This is good for a laugh

[Yehoodi]

Not sure how much bearing this has, but Sorgi threw three passes in that game. He didn't "come out throwing." Neither did Matt Cassel, who threw the same three passes against the Redskins.

The difference is that Manning came out with 2:11 left in the third quarter, after securing a four touchdown lead (32 points), and Brady came out with 9:06 remaining in the 4th quarter, after securing a six touchdown lead (45 points).

There's really not much similarity to the way the Colts handled the Lions game and the way the Patriots handled the Redskins game. I don't think the Colts ran the score up on the Lions, and I don't remember anyone suggesting that they did at the time. When the Patriots pounded the snot out of the Redskins, the running up the score debate was all over the place.

I think there's a much easier defense to be made in the Dolphins game, even though that one was borderline itself. And every big win doesn't mean the winning team ran up the score. When the Patriots beat the Titans 59-0, I don't think anyone argued that they ran up the score. Every game is different. But Brady was out of the game early in the third quarter in that one. Again, different from the Redskins game.

Supes, two possessions is two possessions . . . . . . Just a little note there reason why the Pats second possession ran into the 4th qtr and it had everything to do with the fact that the two drive lasted EIGHT minutes each, whereas the two colts drives each lasted about 4 mins . . . the pats were trying the shortening the game . . .

now I am NOT trying to say that the colts were not trying to run up the score . . . but their drives were short thereby allowing them to get two drives in by early in the fourth . . .

the Pats ran two very long drives, and typically 8 mins drives generally means the team is trying shorten the game, i.e. less possession and opporutnity to score, and as such, is mercy to the other and is in the complete opposite of the philophsy of trying to score . . .

so now you are going to hold against the pats that they were trying to provide mercy they do get a second possession? Or maybe they should of come of the second half running a 2 mins offense and punching the ball in just go so that they can get their 2 possession in time before the 4th started . . .

Supes it more evidence of team running up the score had they come out of the second half in a two minute drill, then coming out as the pats did, executing a 8 mins to get the game over with . . .

don't hold they philophsy against them, if they want to run 2 possession let them, as the colts, did, don't blame them for trying so shorten the game . . .

Again this is just another example of we need to look at the game as it happened and not as to what skip bailess says . . .

two possession is two possession and each team is entitled to it, if one team shortens the game, dont hold it against them

[Yehoodi]

I'm done.

My fellow Colt fans are making all the points that need to be made. It's falling on deaf ears among Pat fans.

Once again. The Colts and Manning have never been said to be running up the score, among talking heads and/or fans of other teams.....apparently Pats fans feel differently. I guess they're just butthurt about the fact that everyone knows they've done it. It's like Superman said....each game, regardless of score, can be looked at differently in terms of running up the score. That blowout the Pats had against the Titans was not running up the score. They just kicked the crap out of them. The Washington game, everyone knew they were running up the score.

Yes Peytonator as I mentoned before, a lot of people think that the pats ran up the score, even my two closet pats fans, and two of the more popular radio show hosts here in Boston and one of our prominant sports writers, so it isn't just non pats fan that think the way you do . . .

but I think as we look at the year, we see that it had more to do with the pats wanting to win at all costs, being very efficient (scoring TDs on 50% of the possession), not taking the foot off the gas till the game was 99.9999% in the bag and wanted to go 16-0 . . . and as i mentioned TB was the benefit of this as he got to play all 16 games . . .

Trouble is if you are trying to win each game life or death, you will try to score even when you are up by 14-17 early in the 4th . . .

I think if we all look at the games you going to find the pats simply wanted to win, many times late in game we had long drive to shorten the game, to took knees . . .

for me Peyonator, why I am sensitive to this perception verses reality is that i do sincerely believe, that Pollard made have after TB early in 2008 because of the perception in 07 . . . so for me personality, this perception thing, imo, cost us a 2008 season, altho Cassell did play well and we might of won the SB had we gotten in the playoffs . . .

[Yehoodi]

I mentioned this game earlier as one that's more defensible than the Redskins game, but let's defend it on its actual merits.

HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that Brady needs to come back in and throw for a touchdown. He doesn't even really need to throw. He can hand the ball off, the offense can run the clock, and then you're looking at a much safer game. They came out and scored in two minutes, throwing three times and running twice -- and the run was working. It was NOT a clock-killing possession, as you suggest it was. It was about getting a four touchdown lead back, right away, and then putting in a different backup quarterback, who only threw once in six snaps.

More defensible than the Redskins game, but not entirely defensible on its own merits.

i see where you are coming from and agree in part . . . so long as the teams runs at least a 4 min drive i don't mind it as much . . . but can surely understand if some want to feel something else could of been done . . .

i guess my only thoughts on the manner as perhaps the pats were in a flow and TB felt the needs to simpy run the offense as best he could to get down the field . . . and if that meant a quick so be it . . . BB did get asked in the presser after the game about it . . . but it was not as bad as a two min drive, and we have ran long drives in other blow outs . . .

perhaps BB wanted to let Cassell see how the offense should be run right after a pick six . . .like see there that is how its down . . .

but really have no response other that it was at least 4 mins . . . and yes game was basically out of had and like 95% win chance . . . so I do agree with you all of guys for the most part in this game . . . anything is possible, but Miami was very very unlikely going to win after the pick six . . .

[Superman]

Supes, two possessions is two possessions . . . . . . Just a little note there reason why the Pats second possession ran into the 4th qtr and it had everything to do with the fact that the two drive lasted EIGHT minutes each, whereas the two colts drives each lasted about 4 mins . . . the pats were trying the shortening the game . . .

They were up by six touchdowns. You're reaching with this "shortening the game" stuff. The game was over, far more over than the Colts/Lions game, when Manning came out earlier in the game, with a smaller lead.

now I am NOT trying to say that the colts were not trying to run up the score . . . but their drives were short thereby allowing them to get two drives in by early in the fourth . . .

And yet, there's a difference between a 45 point lead and a 32 point lead. And there's a difference between a quarterback leaving the game with a 32 point lead in the third quarter, and a quarterback leaving the game with a 45 point lead in the fourth quarter.

the Pats ran two very long drives, and typically 8 mins drives generally means the team is trying shorten the game, i.e. less possession and opporutnity to score, and as such, is mercy to the other and is in the complete opposite of the philophsy of trying to score . . .

so now you are going to hold against the pats that they were trying to provide mercy they do get a second possession? Or maybe they should of come of the second half running a 2 mins offense and punching the ball in just go so that they can get their 2 possession in time before the 4th started . . .

You really don't see how throwing a touchdown pass with your #1 quarterback in the 4th quarter of a game that's already 38-0 isn't "mercy"?

They could have run the ball. They ran for 4.3 yards/carry in that game.

