I'm starting to believe that only the Denver Broncos can stop the Patriots from AFC supremacy

[Shane Bond]

I think the Broncos need to figure out their running game to have a better chance, but the Defense certainly is playing lights-out. There are many on the forum that will say they haven't really been tested (the Defense), but they are number one right now (or at least near number one). As Colts fans, over the years, we always heard Defense wins championships. The Defense is already formidable, if they find some rhythm on the Offense, they will be a contender for sure.

love the avatar

[King Colt]

Denver's defense is excellent but Peyton's passes are showing his wear and tear. He cannot hold up against the Pats defensive pass coverage. His balls wobble and the Pats will eat those up. Hate to say it but I now think for the first time this will be it for #18. If he cannot live up to his own standards I think he will step down. It would be nice to see him get one more SB but I think not even NE will stop the Packers this year and what would be more fitting on the 50th anniversary of the SB than to have the team that won the first one win the 50th.

[Qwiz]

I stand by what I quoted. You can call it flaw. I am not blowing, its you who quoted my post.

On a side note, I am disappointed with Texans defense. Watt is my favorite player and I feel for him.

Don't try to turn this around and make this about my team. You really do suck at arguing, don't you? Stand by what you quoted. It was still terrible.

[Shane Bond]

Don't try to turn this around and make this about my team. You really do suck at arguing, don't you? Stand by what you quoted. It was still terrible.

Oh my goodness. I was sincere.

 

I told you I stand by my quote. You can call whatever you want.

 

I am not here to argue with you. I don't want to stoop to your language and style of communicating.

 

JJ Watt is my favorite player. If you remember during the off season I told you how much I am looking forward to the Texans defense with Clowney and Cushing coming back. Romoe Crennel is a great coach. He gave a hard time for Indy Colts when he was with Pats.

[Qwiz]

Oh my goodness. I was sincere.

I told you I stand by my quote. You can call whatever you want.

I am not here to argue with you. I don't want to stoop to your language and style of communicating.

JJ Watt is my favorite player. If you remember during the off season I told you how much I am looking forward to the Texans defense with Clowney and Cushing coming back. Romoe Crennel is a great coach. He gave a hard time for Indy Colts when he was with Pats.

Suck isn't a bad word, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here. But if you want to discuss the Texans in this thread, so be it. I'm disappointed in them as well. Clearly things haven't gone to plan. I still think Watt will have a fine season despite the other guys around him not playing well. A little pass rush from someone besides him or J.D. would be nice.

[BloodyChamp]

They certainly did not stink on defense at all and Brady took them apart in the second half ...

Defense with no offense falls apart in the second half...never seen that before

[Shane Bond]

Suck isn't a bad word, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here. But if you want to discuss the Texans in this thread, so be it. I'm disappointed in them as well. Clearly things haven't gone to plan. I still think Watt will have a fine season despite the other guys around him not playing well. A little pass rush from someone besides him or J.D. would be nice.

Its puzzling because Crennel is a good coach and there are quality players all over. We still have 3/4 of the season. We will see.

[Susie Q]

I think the Broncos are squeaking out wins due to their defense.  When they play a tough team, that will tell us more.  Next week's game vs. the Packers will give us more of an idea.  

Next weeks game is against the Brown's. The Packer's are Nov 1st.

[Susie Q]

You know what's funnier? Brandon Weeden having a higher QBR this game than Brady:

 

http://espn.go.com/nfl/qbr/_/type/player-week

 

 4.8 YPA!

If I'm reading that chart correctly Manning had a higher QBR than Brady.

[bababooey]

I would not say that. He has had some great drives to win the game but it was more his defense that carried the day which is not the same this year as his champ years. But he does have some pretty good offensive weapons at his disposal too.

Yea his defense eluded all those pass rushers and his defense dropped that dime to manningham in addition to every other play on both of those superbowl winning drives. Get real.

[bababooey]

The Patriots could still go 3-13, though unlikely. No game is a given. Dallas is a good team and they are playing at home.

I don't know that I want the Pats to go undefeated. That's a lot of added pressure.

Just a thought: If Brady hadn't taken the NFL to court, he would be sitting today while Greg Hardy is playing.

