act different that the pats when they had a big lead . . .

 

. . .  I brought up the back up into the equation as there are a lot of people who like to make off comments, without knowing the true facts, that "Peyton was pulled from many games, while Brady was still in there in the 4th chucking it down field" . . . although this has a nice ring to it, it does not reflect what actually happened in reality . . . and I just wanted to make this point crystal clear and wanted to lay out the facts, then we all can have an informed discussion on the matter . . . that is all . . . just because ESPN says 2 +2 = 5 does not meant that it does . . . we still need to use an unbias brain and add 2 and 2 and see if we get 4 . . .

 

For a quick reference we can first look to Yahoo sports game day logs to see what games the backups played

 

in 2007 Matt Cassel played in 5 games

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/7406/gamelog/?season=2007_2

 

In 2004 Jeff Sorgi played in 3 games and game 16

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/6952/gamelog/?season=2004_2

 

you can then take these game logs and look at the specific games at NFL.com  . . . I find the play by play tab to be the best as it shows the plays . . . one can look at each game the QBs played and add up the numbers the way I did . . . takes about 20 -30 mins or so

 

to save you the time I will provide the links and redid my math . . .  here are the game logs . . . feel free to thumb through the play by play logs . . . as you can see both back up played significant time in three games . . . just as note when I first did this I did it somewhat quickly and had included punts as snaps (have taken them out this time), kneel does are kneel down for entire possession (one of Cassel’s possessions was a 1^st down then a kneel down so I did not count it as a kneel down but as a possession), and lastly, my time was off on Cassel by a few minutes (I needed to take out Brady’s intervening possession in the Mia game). . . but here are the numbers again . . .

 

 

Cassel/Guetierrez – 5 games

 

Jets, 1 *, 0:17, one kneel down, 1 snap

 

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2007090905/2007/REG1/patriots@jets#tab=analyze&analyze=playbyplay

 

Cinn, 1 *, 2:38, 5 snaps

 

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2007100100/2007/REG4/patriots@bengals#tab=analyze&analyze=playbyplay

 

 

Mia, 2 *, 11:35, 9 snaps, one punt

 

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2007102104/2007/REG7/patriots@dolphins#tab=analyze&analyze=playbyplay

 

 

Wash, 3 * 8:30 10 snaps, one punt, one kneel

 

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2007102810/2007/REG8/redskins@patriots#tab=analyze&analyze=playbyplay

 

Buf,  1 *, 10:57, 10 snaps

 

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2007111802/2007/REG11/patriots@bills#tab=analyze&recap=fullstory&analyze=playbyplay

 

 

Total: 33:57 time (taking out Brady 2:19 reentry in Mia game it is 31:42), 8 possessions, 2 kneel downs, 35 snaps, 2 punts

 

 

Sorgi - 3 games

 

Chi 2 *, 12:42, 16 snaps, one kneel

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2004112103/2004/REG11/colts@bears#tab=analyze&analyze=playbyplay

 

Ten 2 *, 9:53, 8 snaps, one kneel

 

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2004120504/2004/REG13/titans@colts#tab=analyze&analyze=playbyplay

 

Det 3 *, 16:15, 13 snaps, two punt

 

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2004112500/2004/REG12/colts@lions#tab=analyze&analyze=playbyplay

 

 

Total: 38:50 time, 7 possessions, 2 kneel downs, 37 snaps, 2 punts

 

 

When one looks at the above facts with a neutral eye and looks at the games in which both teams were playing their starters and trying to win, (for indy its first 15 games), one sees that the teams did not act any different . . . just as a last point of fact the above does not include the Indy/hou game in which Sorgi did not come in at all . . .

 

Regardless of how one wants to try to spin things, if we remove the jersey colors from the teams, we see that Team B (patsy) did not act any different than Team A (colts) . . . this was my only point about "running up the scores" or not between the two years and two teams in question . . . that is all . . .   

[Yehoodi]

This is all too much, man. I read your whole post, but about 80% of it is immaterial.

 

The number of snaps, minutes played, etc., by the backup quarterback is mostly irrelevant. It doesn't take into consideration how many of either team's games were out of question, nor does it take into consideration the point at which those games were basically over.

