Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Giants Vs Patriots Official Thread! (All Discussion About Sb 46 Here!)


Recommended Posts

Not so much, but you did make a strong statement and I can only imagine you didn't think it through completely. ;)

(Meaning, the '04 Colts were similarly an offensive powerhouse that put up 3 points on the Patriots in the playoffs.)

Yet that is a "choke" on Manning's part somehow, but you try and say the same for Brady in '07 you get chewed out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yet that is a "choke" on Manning's part somehow, but you try and say the same for Brady in '07 you get chewed out.

I'm not a Manning basher. I understand it takes a team effort. QBs get too much credit when their teams win and too much blame when their teams lose. Nature of the position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a Manning basher. I understand it takes a team effort. QBs get too much credit when their teams win and too much blame when their teams lose. Nature of the position.

Didn't mean to imply you were. I'm just saying most do. Just the nature like you said.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking back at the "Asante dropped the winning INT", I have to disagree. I saw the entire drive on NFL Network. The ball bounced off the tippy top of his fingers. The ball didn't go right through his hands. Asante would've needed an extra inch or two of height to have a legit shot at coming down with that ball IMO.

Aside from the Tyree miracle, there was also the 9 yard catch to Toomer on 3rd and 10 to set up a convertible 4th and 1 for the Giants earlier in the drive. Another overlooked defensive miscue was that 3rd and 11 play deep in Pats territory. Eli hit a wide open Steve Smith for a 12 yard gain. He was literally uncovered. This play setup the Plax TD.

This!

There's many Pat miscues on that drive that could have won the game, but the Asante INT has become this mythical crap thing. To hear some people talk about it, you'd think it bounced off it his numbers, but I think that's just cognitive dissonance at work. Tyree ran a wrong route, Asante was covering him, not expecting a lofted throw, he reacted, jumped, the ball bounced off his fingertips, with an unlucky chance of him coming down in bounds.

The play Pat fans should really focus on is a 4th and 1 I have a hard time rewatching even today because Im not sure Jacobs really got it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This!

There's many Pat miscues on that drive that could have won the game, but the Asante INT has become this mythical crap thing. To hear some people talk about it, you'd think it bounced off it his numbers, but I think that's just cognitive dissonance at work. Tyree ran a wrong route, Asante was covering him, not expecting a lofted throw, he reacted, jumped, the ball bounced off his fingertips, with an unlucky chance of him coming down in bounds.

The play Pat fans should really focus on is a 4th and 1 I have a hard time rewatching even today because Im not sure Jacobs really got it.

He got it.
Link to post
Share on other sites

This!

There's many Pat miscues on that drive that could have won the game, but the Asante INT has become this mythical crap thing. To hear some people talk about it, you'd think it bounced off it his numbers, but I think that's just cognitive dissonance at work. Tyree ran a wrong route, Asante was covering him, not expecting a lofted throw, he reacted, jumped, the ball bounced off his fingertips, with an unlucky chance of him coming down in bounds.

The play Pat fans should really focus on is a 4th and 1 I have a hard time rewatching even today because Im not sure Jacobs really got it.

There were probably a half dozen plays on that drive where the Patriots were a half step away from making a game-ending play. The obvious ones... the Tyree catch, Samuels not holding on to a possible INT... but there were others too.

Not to mention, Moss came reaaaallll close to grabbing one of those desperation bombs after Burress' TD catch. Brady chucked it about 75 yards downfield and Moss had a half step. Just didn't get his arms up to fight for it in time, and one of the Giants' defenders made a nice break-up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I try to get an update on the weather here and suddenly remember why I've been avoiding the news for the past month - do they really need to spend the first 5 to 10 minutes of the news covering Patriots and nothing but? I don't care of seeing the news putting up a picture of a Patriots fan showing his team spirit by wearing a Patriots T-shirt and having his dog next to him wear Patriots doggie clothes. Ugh. Also, I don't see why what is a weekly routine in the NFL like "Brady, Patriots preparing for Giants" has to be blown up. Yes media, teams, including the Patriots and their opponents, do something called "gameplanning" every week.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I envision that there will be numerous bad calls in the game and the NFL will hand Kraft, the Pats and Brady another SB win.

couldnt say it any better. It always looks like the refs favor the Pats and Saints more then any team in the league.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Belichick is on NFL channel live right now.

Question:

Are you guys expecting some real Hoosier hospitality this week?

Answer:

Well as far as hospitality . . . I never had too much hospitality here until I went for it on fourth and two and since then I've been greeted in a lot more friendly manner than I was in the past.

:haha: funny

Link to post
Share on other sites

If that clip is about the Tuck Rule, please explain to me why:

1. Every expert in the rules has said that it was interpreted accurately, and

2. Why the NFL Competition Commiittee voted that iffseason to KEEP the rule.

(null)

Because it was the Patriots. That's my point.

Removing the rule would admit that it was a mistake.

How many other times have you seen that rule enforced in a game? Let alone a playoff game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it was the Patriots. That's my point.

Removing the rule would admit that it was a mistake.

How many other times have you seen that rule enforced in a game? Let alone a playoff game.

oo you put your foot in your mouth here. Its been called avergage 14 times a year. It was called AGAINST the Pats that same year earlier in the season vs Texans. It was called against the Pats again prior and after.

Its been called many times. You just never heard of it because the games weren't important enough and it goes in the box score as an incomplete pass.