Well yea hardy also served the entire last year too and his offense didn't effect the game like Brady's did.

[amfootball]

Defense with no offense falls apart in the second half...never seen that before

Except Dallas' D did not fall apart in the second half. They were still coming but Brady and the O made the adjustments with the protection and the routes to beat them.

[BrentMc11]

I read one page of this thread and I decided to make one comment and head off into the sunset.  First of all...All I hear is NE and Brady OWN this team....NE OWNS Wade Phillips.  Even our black hole  posters who are negative in every post.....some people just cannot make a positive comment!!!

 

We have a game to play this Sunday night.  It is the Patriots.  The only reason that the Patriots are devouring all of it's opponents is?? Would they be there if there was a suspended Brady?  Hell no!!!!

 

What the Colts need is a strong 12th man and some turnovers.  Robert Mathis will haunt Brady.  This is HIS game...a coming out party so to speak.

 

I am looking forward to this game.  I hope neither team OWNS the other.  I am all for an exciting game.  I will be disappointed if not.  Go Colts.              !!!!

[BrentMc11]

To topic.  I have learned way too many times that when you attempt to put the Legendary 18, he will come out and put a dagger into a team.  I will NEVER say that Peyton Manning is done.  He just wins....

 

I would not be surprised if Denver wins.  I am not too sure NE can get any better on the field (and off )  Anything is possible.

[BloodyChamp]

Except Dallas' D did not fall apart in the second half. They were still coming but Brady and the O made the adjustments with the protection and the routes to beat them.

I know I know it was all Brady...it always is unless we're talking about cheating.

[amfootball]

I know I know it was all Brady...it always is unless we're talking about cheating.

Clearly you did not watch the game.

[BloodyChamp]

Clearly you did not realize that Matt Cassell is so bad that he's below Brandon Weeden on the depth chart...yet the Patriots were 11-5 when he was the quarterback. #itwasallBrady

[amfootball]

Clearly you did not realize that Matt Cassell is so bad that he's below Brandon Weeden on the depth chart...yet the Patriots were 11-5 when he was the quarterback. #itwasallBrady

Why so salty today? Packers won.

[BloodyChamp]

Really am...you of all people are pulling the why so salty card. Why don't explain how it was still all Brady?

Has Brandon Weeden ever even won 1 single game?

[dynasty13]

Clearly you did not realize that Matt Cassell is so bad that he's below Brandon Weeden on the depth chart...yet the Patriots were 11-5 when he was the quarterback. #itwasallBrady

 

I always love the argument that because Matt Cassell was able to take over an 18 win team and get them 7 fewer wins the following year with one of the easiest schedules in NFL history, that somehow 'proves' how Brady isn't important and they can just plug anybody in there and the team will be fine.

 

The Colts right now are 0-2 with Andrew Luck and 3-0 with Matt Hasselbeck. Does that somehow show that Luck isn't any good and the Colts can just plug anybody in and they will be as good as if they had their starter? 

[jvan1973]

Really am...you of all people are pulling the why so salty card. Why don't explain how it was still all Brady?

Has Brandon Weeden ever even won 1 single game?

Never

[BloodyChamp]

I always love the argument that because Matt Cassell was able to take over an 18 win team and get them 7 fewer wins the following year with one of the easiest schedules in NFL history, that somehow 'proves' how Brady isn't important and they can just plug anybody in there and the team will be fine.

The Colts right now are 0-2 with Andrew Luck and 3-0 with Matt Hasselbeck. Does that somehow show that Luck isn't any good and the Colts can just plug anybody in and they will be as good as if they had their starter?

That alone doesn't prove it, but when you look at what has since happened with the 2011 Colts, 2013 Packers and 2015 Cowboys, you can't ignore that type of thing anymore, not that that's ever been my argument. I just think it's hilarious/pathetic that a homer will take it this far. The guy backing up the 0 and lifetime quarterback who they feel is their best chance to win is the guy who got the Pats, whose success is all because of Tom Brady, to 11-5. That's what they're selling.

As for the Colts, Matt Hasselbeck is lightyears ahead of every backup I can think of and some starters in the league. If you don't agree, then you still can't ignore the fact that it was the Jags and Texans he beat (your W/L statistics are wrong).