Supes it more evidence of team running up the score had they come out of the second half in a two minute drill, then coming out as the pats did, executing a 8 mins to get the game over with . . .

don't hold they philophsy against them, if they want to run 2 possession let them, as the colts, did, don't blame them for trying so shorten the game . . .

Again this is just another example of we need to look at the game as it happened and not as to what skip bailess says . . .

two possession is two possession and each team is entitled to it, if one team shortens the game, dont hold it against them

One of my aims in life is to never listen to anything Skip Bayless says.

However, there's a world of difference between Colts/Lions in 2004 and Patriots/Redskins in 2007. That you don't see the difference is unbelievable to me. I think you're just so committed to this argument -- it's four years in the making now -- that you refuse to admit that the two situations are not comparable.

[Superman]

By the way, I'm not so naive as to suggest that Manning and the Colts had no regard for stats in 2004. However, if they had been as aggressive as the Patriots were in 2007, Manning would have broken the single game record against the Lions, he would have had much more than 49 touchdowns, and there would have been plenty of noise at the time about the Colts running up the score.

The Patriots were on a mission in 2007. They wanted every record they could get. There's nothing wrong with that. But I do think there's a certain respect the game should be played with. And, for instance, against the Redskins, with the things they had gone through that season, it was undeniable that they could and should have taken their foot off the already crushed throat of Gibbs' team. They could have (I'm stopping short of saying they should have) handled the Dolphins game differently. It's kind of amazing to see Patriots fans suggest that they didn't run up the score in those two games.

A more respectable response would be the "so what?" defense, as FJC suggests.

[Yehoodi]

I see and understand your point and the only reason why I am responding is because you are level-headed and you are one of a few Pats fans that post here that you can have a discussion with.

I guess the biggest difference to me is Brady going back in, and I highly doubt that Sorgi would have been pulled if he throws a pick six on his first drive after replacing Manning.

2007 was Welker's & Moss' first year in Boston and there is only so much you can do in practice. Some things have to be tested against an opponent and full speed. Personally I don't have a problem with a team keeping their foot on the gas. I wish the Colts would have done so. Even in 09 ended with the same result as the Pats in 07, and by that i mean 18-1, I would have rather lost 18-1 as opposed to 15-3.

I hate that Manning never played the prime of his career for an aggressive coach.

I guess the biggest complaint that many have in this thread is that VL is the one throwing stones at the Colts, but ignoring numerous facts in doing so.

Just like his un-thought out comment about Edge rushing for 1500 yards. So what? At the end of the year the Patriots had more carries, and the Colts had 3 more rushing yards. 1800 yards is 1800 yards just as 1500 is 1500 whether 1 man does it or 2 or 3 men do it.

I'd rather have some Patriots fan or a fan of another team come in and complain about Manning throwing 8 td's vs. the Lions, and him having the NFL record than him having 6 in that game, but on the other hand I like Ray Lewis has more than once commented on Manning taking a knee when he could have easily tried to get #48 in that game. So that knife cuts both ways.

As I said in another thread. Some people are worth responding to and some aren't. Thanks for being one of those worth responding to.

Thanks for the kind words . . . and I do enjoy coming here, even tho i may highjack a thread or two . . ., for most part we I enjoy the post of you guys here and is why I like coming back . . . I just have a over sensitive issue about running up the score, and there is certainly a perception that they did . . . and do think it might a played a role with Pollard . .

yes VL can get excited at time and be viligant too at times . . .

I think TB benefited in 2007 with a team that was going for 19-0 and thus could played in all the game (altho I would point out that the same team philopshy did not put a roof on Gilette and one of games in December was during a northeaster against the Jets and neither QB got a TD, so in away he kind of hurt by having to play outside) . . . TB also benefit from knowing the goal of 49 TDs and had a goal to shot for whereas Manning only had 48 to shoot . . .

but the overall for me 04 v 07 thingie with respect to PM and TB I look at overall TDs and in that the Pats score I think about 6-7 more TDs in that season, so for me even tho TB only had more more TD in the air, he and the pats got in the endzone about 6-7 times . . . so for me that kind of covers any unfornate issue of PM only playing one series . . .

and overall overall I would take Marino 84 season over both 04 and 07 and i think he did more with less, i think he had less around him than PM adn TB had . . . plus i think they score nearly as many TDs as the pats did in 07 , , , and the 5 yard chuck was more loosely interperted in 1984 . . .

As for some of VLs threads, albeit short in some cases, i tended to agree with him here in part and why i responded with today threads . . . some with say that the pats had more passing attempts, but I think overall ran more plays both running and passing . . . and unlike baseball, you can get first downs and run more plays . . . i think the pats had more first downs and thus were on the first more . . .

if we look at the fact that the pats scored more TD they are on average going to be running more plays, as they have to get to the goal line as opposed to punting from mid field, and more plays are needed . . . also we ran a lot more screens to Welker, who i thinks aver was like 10 yrd per play, as opposed to the high teens of Galloway, Moss, Harrison, Wayne and stokley . . . surely it more work to make a 10 yard pass (which ends up after yacs a 18 yard pass play) then it is to throw the ball to welker who is at the LOS . . . but none the less one will have to throw more passes for teh same amount of yards (three welkers 10 yards to two stallworths 15 yarders)

so when we look at plays and the teams and look at a few more first downs, short pass plays to one WR, more drives that ended in the endzone as opposed to midfield, you gonna find a lot of those extra plays happen between the 20s or are the result of one QB being on the field longer for 7-10 drives in the season . . .

I do wish that PM could of played a full game in week 17 against Den (and wish too that TB had better weather against JETS) . . but it happens . . . TB had the benefit of coming 2nd and knowing what was needed . . . and was on a team that was on a mission the Tuesday after week one . . . but nonetheless he still could had to make the passess . . .

I can't honestly think of a many, outside of a few possessions, when the pats were not just playing there game and trying to win . . .

and for me I do take comfort overall in that i look too the overall TDs . . . and lastly will still take, until someone else knocks him off, Marino 84 season overall all, even tho he is third on the passing TD list . . .

[FireJimCaldwell]

To me the difference in the Colts 2004 & the Patriots 2007 comes down to one simple thing. Belichick is aggressive and Dungy is passive.

That is where the extra plays come in.

4th down conversions.

2004 Colts 4/7

2007 Patriots 15/21.

That is where the extra plays come in and extra touchdowns.

Indy punts 54 times.

New England punts 45. times.

Passivity and that is polite as I can put it. There are certainly more colorful words that could be used to describe the difference between Belichick and Dungy.

That difference has cost this team head to head before.

2003 Playoff game.

1st Quarter

4-1-NE 44 (13:30) T.Brady up the middle to NE 46 for 2 yards (M. Reagor).