 

The Texans game you mentioned, I'm not sure, but I think Sorgi finished the game. He didn't attempt any passes or run with it, so he's not in the box score. I could be mistaken; no way to confirm right now. But even if he didn't, the Colts didn't attempt a pass after Manning's second interception. To be fair, this is the game anyone who thinks the Colts ever ran the score up should start with, because it's the closest one. Manning probably shouldn't have been throwing on the possession where he threw the pick-six. The rub is that the Colts had already kind of dialed their offense down on the two previous possessions. Stokley and Clark both scored touchdowns on long catch and runs, because the Texans were just terrible at tackling in that game. And those were the scores that really nailed the game down.

 

As jvan mentioned, you completely ignored the final game of the season, where Sorgi played all but the first series, I believe. (And if the point is that Manning was gunning for the record, or stat padding, that's a big deal right there. He threw 49 touchdowns through 15 games, essentially. If he wanted more, wouldn't he have played more in that last game?)

 

 

SMH... I can't believe this is just one question. Seriously, dude, look at the size of that thing.

 

 

My response is that I don't agree with your courtroom drama argument leading up to this question (you're an attorney, right?) I don't believe that the backup games/snaps is relevant; I don't agree that each team only had three games past the point of no return.

 

This argument is almost six years old. I can't believe I've been roped in again. You said your opinion isn't changing, and that's one thing you and I have in common here. Like I said, I don't care if the 2007 Pats ran the score up; I do think they rubbed it in a couple times that season, but it doesn't matter. I don't agree that the Colts did the same thing in 2004, and I think the worst response a Pats fan can give to accusations about 2007 is to bring up Colts 2004. Just say "Who cares? We were awesome, we were ticked off, we were on a mission, no one could stop us, and there's no apology necessary." 

 

Most relevant to the OP, the Broncos handling of the game against the Eagles on Sunday wasn't running up the score. Like I said earlier, securing a four score lead late in the third quarter isn't running up the score, IMO. It can be argued that the game was over before that last scoring drive, but I don't think a three touchdown lead in the third quarter is secure. I've seen too many comebacks to believe that. All it takes is a couple of fluke plays, and all of a sudden the game is tied.

 

the problem with this discussion and why I brought it up as I have not gotten a consistent answer on this board . . . and I am courtesy as to why you seem to think the colts acted differently that the pats did, or that the latter were playing their starters longer than the necessary than the colts  . . . for me they acted the same, powerful HOF lead teams that had powerful offenses that had big lead in games and pulled their starters after the game was in hand in some of the games . . .  and perhaps in a few of the games had the starters in for one possession too many . ..

 

I wont besieged you with a long post, but would as you to kindly reread my last post to Jvan . .. but I think we can both agree that the myth of Sorgi being put into games more than Cassel when the colts were winning game is just a myth and not supported by facts . . . and btw you and I both know that this was one of those thingies people would throw out to try to chastise the 2007 pats  . . .

 

and no sorgi did not play in the Houston game . . .

 

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2004111402/2004/REG10/texans@colts#tab=analyze&analyze=playbyplay

 

not that I really care what the colts did and that Manning was in the game midway through 4th leading 42-14, but when one challenges my team and calls them foul (or that his team did not "do" the same thing), I just kindly point them to that game and others . . . that is all . . .

 

look Supes all I am asking is that we have a std, what ever the hell the standard, I really really really really do not care what one has as a standard . . . all that I was asking that can people please use the same yard stick regardless of the jersey . . . I don't care what color you paint your yardstick or how long you make it, but please just use the same one team to team, that is not too much to ask is it?

 

and for me they acted the same . .. . and as I have said prior in this thread, I do not think that the Broncos have ran up the score . . . . but I am using the same yard stick that I use on the 2007 pats and 2004 colts . . .  

 

and lastly, as for you point about when the back up come in, I am sorry and have to respectfully disagree, that is indeed the question, the brunt of the issue is "are the starters in too late", how can you answer that question without looking at when the backup came in and what time and score . . . ?

 

given the fact that both team had big leads and their back ups came in and both might of played their starters a "possession too many" in some games . . . what is it that makes you think that the pats were different?

 

Yes I am an attorney . . . :36dancing:

[Truckin Sanders]

if a play is there to be made you make it whether the score is close or a blowout wthere your 1st srringers are in or not, they are grown men, if they cant handle getting whipped and whine about it instead of doing something about it then that speaks to them being weak of mind

This. Nothing wrong with running up the score. Plenty of teams have taken there foot off the pedal during the game and lost. Until they trot in a second string defense nothing wrong with continuing to play your first stringers.