[jvan1973]

I always love the argument that because Matt Cassell was able to take over an 18 win team and get them 7 fewer wins the following year with one of the easiest schedules in NFL history, that somehow 'proves' how Brady isn't important and they can just plug anybody in there and the team will be fine.

The Colts right now are 0-2 with Andrew Luck and 3-0 with Matt Hasselbeck. Does that somehow show that Luck isn't any good and the Colts can just plug anybody in and they will be as good as if they had their starter?

How are they 0-2 with luck and 3-0 wits Hasselbeck. Please go into great detail

[TheBlackHand]

Clearly you did not watch the game.

I saw the usual second half 180 after Brady was flustered in first half. Ernie and his halftime film review again

[Malakai432]

How are they 0-2 with luck and 3-0 wits Hasselbeck. Please go into great detail

Hmm, well you see. . . I'm just winging it here, but that Titans game could've been very similar to the movie Faceoff with Nicholas Cage and John Travolta in which their faces were removed and placed on their respective counterparts. That would explain why, Matt is 3-0 and Luck is 0-2.

Other than that I have nothing for ya.

[dynasty13]

That alone doesn't prove it, but when you look at what has since happened with the 2011 Colts, 2013 Packers and 2015 Cowboys, you can't ignore that type of thing anymore, not that that's ever been my argument. I just think it's hilarious/pathetic that a homer will take it this far. The guy backing up the 0 and lifetime quarterback who they feel is their best chance to win is the guy who got the Pats, whose success is all because of Tom Brady, to 11-5. That's what they're selling.

As for the Colts, Matt Hasselbeck is lightyears ahead of every backup I can think of and some starters in the league. If you don't agree, then you still can't ignore the fact that it was the Jags and Texans he beat (your W/L statistics are wrong).

 

Yup I messed up a game...forgot when Luck started sitting...my apologies. But the point remains the same...capable backups can find success in this league when the team is talented.

 

Again...the 2008 Patriots were an anomaly because Cassell took control of what many considered to be one of the greatest teams of all time...the talent was still there and the roster was still in tact, and was able to lead them to 11 wins with a cupcake schedule (you know...the same way you're saying Hasselbeck only beat the Jags and Texans as a way to undermine the point).. I'm willing to bet the results would have been different if Cassell took over...oh i dont know...the 2006 Patriots roster, or the 2012 Patriots roster. 

 

The problem with your 'comparison' of the 2008 Patriots with Cassell and say...the 2011 Colts with Painter/Collins is that you're ignoring the fact that the dropoff from the previous seasons to those ones are pretty similar. The 2007 Patriots won 18 games, and the following year without Brady, they won 7 fewer games. The 2010 Colts had 10 wins, and the following year without Peyton, they won 8 fewer games. 

 

7 fewer wins vs 8 fewer wins. Pretty close, no? 

[chad72]

 

Yup I messed up a game...forgot when Luck started sitting...my apologies. But the point remains the same...capable backups can find success in this league when the team is talented.

 

Again...the 2008 Patriots were an anomaly because Cassell took control of what many considered to be one of the greatest teams of all time...the talent was still there and the roster was still in tact, and was able to lead them to 11 wins with a cupcake schedule (you know...the same way you're saying Hasselbeck only beat the Jags and Texans as a way to undermine the point).. I'm willing to bet the results would have been different if Cassell took over...oh i dont know...the 2006 Patriots roster, or the 2012 Patriots roster. 

 

The problem with your 'comparison' of the 2008 Patriots with Cassell and say...the 2011 Colts with Painter/Collins is that you're ignoring the fact that the dropoff from the previous seasons to those ones are pretty similar. The 2007 Patriots won 18 games, and the following year without Brady, they won 7 fewer games. The 2010 Colts had 10 wins, and the following year without Peyton, they won 8 fewer games. 

 

7 fewer wins vs 8 fewer wins. Pretty close, no? 

 

 

Since both teams did not make the playoffs in 2008 (Patriots) and 2011 (Colts), let us stick to the regular season only.