Dungy is punting that early in the game.

2nd Quarter

4-8-IND 29 (10:23) (Shotgun) T.Brady pass to T.Brown to IND 13 for 16 yards (M. Doss). P12

Dungy kicks a FG. The Patriots ended up kicking one on that drive, but they rolled 2:12 off of the clock following the conversion.

Key decisions where Belichick was aggressive and the only way I envision the Colts going for it is if Manning waves the punt team off the field again. I wish he would have done that a lot more than he did.

[Superman]

I don't even see it as being aggressive. I see it as being smart, playing the numbers rather than playing safe. Like after the 4th and 2, which I didn't think was the right decision, although I understood it (and the 4th and 2 success rate probably argues in favor of going for it), Belichick said "I thought we could get the yards." Simple as that.

I think coaches punt too often in plus territory on 4th and short, 4th and moderate. Once you get past the 50, your net gain from punting the ball is a lot smaller, because it's harder to pin teams inside the 10 yard line than we recognize. And kicking long field goals with unproven kickers is costing you yardage if you miss, not to mention the possibility of a block and return. If you have a decent quarterback, you ought to be able to go for it on 4th and short, and have a good chance of success, at least as good as 3rd down. The times you fail, you're giving up good field position, but you're still on the other side of midfield. You'll extend more possessions, and you'll score more points. To me, that's not about being aggressive as much as it is about playing the numbers.

This is the type of decision making Belichick is known for. While coaches like Dungy and Schottenheimer are known for being more conservative. The Steelers game where Manning waved off the punt team comes to mind; no question it was the right call to go for it, and Dungy's response to Manning of "it's on you" makes it pretty clear to me that he was more concerned about the blame if it doesn't work than he was about going for the win when you have the chance. Another is the regular season game against the Patriots in 2003; we shouldn't have been kicking a field goal on the second to last possession, where we had the ball on the 11 yard line with four minutes left. That's four down territory, and if you don't get in, you give them the ball deep in your territory.

I like a lot of things about Dungy, but he was far too conservative in my estimation. And I do think it cost us a few games.

[Yehoodi]

To me the difference in the Colts 2004 & the Patriots 2007 comes down to one simple thing. Belichick is aggressive and Dungy is passive.

That is where the extra plays come in.

4th down conversions.

2004 Colts 4/7

2007 Patriots 15/21.

That is where the extra plays come in and extra touchdowns.

Indy punts 54 times.

New England punts 45. times.

Passivity and that is polite as I can put it. There are certainly more colorful words that could be used to describe the difference between Belichick and Dungy.

That difference has cost this team head to head before.

2003 Playoff game.

1st Quarter

4-1-NE 44 (13:30) T.Brady up the middle to NE 46 for 2 yards (M. Reagor).

Dungy is punting that early in the game.

2nd Quarter

4-8-IND 29 (10:23) (Shotgun) T.Brady pass to T.Brown to IND 13 for 16 yards (M. Doss). P12

Dungy kicks a FG. The Patriots ended up kicking one on that drive, but they rolled 2:12 off of the clock following the conversion.

Key decisions where Belichick was aggressive and the only way I envision the Colts going for it is if Manning waves the punt team off the field again. I wish he would have done that a lot more than he did.

FJC, certainly coaching, teammates, philophies, etc come into play to help teams win and players having an opportunity to play, to play a certian way, to have a chance to stay on the field (i.e. get to go for it on 4th down as u mentioned), etc. . . . and Brady and the pats were in a unique situation 2007 . . . . I just wished we could of finished the deal in Feb . . . altho I do think tho that what we tried to get down in the first 18 games hurt us to a degree in the SB . . .out of gas/pressure . . . one wonders what would of happened had the Gmen beat us week 17 would that anger of ruined out 16-0 season, this being reset to zero for us, and not having the Gmen anger at us in SB42, would of made a difference whose knows . . .

I do agree with you that the Pats where more agressive that the Colts . . . I dont recall all of the 4th plays but i do know a few of them were at the end of the game in leau of a punt and some we converted some we didnt . . .but surely if the two teams were similarly situated, i.e. both teams at the oppoents 40 and its 4th and 1, the offense with the coach that goes for it will get an advantage, as you cant lose as you are off the field anyways with a punt . . . i see your point . . . not sure the nature of the 4th downs to really comment tho . . .

of coarse we all know about 4th and 2 . . . . . . but for me I see BB points (its beyond the scope of this thread but I understand BB's thinking) . . .

I do remember we being more agressive in the playoff game in 2004 against the Steelers . . . where the latter were less agressive than us . . .

But I can see your point if one teams goes for it more and convert the first downs, they get to continued based on a coaching decision as opposed to converting on 3rd down . . .

[Yehoodi]

I don't even see it as being aggressive. I see it as being smart, playing the numbers rather than playing safe. Like after the 4th and 2, which I didn't think was the right decision, although I understood it (and the 4th and 2 success rate probably argues in favor of going for it), Belichick said "I thought we could get the yards." Simple as that.

I will quickly say one thing about 4th and 2, and we kind of need to think about basketball and the 2 for 1 teams go for at the end of a qtr where they take a quick shot (say after 10 secs into the shot clock) you put a shot with say 32 seconds, knowing that even tho you didn't run your entire set of play in the possession, you know you are going to get a second possession (unless the opponent gets an off rebound) before the end of qtr . ..

I think with the 4th and 2, BB figured that I got a 65% (or whatever chance) to convert and end the game, btw he, or TB, even mentioned in a presser that had they gotten the first down they would ran three plays and then punted and essentially ended the game . . . but back to BB, i think he figured i got a 65% to end the game, and even if i don't there is not much real estate left for the colts (29 yards to the endzone) and like 2 mins to go, and they likey try to pass and might get in the red, we'll try to stop them on the first set of down and end the game, but if they get in the red zone, let them score and we are only down one and get the back with a fresh of down . . .

now most people would not bring over the 2 for 1 philopshy over to football, but if B. Merriwether not tackled Addai at the one yard line (i think he ran through a whole from like the 15) , we get the ball back only down one with like a minute play . . .

so for me i see the 4th and 2 as a situation where you got like a 65% to basically end the game (convert , run three plays then punt if needed) and you get a second opportunity to win the game if the colts score cause you will only be down one with time on the clock . ..

however if you punt, you dont get that initial opportunity to convert PLUS it will take the colts time to get back to the 29, and if you are playing prevent D and with the colts skill they will highly likely get back to the 29 but with a lot less than 2 mins and if they do score the time might be out . . .

this of coarse would not work with say 4 mins+ on the clock, becuase you will get the ball anyway, nor would it with lest than say 90 seconds, are your better off punting and make them go the length of the field in a minute . . .

but like in basketball in that 40 second no man zone where you make a quick play to give you another possession before thr buzzer . . .the 2 min point was no mans land, cause if you punt you kind of have no opportunity (i.e. you gave up the 4th possible conversion and if they score little time for ur last possession) and if you for it on 4th down you might get two cracks at the apple . .. .

surely if you had weaker offense opposing you, one might punt . . .

i will say this about the brillance of PM, with all of this swirling around, all of the talk, and shock, PM had the present of mind to go in the huddle make sure that his team did not score too quickly . . . easy in hindsight to say this, i remember PM saying the presser after the game that is what he said in the huddle, kind of mind game with BB . . .I think PM realized what was going on and was going to do his best to prevent the pats from having that second bite at the apple . . .

altho i do think that Merriwether did not get the memo, becuase from what i remember Addai was not touch from the 14 yard line till he hit merriwether at the goal, . . . i think the pats at that point figured let them score

okay i said my two cents . . . i m done . . .