Link to post
Share on other sites

oo you put your foot in your mouth here. Its been called avergage 14 times a year. It was called AGAINST the Pats that same year earlier in the season vs Texans. It was called against the Pats again prior and after.

Its been called many times. You just never heard of it because the games weren't important enough and it goes in the box score as an incomplete pass.

I've never heard it called other than that, but i'll take your word for it.

But that still doesn't change the fact that he pulled the ball in, went back to his stance, and touched the ball with his other hand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never heard it called other than that, but i'll take your word for it.

But that still doesn't change the fact that he pulled the ball in, went back to his stance, and touched the ball with his other hand.

Watch some football. Then talk about football. The "tuck rule" is still on the books and is still called on a fairly regular basis in the NFL.

Doesn't bother me when people gather facts and then form an opinion. But you can't skip step one and move straight to step two and still have any sort of integrity at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Watch some football. Then talk about football. The "tuck rule" is still on the books and is still called on a fairly regular basis in the NFL.

Doesn't bother me when people gather facts and then form an opinion. But you can't skip step one and move straight to step two and still have any sort of integrity at all.

Did my facts not fit your criteria?
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never heard it called other than that, but i'll take your word for it.

But that still doesn't change the fact that he pulled the ball in, went back to his stance, and touched the ball with his other hand.

yeah it was called against Brady the following year too (we still won the game). Most never heard of it because until a big play in a playoff game but its always been there and called,.

If you judge by intent, which refs aren't allowed too, yeah Brady wasnt trying to tuck, but by the letter of the rule it was a tuck and is why it was called like it had so many times before.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah it was called against Brady the following year too (we still won the game). Most never heard of it because until a big play in a playoff game but its always been there and called,.

If you judge by intent, which refs aren't allowed too, yeah Brady wasnt trying to tuck, but by the letter of the rule it was a tuck and is why it was called like it had so many times before.

I think the fact that they even contemplated removing the rule is enough to warrant an admission of a bad call.

But the past can't be changed. It is what it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it was the Patriots. That's my point.

Removing the rule would admit that it was a mistake.

How many other times have you seen that rule enforced in a game? Let alone a playoff game.

You mean besides the fact that it was called AGAINST the Patriots in the very same season?

:neener:

Thanks for playing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did my facts not fit your criteria?

What "facts" are you talking about?

The fact that you were apparently unaware that it's called several times a season? I remember, during the review of that play in the Pats-Raiders playoff game, the same call being made in a Pats-Jets game earlier that season. Vinny Testaverde appeared to fumble the ball but it was overruled.

My apologies if my response seemed harsh but the NFL Rulebook applies to all 32 teams.

Argue against the rule if you want, I might even be inclined to agree with you... but not against the application of the rule in one particular game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the fact that they even contemplated removing the rule is enough to warrant an admission of a bad call.

But the past can't be changed. It is what it is.

Yeah they always look at a rule on a game changer but it was a pretty quick comptemplation by the committee:)

The reason they have the rule is the game has enough fumbles and eliminating the tuck would add roughly 14 more fumbles a year and they want to keep the game with as much skill as possible. Also a QB in the motion of throwing or tucking is much more vunerable to a fumble than a RB holding on to the ball with both hands.

They could eliminate the tuck, eliminate the ground causing fumbles and we'd end up with fumblitis football:)

There were many times this season the tuck was reviewed and called a fumble as much as the tuck was called.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • We are talking past each other.  Let me explain to you what you're missing.   JJ Watt has an opinion about Easterby and the Org in general apparently, and because of that opinion, he supports Watson's desire to leave the Org.   Why would Watt's opinion about why Watson should leave matter to an owner who is going to potentially trade for Watson?   I would think the owner would care about knowing Watson's opinion as to why he wants a trade, not everybody else's opinion about why.  Watson has expressed that clearly.  The articles say nothing bout Easterby.  And in a September news release, Watson specifically mentioned JE and McNair in a thank you tweet.  Very classy.   So why bring up other peoples opinion about why Watson should seek a trade? Its not relevant to Watson's reasons.   I'm sincerely confused.   The only thing I can think of, is that you are looking at offhand comments made in the past, and based on those comment, you are concluding that HOU didn't interview EB because he is black.  Thereby choosing to ignore 15 years of data showing compliance with the Rooney Rule.  If you believe that Watson is talking about race, then you would have to believe that he made the same conclusion about why HOU did not interview EB, because he is black.   Do you know there could be other reasons, right?  
    • I was exited about this draft.  PFF not so much.  Quality over quantity with this one.  
    • There IS another possibility. Let’s say your scenario plays out just as suggested:  the Colts draft a LT who isn’t quite ready ( 2nd rounder ); Tevi opens the season as the starter; BUT, Tevi proves to be a turnstile. What to do? Big Q to the rescue. In a pinch, why not? You do it until your rookie is ready for the full time job and fill in at LG with one of the backups like Pinter. The opposition to moving Q to LT is far less convincing if Plan A has bombed. 
    • That is why he wants to leave, you are making it about something else.  You are the one out in left field here   The coaching situation is one small part of this, not the whole story by a long shot The coach they hired is black , it isn't about race
    • Well if you are going to use stats to make a point, yes it is important how they are measured. So now that you aren't using them I'm guessing my point on separation stat was true.   -My last post on the subject
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...