 

Patriots - 16 wins to 11 wins

 

Colts - 10 wins to 2 wins

 

8 significantly greater than 5, no?  Yeah, I like to be a smart Alec sometimes but it is all good .

 

I get your point on the talent on the roster being good for the Patriots, it is a valid one. But acknowledging that the Patriots' system being consistent across years helps out the QB is not really a bad thing and does not undermine Brady, IMO. Heck, Peyton ran the Indy system of offense under Tom Moore for the longest time.

 

Instead of using the cliched 18 wins to 11 wins argument that Patriots fans use, I gave you something original that being in the same system offensively is nothing to scoff about. It helps the team in the long run, especially when you are trying to incorporate new players that can be tutored by several others on the O who have run it for years. Acknowledging it does not make Brady or Peyton a lesser QB, IMO. They still have executed at a very elite level to have the consistency they have had.

[BloodyChamp]

Yup I messed up a game...forgot when Luck started sitting...my apologies. But the point remains the same...capable backups can find success in this league when the team is talented.

Again...the 2008 Patriots were an anomaly because Cassell took control of what many considered to be one of the greatest teams of all time...the talent was still there and the roster was still in tact, and was able to lead them to 11 wins with a cupcake schedule (you know...the same way you're saying Hasselbeck only beat the Jags and Texans as a way to undermine the point).. I'm willing to bet the results would have been different if Cassell took over...oh i dont know...the 2006 Patriots roster, or the 2012 Patriots roster.

The problem with your 'comparison' of the 2008 Patriots with Cassell and say...the 2011 Colts with Painter/Collins is that you're ignoring the fact that the dropoff from the previous seasons to those ones are pretty similar. The 2007 Patriots won 18 games, and the following year without Brady, they won 7 fewer games. The 2010 Colts had 10 wins, and the following year without Peyton, they won 8 fewer games.

7 fewer wins vs 8 fewer wins. Pretty close, no?

The division included a 12-4 team and a 9-7 team. Real cupcake.

And your spin on 7 more games and the comparison to the 2011 Colts is mighty convenient when the Patriots did that in part because they...well...played more games.

[ViriLudant]

The division included a 12-4 team and a 9-7 team. Real cupcake.

And your spin on 7 more games and the comparison to the 2011 Colts is mighty convenient when the Patriots did that in part because they...well...played more games.

Convenient how you neglect to mention that they played more games because Brady was their QB and not Cassel.

Fact: the 2008 team under Cassen won 0 games against teams with winning records .

[dynasty13]

The division included a 12-4 team and a 9-7 team. Real cupcake.

And your spin on 7 more games and the comparison to the 2011 Colts is mighty convenient when the Patriots did that in part because they...well...played more games.

 

Something being true doesn't make it 'convenient spin'. The fact is, the Patriots won 7 fewer games in 2008 with Matt Cassell than they did in 2007 with Tom Brady. 

 

Yeah, the Brady-led Patriots played more games because they went to the Superbowl while the Cassell-led Patriots didn't even make the playoffs. That's exactly the point. What, we aren't supposed to count those games because it doesn't fit your narrative? 

[Shane Bond]

Why is Matt Cassell a failure anywhere else and a 11 game winner when playing for Patriots?.

[chad72]

Something being true doesn't make it 'convenient spin'. The fact is, the Patriots won 7 fewer games in 2008 with Matt Cassell than they did in 2007 with Tom Brady. 

 

Yeah, the Brady-led Patriots played more games because they went to the Superbowl while the Cassell-led Patriots didn't even make the playoffs. That's exactly the point. What, we aren't supposed to count those games because it doesn't fit your narrative? 

 

If Cassel had made the playoffs, it makes a lot more sense to include the playoffs. Yes, Brady would have taken them to the playoffs, that is not even a question here. 

 

But since both teams did not make the playoffs the next year, the right comparison is to make the regular season comparison, IMO, whether you agree or disagree.

 

I understand that a lot of fans want to use the lame man argument against Brady that Cassel led them to 11-5 and it irritates Pats fans. But it is just as lame to compare apples to oranges by including the playoffs for two teams that did not make the playoffs the next year. Just my two cents.