[Gramz]

I will quickly say one thing about 4th and 2, and we kind of need to think about basketball and the 2 for 1 teams go for at the end of a qtr where they take a quick shot (say after 10 secs into the shot clock) you put a shot with say 32 seconds, knowing that even tho you didn't run your entire set of play in the possession, you know you are going to get a second possession (unless the opponent gets an off rebound) before the end of qtr . ..

I think with the 4th and 2, BB figured that I got a 65% (or whatever chance) to convert and end the game, btw he, or TB, even mentioned in a presser that had they gotten the first down they would ran three plays and then punted and essentially ended the game . . . but back to BB, i think he figured i got a 65% to end the game, and even if i don't there is not much real estate left for the colts (29 yards to the endzone) and like 2 mins to go, and they likey try to pass and might get in the red, we'll try to stop them on the first set of down and end the game, but if they get in the red zone, let them score and we are only down one and get the back with a fresh of down . . .

now most people would not bring over the 2 for 1 philopshy over to football, but if B. Merriwether not tackled Addai at the one yard line (i think he ran through a whole from like the 15) , we get the ball back only down one with like a minute play . . .

so for me i see the 4th and 2 as a situation where you got like a 65% to basically end the game (convert , run three plays then punt if needed) and you get a second opportunity to win the game if the colts score cause you will only be down one with time on the clock . ..

however if you punt, you dont get that initial opportunity to convert PLUS it will take the colts time to get back to the 29, and if you are playing prevent D and with the colts skill they will highly likely get back to the 29 but with a lot less than 2 mins and if they do score the time might be out . . .

this of coarse would not work with say 4 mins+ on the clock, becuase you will get the ball anyway, nor would it with lest than say 90 seconds, are your better off punting and make them go the length of the field in a minute . . .

but like in basketball in that 40 second no man zone where you make a quick play to give you another possession before thr buzzer . . .the 2 min point was no mans land, cause if you punt you kind of have no opportunity (i.e. you gave up the 4th possible conversion and if they score little time for ur last possession) and if you for it on 4th down you might get two cracks at the apple . .. .

surely if you had weaker offense opposing you, one might punt . . .

i will say this about the brillance of PM, with all of this swirling around, all of the talk, and shock, PM had the present of mind to go in the huddle make sure that his team did not score too quickly . . . easy in hindsight to say this, i remember PM saying the presser after the game that is what he said in the huddle, kind of mind game with BB . . .I think PM realized what was going on and was going to do his best to prevent the pats from having that second bite at the apple . . .

altho i do think that Merriwether did not get the memo, becuase from what i remember Addai was not touch from the 14 yard line till he hit merriwether at the goal, . . . i think the pats at that point figured let them score

okay i said my two cents . . . i m done . . .

that was quickly...?? just kidding with ya...

[Yehoodi]

They were up by six touchdowns. You're reaching with this "shortening the game" stuff. The game was over, far more over than the Colts/Lions game, when Manning came out earlier in the game, with a smaller lead.

Supes, at half time the pats were up "only up" by 24 points and had the ball to start the second half . . . they then ran a 8 min drive to start the the 3rd quarter . . . this is what i mean by shortenting the game, you run off 25% of the second half . . . true they score, but by a run play btw . . . for me when you shorten the game by a 1/8, you taken an effort to reduce the number of the possessions and thereby reducing the potentional for future scores against the opponent, so mercy by ending the game as soon as possible and/or reducing the likelihood of more scores. . . stop the bleeding as soon as possible if you will . . .

what is the alternative, run a 2 or 4 minute offense? is that less of a running up the score, running a faster offense . . . I know you brought up a good point on the Mia with TB and his 4 min drive after Cassell pick 6, and I agreed and had a few point to repoints, perhap there were in teh flow of things and those plays were the best to run and it was 4 mins drive . . . but i did agree with you to a point a 4 min does not look good, altho there may have been a teahing moment there too . . . .but if you are going to raise an eye brow towards a 4 mins drive, should we not tip our cap and say good job on the 8 min drive, nice way to stop the bleeding as soon as possible? they are kind of an opposite ends of the spectrum, one looking like you are trying to score quickly to gets more possession and the other is reducing the possession in the game . .. its kind of one ot the other, we can't say both 4 min and 8 mins are necessarily the same philopshy, we just cant . . .

And i dont see how a team running 2 2-4 mins drives and scoring more humane than a team running two 8 min drives? I dont follow the logic . . . yah they might get out before the start of the 4th, but it its not less humane in my book, long drives that limit second half possessions for both teams is . . .

And yet, there's a difference between a 45 point lead and a 32 point lead. And there's a difference between a quarterback leaving the game with a 32 point lead in the third quarter, and a quarterback leaving the game with a 45 point lead in the fourth quarter.

Again I think we are looking at the fact that the Pats are there own worst enemy as opposed to them running up the score . . . had they ran a quick possession for first one of the second half, this second possession would of started earlier and if they again ran and quick possession they might of gotten it done before the buzzer at the end of the third quarter . . . and some might say, okay your safe your two possessions happen bofore the the magical bell of the 4th qtr, so you are okay . . . but they didn't . . . there was also and intervening Defense TD and insueing back to back possession by Washington offense . . .

but regardless of the above, the Pat got the ball for only the second time up 38-0 with about 2 mins to go in the 3rd . . . you gonna ask you QB to sit? the fact that the score happened 8 mins (there we go again yelling at the pats for taking there time) later into the 4th is not relevant as to when it started, which was the third . . . And is when the drive is started that one makes a decision who should play the series . . . what is the alternative, let TB start the drive and then pull him 5 mins later middrive?