[Superman]

the problem with this discussion and why I brought it up as I have not gotten a consistent answer on this board . . .

Maybe the reason you're not getting a consistent answer is because this board is made up of many different people with different viewpoints.

 

and btw you and I both know that this was one of those thingies people would throw out to try to chastise the 2007 pats  . . .

What's really strange is that you can't seem to defend the Patriots without bringing up the Colts. If you don't think there's anything wrong with the way the Patriots handled the end of games, then just say that. You're here trying to convince people that what the Colts did was exactly the same as what the Patriots did, and it's not going to fly. Not necessarily because anyone is applying a double standard -- it's bad because it's the Patriots, it's okay if it's the Colts -- at least not in my case. It's because, in my case, I don't agree with your conclusion.

I watched both teams play every game in both seasons, and I believe the Patriots had a middle finger to the world, while Brady was chasing the touchdown record. I know that the Patriots won more games in 2007, had a wider average margin of victory, clinched a playoff berth and playoff seeding earlier than the 2004 Colts, and still attempted a hundred more passes. I'm not saying any of that is wrong. I'm just saying that my opinion is that the Patriots were on a different mission than the Colts, and it showed in the way they handled the end of games and the end of the season.

You and I are not going to see this the same way. You should come to terms with that.

But what I think you should really try to do is be at peace with the Patriots 2007 season. It was a great season, Brady had a great year, they were on the verge of being the single most dominant team in NFL history, and as a fan, you should be proud of it. I find the "so what? We were great and no one could stop us" response to be much more honest.

 

and no sorgi did not play in the Houston game . . .

Very well. I stand corrected.

 

Yes I am an attorney . . . :36dancing:

I thought I remembered you saying that.

Side note: Careful with that emoticon... jp

 

and lastly, as for you point about when the back up come in, I am sorry and have to respectfully disagree, that is indeed the question, the brunt of the issue is "are the starters in too late", how can you answer that question without looking at when the backup came in and what time and score . . . ?

 

That's NOT the issue. You can leave your starter in and not run up the score. If you're running the ball every down, that's not running up the score. Pulling the starter is part of the picture, but it's not the entire picture. That's just one example of the several logical fallacies upon which you've propped your argument. It's a red herring. 

[amfootball]

Maybe the reason you're not getting a consistent answer is because this board is made up of many different people with different viewpoints.

 

What's really strange is that you can't seem to defend the Patriots without bringing up the Colts. If you don't think there's anything wrong with the way the Patriots handled the end of games, then just say that. You're here trying to convince people that what the Colts did was exactly the same as what the Patriots did, and it's not going to fly. Not necessarily because anyone is applying a double standard -- it's bad because it's the Patriots, it's okay if it's the Colts -- at least not in my case. It's because, in my case, I don't agree with your conclusion.

I watched both teams play every game in both seasons, and I believe the Patriots had a middle finger to the world, while Brady was chasing the touchdown record. I know that the Patriots won more games in 2007, had a wider average margin of victory, clinched a playoff berth and playoff seeding earlier than the 2004 Colts, and still attempted a hundred more passes. I'm not saying any of that is wrong. I'm just saying that my opinion is that the Patriots were on a different mission than the Colts, and it showed in the way they handled the end of games and the end of the season.

You and I are not going to see this the same way. You should come to terms with that.

But what I think you should really try to do is be at peace with the Patriots 2007 season. It was a great season, Brady had a great year, they were on the verge of being the single most dominant team in NFL history, and as a fan, you should be proud of it. I find the "so what? We were great and no one could stop us" response to be much more honest.

 

Very well. I stand corrected.

 

I thought I remembered you saying that.

Side note: Careful with that emoticon... jp

 

 

That's NOT the issue. You can leave your starter in and not run up the score. If you're running the ball every down, that's not running up the score. Pulling the starter is part of the picture, but it's not the entire picture. That's just one example of the several logical fallacies upon which you've propped your argument. It's a red herring. 

I knew it would happen eventually but we do agree. I had my doubts. But here it is. lol.