 

Besides, we are all going back and forth over something not as significant to me in terms of determining Brady's place amongst elite QBs. It has no effect whatsoever. Just laying it out there objectively. Every QB has a system that they are comfortable in, so what is wrong with the Patriots having a system? It is just that Brady can operate it far better than Cassel. It does not have to be quantified incessantly. Again, this is going in a Peyton vs Brady direction, not the Broncos vs Patriots direction that we had hoped for (who am I kidding). 

[BloodyChamp]

Convenient how you neglect to mention that they played more games because Brady was their QB and not Cassel.

Fact: the 2008 team under Cassen won 0 games against teams with winning records .

I neglected to mention it because it wasn't true. And check your facts about who Cassel beat with winning records.

[BloodyChamp]

Something being true doesn't make it 'convenient spin'. The fact is, the Patriots won 7 fewer games in 2008 with Matt Cassell than they did in 2007 with Tom Brady.

Yeah, the Brady-led Patriots played more games because they went to the Superbowl while the Cassell-led Patriots didn't even make the playoffs. That's exactly the point. What, we aren't supposed to count those games because it doesn't fit your narrative?

As opposed to you only counting them because it fits yours?

Let me show you how dumb it sounds. The 2007 Pats won 4 more games than the 2007 Giants so they're better and it's all because of Brady.

[Yehoodi]

Why is Matt Cassell a failure anywhere else and a 11 game winner when playing for Patriots?.

 

He won 10 in KC one year, just saying . . . So what does a year tell you?  It is not the be all end all.  Anymore than a back up QB who played for Johnny Unitas in 1968, won the MVP, went 13-1, won a NFL Championship and consider by some to be one of the greatest teams of all time, makes Unitas legacy that of just on the same level as a back up as the same took his colts team and won a championship, 13 games and an MVP.

 

Anymore that Matt H. winning two games for the colts makes Luck any the less either.   

[Yehoodi]

That alone doesn't prove it, but when you look at what has since happened with the 2011 Colts, 2013 Packers and 2015 Cowboys, you can't ignore that type of thing anymore, not that that's ever been my argument. I just think it's hilarious/pathetic that a homer will take it this far. The guy backing up the 0 and lifetime quarterback who they feel is their best chance to win is the guy who got the Pats, whose success is all because of Tom Brady, to 11-5. That's what they're selling.

As for the Colts, Matt Hasselbeck is lightyears ahead of every backup I can think of and some starters in the league. If you don't agree, then you still can't ignore the fact that it was the Jags and Texans he beat (your W/L statistics are wrong).

You want to talk about the '68 colts then?

 

In 1968 a back up came in for Unitas and won the MVP, went 13-1 and won the NFL Championship, what does that say about Unitas' legacy when a back up came in and did what he did with the 68 colts?

 

And when we look at things we must look at things on perspective.  Bradden W. has never won a game, ever, so its no surprise that Dallas has not won a game yet.  As for the 2011 colts, lets just for the sake of not having to get into a subject that I rather not discuss lets put the 2011 colts on the back burner and look at the 2015 colts who have won games with Hasselback. 

 

Cassell went 10-5 one year with the horrific Chiefs, so just saying.

 

The pats were great in 2007 and 2008 and one reason why we won 11 games with cassell.  And we could of won perhaps 12-14 with Brady. 

 

If you have a good/solid back up you are not going to fall off at QB too much.  If you put Tim Tebow on the pats or some other QB, maybe Branden W., then you will lose games.  Look at the back up before you claim he is just the same back up as all teams have, some teams have bad back ups, some have good/solid back ups like the pats and 68 colts.  And not one is talking about what the 68 colts back up did nor is unitas any the less of a QB cause his back up did so well.

[BloodyChamp]

You want to talk about the '68 colts then?

In 1968 a back up came in for Unitas and won the MVP, went 13-1 and won the NFL Championship, what does that say about Unitas' legacy when a back up came in and did what he did with the 68 colts?

And when we look at things we must look at things on perspective. Bradden W. has never won a game, ever, so its no surprise that Dallas has not won a game yet. As for the 2011 colts, lets just for the sake of not having to get into a subject that I rather not discuss lets put the 2011 colts on the back burner and look at the 2015 colts who have won games with Hasselback.