Also, in my 40 some years of watch pro football I can't think of many times (absent late in the year when seeding is set) that a team sat a starting QB in the 3rd quarter, and much less on only his second possession . . . and we both know there have been many games teams are up 30+ in the 3rd and no on likely has said "boo" about the starter starting series still in the 3rd quarter, as Brady did with Wash . . .

Supes, I under your points about the scores, but we must remember there is an inertia in the game, it is very likely at halftime the pats were going to play TB at least two possessions . . . now as things would have it there was an defense score that added 7 points to the pats score and given wash back to back possession, but it was very likely that TB was pouring over polaroid getting ready for his second possession . . . are really going to expect BB to think that quickly and say "gees we are now up 38 points lets sit TB" or go over to TB and say, "sry TB if we were only up 31 points we go forward as planned here in the 3rd, but since Vrabel got a TD and now we are up 38, you are going to have to chnage plans and you have to sit"

I think is too much to ask in game for a coach to sit a QB late in the third when they go an unexpected score on D . . . and also, you should not look at the time they score the TD, but the time they had to make the decision to send TB out there which was at teh 2 min mark of their qtr. . .

The colts put PM in the game at the with about 6 mins to go in the 3rd up by 26 points for his second possession of the half , the pats put TB in the with two mins to go in the 3rd up by 38 points for his second possession (with again 7 of those points coming fron a defensive score) . . . PM was in detriot side of the field ran and quick 3 min drive and got off the fireld bofore the end of teh third qtr . . . TB on the other hand started from his own 12 and ran an 8 min that happened to spill over into the 4th . . .

I think you pushing Supes if one feels that second possession, up by 26 points, 6 min 3rd is clean and, up 38, 2 mins third, second possession is a crime . . . sorry but I can't agree with you on this one . . .

when review decision by coaches we need to look at them at the time they happen and under the circumstances in which they happened and not so sure one can complain about a coach putting his QB in the 3tr mins after his D got a additional 7 pts and only for his second possession of the half . . . .

You really don't see how throwing a touchdown pass with your #1 quarterback in the 4th quarter of a game that's already 38-0 isn't "mercy"?

Yes they threw a TD, but then again he ran two plays on the first TD at the start of the 3rd . . . would it be less instrusive to have run three pass plays on the first TD and ran on the second?

However, there's a world of difference between Colts/Lions in 2004 and Patriots/Redskins in 2007. That you don't see the difference is unbelievable to me. I think you're just so committed to this argument -- it's four years in the making now -- that you refuse to admit that the two situations are not comparable.

sry Supes but for me there not a "world" of difference between a QB starting his second series of a half up 26 in the third and a QB starting his second series of the half up 38 in the third . . . sorry you can't make me agree on this . . . I am not saying is running up or not . . . what is good for the goose is good for the gander . . .

[Yehoodi]

that was quickly...?? just kidding with ya...

sry got carrying away today on this thread . . . i am done for the night . . .

[Gramz]

sry got carrying away today on this thread . . . i am done for the night . . .

no need to apologize.... it's been entertaining.

[ViriLudant]

I'm done.

My fellow Colt fans are making all the points that need to be made. It's falling on deaf ears among Pat fans.

Once again. The Colts and Manning have never been said to be running up the score, among talking heads and/or fans of other teams.....apparently Pats fans feel differently. I guess they're just butthurt about the fact that everyone knows they've done it. It's like Superman said....each game, regardless of score, can be looked at differently in terms of running up the score. That blowout the Pats had against the Titans was not running up the score. They just kicked the crap out of them. The Washington game, everyone knew they were running up the score.

Again, you're wrong.

There was plenty of "running up the score" talk after the Detroit game in '04.

Probably not among Colts fans because, of course, they would be biased in a favorable way.

But I recall conversations in '04 on many boards, from Patriots to Eagles to others, about Peyton et al. running up the scores.

Now, let me reiterate: I find the "running up the score" argument lame. It's professional football. You play to win the game, and (perhaps just as importantly) you're paid to win the game.

Defensive players are paid millions to make plays. Don't blame the opposing QB if he marches up and down the field on your team. Stop him.

[ViriLudant]

By the way, I'm not so naive as to suggest that Manning and the Colts had no regard for stats in 2004. However, if they had been as aggressive as the Patriots were in 2007, Manning would have broken the single game record against the Lions, he would have had much more than 49 touchdowns, and there would have been plenty of noise at the time about the Colts running up the score.

The Patriots were on a mission in 2007. They wanted every record they could get. There's nothing wrong with that. But I do think there's a certain respect the game should be played with. And, for instance, against the Redskins, with the things they had gone through that season, it was undeniable that they could and should have taken their foot off the already crushed throat of Gibbs' team. They could have (I'm stopping short of saying they should have) handled the Dolphins game differently. It's kind of amazing to see Patriots fans suggest that they didn't run up the score in those two games.

A more respectable response would be the "so what?" defense, as FJC suggests.

I'll continue to disagree, particularly because I don't honestly think that there is such thing as "running up the score" in the NFL.

Let me put it this way:

On the last TD score by the Patriots against Washington, the Patriots ran a play that they never had run before except in practice. I forget the specifics, but it was discussed ad nauseum on various Patriots' boards.

It worked, of course, and the Patriots now knew that they had a play that worked.

So what ended up happening in the playoffs?

They used that same exact play to score an important TD against the Chargers, I believed, in the playoffs.

It's my belief that the Patriots use every real-game opportunity to improve themselves, as opposed to that which many Colt fans complained about in '09, which is resting starters.

:shrug:

[Superman]

Supes, at half time the pats were up "only up" by 24 points and had the ball to start the second half . . . they then ran a 8 min drive to start the the 3rd quarter . . . this is what i mean by shortenting the game, you run off 25% of the second half . . . true they score, but by a run play btw . . . for me when you shorten the game by a 1/8, you taken an effort to reduce the number of the possessions and thereby reducing the potentional for future scores against the opponent, so mercy by ending the game as soon as possible and/or reducing the likelihood of more scores. . . stop the bleeding as soon as possible if you will . . .

what is the alternative, run a 2 or 4 minute offense? is that less of a running up the score, running a faster offense . . . I know you brought up a good point on the Mia with TB and his 4 min drive after Cassell pick 6, and I agreed and had a few point to repoints, perhap there were in teh flow of things and those plays were the best to run and it was 4 mins drive . . . but i did agree with you to a point a 4 min does not look good, altho there may have been a teahing moment there too . . . .but if you are going to raise an eye brow towards a 4 mins drive, should we not tip our cap and say good job on the 8 min drive, nice way to stop the bleeding as soon as possible? they are kind of an opposite ends of the spectrum, one looking like you are trying to score quickly to gets more possession and the other is reducing the possession in the game . .. its kind of one ot the other, we can't say both 4 min and 8 mins are necessarily the same philopshy, we just cant . . .