 

The 2007 Pats were a historic offense that broke the points record, point differential record and a host of others. They scored TDs on 50 percent of their possessions. Simply mind boggling. That year Bill introduced the league to the spread with an in prime Moss running down the sideline and out jumping 2 or 3 defenders for TDs. Then you had Welker in the slot who basically was the Pats run game snatching 5 yard passes and turning them into 10-15 yard gains. Then there was Stallworth who was rarely doubled because of Moss, catching balls and taking it to the house with his lightning speed. And of course Jabbar Gaffney who was Brady's 4th option! The Pats scored at will because they were that good. I remember many games where Brady threw a short pass similar to what Manning did this year with Thomas vs. the Ravens and it was taken to the house. And of course they did not lose game until the SB.

 

In comparison, the 2004 Colts were a great offense but not in the same league as the Pats. James ran for more than 1,500 yards that year and Manning of course had his 49 TDs but they lost some games. They certainly had their moments where they ran up the score but not to the extent of the Pats in 2007 which was a demolition offense capable of striking at will at any time.

 

I think there are other seasons and games that would probably make Yehoodi's argument more valid but not 2004 vs 2007. And really not much has changed, Bill always plays his starters and Brady is an asasin on the field every time he has the ball just like Manning. Like I said before, score 100 if you can. That is what an offense is supposed to do. If the D can't keep up too bad. I would never trade in the thumpings the Pats put on teams that year. It was my all time favorite season as a Pats fan just wished it ended differently. lol.

[GoPats]

It is better to 'run up the score' like Peyton, than 'run down the score' like brother Eli.

That is how interested I am in this debate, although any team relaxing and being comfortable with a three score lead in the 3rd quarter is just dumb. We were terrible v the Lions for most of the game last year, and scored two TD's in 4 minutes. If we had bucked up our ideas at the start of the 4th, we could have overturned a four score deficit at least.

So for the first time in years....I challenge you, GoPats, to a duel!

 

Pistols at dawn again? You know how that worked out last time. Maybe we should just stick to bar trivia. 

[Snowglobe]

Last year's 49ers/Patriots game is a great example. 4 Tds in 15 mins.

[Superman]

Last year's 49ers/Patriots game is a great example. 4 Tds in 15 mins.

 

Such a crazy game. The Niners got the ball at 8:31 in the second quarter, up 7-3. By the end of the quarter, they had scored twice and were up 17-3. By the 10:21 mark of the third quarter, they had scored two more touchdowns and were up 31-3. That's 24 unanswered points in about 11 minutes of clock time. (And that's on four possessions; you can score 24 points in three possessions, with even less clock than that.)

 

Then it was the Pats turn. And by the 6:43 mark of the 4th quarter, they had tied it at 31. Four touchdowns in about a quarter and a half.

 

Then the Niners scored another touchdown on the very next play from scrimmage.

 

It happens; not even close to being unprecedented. No one has brought up the Colts/Bucs game in 2003. 21 points in four minutes. Noting wrong with securing your lead late in the third/early in the fourth.

 

That said, there's a noticeable intent when a team comes out and throws the ball down the field or runs trick plays in the fourth quarter, when they're already up big. It speaks to sportsmanship, IMO. Not only that, it's counterproductive. It's in their best interests to keep the clock running; even if you throw it, use high percentage plays and avoid stoppages. Shorten the game. Try to dominate time of possession. 

[amfootball]

Such a crazy game. The Niners got the ball at 8:31 in the second quarter, up 7-3. By the end of the quarter, they had scored twice and were up 17-3. By the 10:21 mark of the third quarter, they had scored two more touchdowns and were up 31-3. That's 24 unanswered points in about 11 minutes of clock time. (And that's on four possessions; you can score 24 points in three possessions, with even less clock than that.)

 

Then it was the Pats turn. And by the 6:43 mark of the 4th quarter, they had tied it at 31. Four touchdowns in about a quarter and a half.

 

Then the Niners scored another touchdown on the very next play from scrimmage.

 

It happens; not even close to being unprecedented. No one has brought up the Colts/Bucs game in 2003. 21 points in four minutes. Noting wrong with securing your lead late in the third/early in the fourth.

 

That said, there's a noticeable intent when a team comes out and throws the ball down the field or runs trick plays in the fourth quarter, when they're already up big. It speaks to sportsmanship, IMO. Not only that, it's counterproductive. It's in their best interests to keep the clock running; even if you throw it, use high percentage plays and avoid stoppages. Shorten the game. Try to dominate time of possession. 

And of course both examples are Brady and Manning. lol.