Cassell went 10-5 one year with the horrific Chiefs, so just saying.

The pats were great in 2007 and 2008 and one reason why we won 11 games with cassell. And we could of won perhaps 12-14 with Brady.

If you have a good/solid back up you are not going to fall off at QB too much. If you put Tim Tebow on the pats or some other QB, maybe Branden W., then you will lose games. Look at the back up before you claim he is just the same back up as all teams have, some teams have bad back ups, some have good/solid back ups like the pats and 68 colts. And not one is talking about what the 68 colts back up did nor is unitas any the less of a QB cause his back up did so well.

That's because nobody says Johnny Unitas was the only 1 responsible for everything good the Colts ever did...ever...at all times.

[Yehoodi]

That's because nobody says Johnny Unitas was the only 1 responsible for everything good the Colts ever did...ever...at all times.

 

What?  When has a single football player ever been deemed the sole reason for his team success?  Your post makes no sense.  

 

Look, there are a lot of people who think Unitas is one of the greatest QB of all time.  Was he not top 10 list of all time players a few years ago?

 

Bottom line Unitas is regarded as one of the best QB that played the game.  But was he really good or just fortunate enough to play on a great team that won a NFL championship with a back up?, not to mention going 13-1 in the process.   Maybe Unitas is just a run of the mill system QB that had a great coach and skill position teammates.

 

See I can play the backup game all day if you want. 

 

Bottom line it comes down the quality of the back up and not many people, in fact likely a minority, will hold against, or qualify, Unitas' career because of one year he was injured and his team without him had great success.  Unitas' resume is judged on what he did under center as all other QB's are judged. 

 

You can not take away or try to add to someone's career due to what his team does without him unless you look at who is playing in his place.

 

Ever QB who is fortunate enough to have rings and numbers comes down to his coaches and players around him as much as it has to due with him.   Yes he can fine tune his team to help them get over the hump and win a ring or win a few games in the regular season but he first needs to be fortunately enough to play on a great team.  Every elite QB we have scene play football has had this combination.

 

oh yah and Brett Favre was average  . j/k.

[BloodyChamp]

What? When has a single football player ever been deemed the sole reason for his team success? Your post makes no sense.

Look, there are a lot of people who think Unitas is one of the greatest QB of all time. Was he not top 10 list of all time players a few years ago?

Bottom line Unitas is regarded as one of the best QB that played the game. But was he really good or just fortunate enough to play on a great team that won a NFL championship with a back up?, not to mention going 13-1 in the process. Maybe Unitas is just a run of the mill system QB that had a great coach and skill position teammates.

See I can play the backup game all day if you want.

Bottom line it comes down the quality of the back up and not many people, in fact likely a minority, will hold against, or qualify, Unitas' career because of one year he was injured and his team without him had great success. Unitas' resume is judged on what he did under center as all other QB's are judged.

You can not take away or try to add to someone's career due to what his team does without him unless you look at who is playing in his place.

Ever QB who is fortunate enough to have rings and numbers comes down to his coaches and players around him as much as it has to due with him. Yes he can fine tune his team to help them get over the hump and win a ring or win a few games in the regular season but he first needs to be fortunately enough to play on a great team. Every elite QB we have scene play football has had this combination.

oh yah and Brett Favre was average . j/k.

I direct you to the first few posts of mine that were quoted for the answer to your first question. That makes no sense, like most of her posts don't.

Meanwhile Johnny U in 1968 is actually the same logic as Tom Brady in 2008 only the shoe is on the other foot, and you can choose how you want to shoot it down for heck's sake. I mean where do you want to take this? You can either list all of the backups who won games because the quarterback did 100x less back then, or put it all on Earl Morell and compare him to, say, Matt Cassell. Morell went 11-0 with the perfect season Dolphins a few years after the 1968 run. Cassell sat behind Brandon Weeden.

[Yehoodi]

I direct you to the first few posts of mine that were quoted for the answer to your first question. That makes no sense, like most of her posts don't.

 

My sense is that you and I agree then.

 

btw, which post are you talking about, your post #135?