And i dont see how a team running 2 2-4 mins drives and scoring more humane than a team running two 8 min drives? I dont follow the logic . . . yah they might get out before the start of the 4th, but it its not less humane in my book, long drives that limit second half possessions for both teams is . . .

That is not the possession in question, is it?

After that possession, the defense scored a touchdown, and the next time the offense got the ball was with 2:02 left in the third quarter, and the score was 38-0. What happens after that is what is being taken issue with.

Again I think we are looking at the fact that the Pats are there own worst enemy as opposed to them running up the score . . . had they ran a quick possession for first one of the second half, this second possession would of started earlier and if they again ran and quick possession they might of gotten it done before the buzzer at the end of the third quarter . . . and some might say, okay your safe your two possessions happen bofore the the magical bell of the 4th qtr, so you are okay . . . but they didn't . . . there was also and intervening Defense TD and insueing back to back possession by Washington offense . . .

but regardless of the above, the Pat got the ball for only the second time up 38-0 with about 2 mins to go in the 3rd . . . you gonna ask you QB to sit? the fact that the score happened 8 mins (there we go again yelling at the pats for taking there time) later into the 4th is not relevant as to when it started, which was the third . . . And is when the drive is started that one makes a decision who should play the series . . . what is the alternative, let TB start the drive and then pull him 5 mins later middrive?

Also, in my 40 some years of watch pro football I can't think of many times (absent late in the year when seeding is set) that a team sat a starting QB in the 3rd quarter, and much less on only his second possession . . . and we both know there have been many games teams are up 30+ in the 3rd and no on likely has said "boo" about the starter starting series still in the 3rd quarter, as Brady did with Wash . . .

Manning sat in the third quarter of the Lions game in 2004. Doesn't that speak to how the Colts weren't running up the score in that game? They didn't even have a 38 point lead, and they were on the road.

sry Supes but for me there not a "world" of difference between a QB starting his second series of a half up 26 in the third and a QB starting his second series of the half up 38 in the third . . . sorry you can't make me agree on this . . . I am not saying is running up or not . . . what is good for the goose is good for the gander . . .

I see that I can't make you agree. I'm fine with that. But the two situations are different.

[Gavin]

I think you guys can go over each and every blowout all you want but at the end of the day the defense is supposed to stop the offense, if they cant then its not the offenses job to show mercy or the head coaches, the defense is paid to do there job, if you have players that cant do there job then you find players that can and thats what we are in the midst of doing

[Yehoodi]

That is not the possession in question, is it?

After that possession, the defense scored a touchdown, and the next time the offense got the ball was with 2:02 left in the third quarter, and the score was 38-0. What happens after that is what is being taken issue with.

(sry for long post I had planned to be brief)

Yes I know the second possession is the one in issue, but the first possession is important to put things on context . . . specfically that first possession was a clocking killing/shortening the game possession . . . which was my point regarding the humane manner in which we played . . . typically in those games when he had a good size lead we ran long possession so we could get the game over with and to inflict fewer possession against the opponent . . . I remember in one of the Miama games we had a 12 min or so possession in the second half . . . its basically the same philophsy in SBs 25 and 42 (more 25) in which the "weaker" team wanted to keep the other offense off the field but having long possessions, and thereby give the opponent fewer chances to score, and them too. .. only in our case we were doing to oursleves, i.e. reducing the number of possession possbile in the 2nd and thereby fewer chances to score. . .

had we came out in the 3rd qtr guns ablazing and ran a typical 3-5 min scorrig drive, that pulls back the timing of all of the subsequent possessions by 3-5 mins and thereby pulling back our second offensive possession from the 2:05 min mark so say the 7:05 - 5:05 min mark of the third . . .

So that is my point, I had thought I made myself clear, perhaps I did not, but regardless that first possession pushed everything forward such our second possession started at the 2 min mark as opposed to say the 6 mins . . . I would venture guess that one's would not have a problem if TB was put in for his second possession at the 7 min mark of the 3rd . . . and if that same person would have a problem TB going in at the 2 min, then yes that first possession pushing the possession from the 7 min mark to the 2 min mark, makes a difference in the discussion . . . it can't hold their first possession agains them . . . is the point

Of coarse, my opinion is doesn't matter either way and my view is the same at 7 min or 2 mins, a second possession is a second possession and is not imposing regardless of the start time . . . but since you are of the opinion the 2 min mark might be some kind of taboo time and if you would not have a problem if TB went in at the 7 min mark, they you really can't hold it against the pats as they were the ones that pushed things forward . . . which is why the first possession is of importance when you are evualate what is fair about the 2nd possession . . .

Manning sat in the third quarter of the Lions game in 2004. Doesn't that speak to how the Colts weren't running up the score in that game? They didn't even have a 38 point lead, and they were on the road.

Yes they did sit Manning for the possession that started at the end of the third . . . so manning only sat for like 1:15 min of the 3rd qtr . . . .but you must remember to prior to sitting the colts had trotted Manning out in the 3rd for 3 possessions prior to sitting him . . . so the coaching staff put Manning out for three possession, the last two of which with a 26 point in the second half of the 3rd qtr . . . so the coaching staff gave manning three bites at the apple and the last two being with a 26 pt lead . . . you seem to think this is an honorable way to play football . . . fair enough not argument here . . .

but what bothers me Supers is you take a position supporting as honorable troting out a starting QB for a 2nd and 3rd possession up 26 points, then in the same breath question (and chastise) a coaching decision to send out its QB for only his 2nd possession up 38 . . . there is not that big of a gap between 26 and 38 to praise sending some one out for 3 possession then yell at another who is going out for his second . . .

I have one interesting question that might put the pats decsion into perspective . . . Other than the 59-0 Pats/Titan game, can you think any game you have watched (or heard of) in which a team had benched their QB after one possession of the second half? . . . I can't think of any . . . which means it unlikey it has every happened (short of injruy or playoff seeding locked up) . . . and if it has never happened before, why chastise the pats for not doing it?

I see that I can't make you agree. I'm fine with that. But the two situations are different.

i have a question you and would like you to put yourself in BB shoes (and alos think for a moment if a team has never bench their starting QB after one possession)

You just finished coaching the above-mentioned colts in which you were on the road and left PM in for 3 possession in the second half and you puff your chest out fully confident you did the honorable thing . . .

now you are traded to the pats and you are coaching your beloved (hehe) pats and you are playing a playoff team in the Skins at home, who may not have the best QB . . .you take a 24 point (three score) lead into half and you have the ball the start the third . . . now think for a moment what is going through you mind ? What is your game plan for teh second half ? What are your plans with a 24 points for the second half and whether you are or arent going to pulled Brady at some point in the 4th or so, or is his going to play the entire game ? just think about those for a moment and think about what kind of plan you have . . .

For me its, basically what the pats did, get out there put ahead and we'll bring Cassell as some point in the 4th if the game gets out of reach . . . but i am going to trot Brady out for at least two possession if not three or four . . .and for me i would plan to leave Brady till the first possession of the 4th . . . Now we go out score a drive, knock off half the 3rd qtr time, TBs comes by I tap him on the bum and say good score, and he walks to the bench . . . given the above game plan for the 2nd half, I am not at the moment thinking about telling TB, "hey no need to do anything caused your benched for the rest of the game" . . . in fact one of the last thing on my mind is to tell TB at that moment your benched . . .

. . . so TB goes over to get ready for the next possession, we then get a rare defensive score and then we get the ball back a few minutes later . . . now all of sudden, becuase of one defensive score, I am supposed to immediate think fast and go over to Brady and tell him you are benched cause went over some magical number of lead . . .sorry not buying it Supes . . . its only 2nd offensive possession of a half and its too much to ask (much less to much to make out as henious) expecting a coach, whose half time game plan to leave TB in the game for 2-3 possession, didn't tell him he is benched after the first score, then all of a sudden tell him he his bench . . . that is hindsight . . . in the heat of the battle, one is going to go with flow of the game plan, the inerita of the game plan, and you can't expect a coach to bench a player who has even broken a sweat . . . or specifically only played one possession

not matter how you slice it Supes if you think giving a starting QB three bites at the apple, and the last two being with a 26 point lead in the second half of the 3rd qtr as honorable and doing the right thing (which I agree), you the can't go on and chastise a decision of one who wanted to give its starting QB just his second bite at the up 38 points (7 of which just came on a def score) in the second of the 3 qtr . . . especially when pulling a starting QB after just one possession in the second half may have only happened once or twice in the 90 year or so history of our beloved sport . . . if it has not happened before means its not done and if is not done, you can't yell at someone who does do it . . .

[Superman]

which is why the first possession is of importance when you are evualate what is fair about the 2nd possession . . .

The fact that Brady came back in after the first possession makes it hard to vindicate what they did on the second possession (bringing him back with a 38 point lead late in the third quarter, at home).

Yes they did sit Manning for the possession that started at the end of the third . . . so manning only sat for like 1:15 min of the 3rd qtr . . . .but you must remember to prior to sitting the colts had trotted Manning out in the 3rd for 3 possessions prior to sitting him . . . so the coaching staff put Manning out for three possession, the last two of which with a 26 point in the second half of the 3rd qtr . . . so the coaching staff gave manning three bites at the apple and the last two being with a 26 pt lead . . . you seem to think this is an honorable way to play football . . . fair enough not argument here . . .

but what bothers me Supers is you take a position supporting as honorable troting out a starting QB for a 2nd and 3rd possession up 26 points, then in the same breath question (and chastise) a coaching decision to send out its QB for only his 2nd possession up 38 . . . there is not that big of a gap between 26 and 38 to praise sending some one out for 3 possession then yell at another who is going out for his second . . .

Before the last possession Manning played, the team was up 26 points. That's two touchdowns less than the 38 point lead the Patriots had.

And what's more, the Colts took Manning out after a 32 point lead, in the third quarter. The Patriots left Brady in after a 38 point lead (and pushed it to 45 points), in the fourth quarter.

How do you not grasp the difference?

I have one interesting question that might put the pats decsion into perspective . . . Other than the 59-0 Pats/Titan game, can you think any game you have watched (or heard of) in which a team had benched their QB after one possession of the second half? . . . I can't think of any . . . which means it unlikey it has every happened (short of injruy or playoff seeding locked up) . . . and if it has never happened before, why chastise the pats for not doing it?

You've tried to changed the narrative to support your argument that possessions are more important than time left is. It's not working. When you're up 38 points late in the third quarter, at home, you don't need to keep your quarterback in. It doesn't matter how many possessions you've had in the second half.

i have a question you and would like you to put yourself in BB shoes (and alos think for a moment if a team has never bench their starting QB after one possession)

You just finished coaching the above-mentioned colts in which you were on the road and left PM in for 3 possession in the second half and you puff your chest out fully confident you did the honorable thing . . .

now you are traded to the pats and you are coaching your beloved (hehe) pats and you are playing a playoff team in the Skins at home, who may not have the best QB . . .you take a 24 point (three score) lead into half and you have the ball the start the third . . . now think for a moment what is going through you mind ? What is your game plan for teh second half ? What are your plans with a 24 points for the second half and whether you are or arent going to pulled Brady at some point in the 4th or so, or is his going to play the entire game ? just think about those for a moment and think about what kind of plan you have . . .

I don't know what my plan would be, other than to nail the game down. At such point when I was satisfied that the game was in the bag, I'd pull my starting quarterback. I don't think I'd consider the game done coming out of the locker room, and as such, I wouldn't be thinking about when I would pull Brady out.

But after we score on a long drive, and then our defense scores again, and there's two minutes left in the third quarter when we get possession again, and we're up 38-0, I'd consider us having put the game way. And I'd pull Brady, even though there was only one offensive possession in the second half (which is completely irrelevant).

For me its, basically what the pats did, get out there put ahead and we'll bring Cassell as some point in the 4th if the game gets out of reach . . . but i am going to trot Brady out for at least two possession if not three or four . . .and for me i would plan to leave Brady till the first possession of the 4th . . . Now we go out score a drive, knock off half the 3rd qtr time, TBs comes by I tap him on the bum and say good score, and he walks to the bench . . . given the above game plan for the 2nd half, I am not at the moment thinking about telling TB, "hey no need to do anything caused your benched for the rest of the game" . . . in fact one of the last thing on my mind is to tell TB at that moment your benched . . .

. . . so TB goes over to get ready for the next possession, we then get a rare defensive score and then we get the ball back a few minutes later . . . now all of sudden, becuase of one defensive score, I am supposed to immediate think fast and go over to Brady and tell him you are benched cause went over some magical number of lead . . .sorry not buying it Supes . . . its only 2nd offensive possession of a half and its too much to ask (much less to much to make out as henious) expecting a coach, whose half time game plan to leave TB in the game for 2-3 possession, didn't tell him he is benched after the first score, then all of a sudden tell him he his bench . . . that is hindsight . . . in the heat of the battle, one is going to go with flow of the game plan, the inerita of the game plan, and you can't expect a coach to bench a player who has even broken a sweat . . . or specifically only played one possession

As I said before, coaches don't plan when they're going to pull their starter when they're coming out of the locker room for the second half, not when you're up 24 points. The game isn't over. But when the score is 38-0 with two minutes left in the third quarter, I'm not putting my quarterback back out there. There's no need to.

You might not buy it, but you have an agenda. I don't. Like I said, if your argument was "who cares if they didn't pull the starters, it's the other team's job to stop them; there's no honor code that says they have to let their foot off the gas," I'd have nothing to say to you. That's a philosophical disagreement that there's no sense in discussing. I think you show respect for the other team by not running the score up. It's only when you try to defend putting Brady back on the field with a five touchdown lead with 17 minutes left in the game that I have something to say.

not matter how you slice it Supes if you think giving a starting QB three bites at the apple, and the last two being with a 26 point lead in the second half of the 3rd qtr as honorable and doing the right thing (which I agree), you the can't go on and chastise a decision of one who wanted to give its starting QB just his second bite at the up 38 points (7 of which just came on a def score) in the second of the 3 qtr . . . especially when pulling a starting QB after just one possession in the second half may have only happened once or twice in the 90 year or so history of our beloved sport . . . if it has not happened before means its not done and if is not done, you can't yell at someone who does do it . . .

How often does a team have a 38 point lead after one offensive possession in the second half? Is there even a frame of reference? Your statement that no one has ever pulled their starter in that situation is likely only true (if it even is) because teams never have that kind of lead at that juncture in the game.

This is out of hand at this point. I've lost interest -- can you believe that? It might be a first. I feel like I'm arguing that water is wet, and you're telling me how hydrogen and oxygen interact together. The Pats left Brady in with a bigger lead at a later point in the game. It's as simple as that. I don't see how you can really suggest that the two situations are the same.

[ViriLudant]

Supes, I completely disagree.

You show pity and disrespect to the other team when you say, "Okay, we've whooped you well enough, we'll take it easy on you now."

Not only that, but every snap during a game allows a team to develop and improve. That's what the Patriots do. They don't run plays, when they have large leads, just for the heck of it. They use those opportunities to tweak things, improve plays, etc.

I'll take that approach every day of the week.

[GoPats]

Wow, this thread is an absolute train wreck.

First of all...

Brady had exactly 81 more pass attempts. Give Peyton 81 more pass attempts in 04 and, according to the math, he would have 7.9 more Tds that year... round that ugly 7.9 number to 8.

Peyton would've had about 57 TD passes in 04 had he had about the same number of attempts as Brady... and if he wanted to blow out other teams.

I'm not a Manning basher (if you don't believe that, look at my posting history and show me one instance of me doing that) but Brady threw fewer INTs (8) in 2007 than Manning did in 2004 (10) despite throwing the ball 81 more times.

Why mention that? Just to illustrate how stats can be manipulated to make pretty much any argument a person wants.

One thing about 2007 that I haven't seen mentioned...

"Spygate" broke in Week 1. The Patriots had a complete and unrestrained "us against the world" mentality that season. People questioned their past accomplishments (heck, some people still do, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary, because it makes them feel better), and as a result, players are on record as saying that the mission that year was to basically destroy everyone they played.

I would question anyone on this thread... if everything you worked for throughout your life suddenly got called into doubt, fair or not, how would you respond?

Belichick does indeed keep an eye on his players' stats relative to getting records. Last season he had Hoyer throw Gronk a pass late in a game to give him the yardage record for TEs. I'm sure the same happened in '07, even though the Patriots actually NEEDED the late TD in the regular season finale against the Giants to actually win that game. On the same play, Brady and Moss set records.

On topic though...

I spend a lot of time at high elevations. I've been over 20,000' a half dozen times. I understand the science of altitude very well, and have spent several past years making a living as a guide.

Every time I hear anything about the altitude in Denver I kind of chuckle. Is there a difference? Sure. Air at sea level is denser, and therefore there are more oxygen molecules in the air you breathe there. No disputing that. But when you're talking about highly conditioned professional athletes who arrive in Denver at least 24 hours prior to kickoff, it's almost completely a non-factor. The human body will adjust to that altitude in hours. Not days.

There is some credence to the notion that a football will travel a bit further and faster at 5,000+' because there is less air friction. I would guess that would be more prevalent with a game like baseball than football though. However, playing home games in Denver, there are other factors (like wind) that would potentially neutralize any advantage he may get from the thin air.

Overall, I think Manning just took all the factors and made his decision. I think Elway being there was huge, and he probably liked the talent he saw on the team. I don't think altitude had anything at all to do with it.

[Superman]

Supes, I completely disagree.

You show pity and disrespect to the other team when you say, "Okay, we've whooped you well enough, we'll take it easy on you now."

Not only that, but every snap during a game allows a team to develop and improve. That's what the Patriots do. They don't run plays, when they have large leads, just for the heck of it. They use those opportunities to tweak things, improve plays, etc.

I'll take that approach every day of the week.

Like I said to Yehoodi, that's fine. I know a lot of people feel differently about the running up the score debate.

I will say that there's a difference between taking it easy on them out of pity, and taking your starting quarterback out of the game when you have a five score lead. The Patriots have taken Brady out with smaller leads, with more time on the clock. I don't think this is just a philosophical "Patriots Way" thing, not with regard to the Redskins game.

[Captain Americolt]

Wow, this thread is an absolute train wreck.

First of all...

I'm not a Manning basher (if you don't believe that, look at my posting history and show me one instance of me doing that) but Brady threw fewer INTs (8) in 2007 than Manning did in 2004 (10) despite throwing the ball 81 more times.

Why mention that? Just to illustrate how stats can be manipulated to make pretty much any argument a person wants.

One thing about 2007 that I haven't seen mentioned...

"Spygate" broke in Week 1. The Patriots had a complete and unrestrained "us against the world" mentality that season. People questioned their past accomplishments (heck, some people still do, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary, because it makes them feel better), and as a result, players are on record as saying that the mission that year was to basically destroy everyone they played.

I would question anyone on this thread... if everything you worked for throughout your life suddenly got called into doubt, fair or not, how would you respond?

Belichick does indeed keep an eye on his players' stats relative to getting records. Last season he had Hoyer throw Gronk a pass late in a game to give him the yardage record for TEs. I'm sure the same happened in '07, even though the Patriots actually NEEDED the late TD in the regular season finale against the Giants to actually win that game. On the same play, Brady and Moss set records.

On topic though...

I spend a lot of time at high elevations. I've been over 20,000' a half dozen times. I understand the science of altitude very well, and have spent several past years making a living as a guide.

Every time I hear anything about the altitude in Denver I kind of chuckle. Is there a difference? Sure. Air at sea level is denser, and therefore there are more oxygen molecules in the air you breathe there. No disputing that. But when you're talking about highly conditioned professional athletes who arrive in Denver at least 24 hours prior to kickoff, it's almost completely a non-factor. The human body will adjust to that altitude in hours. Not days.

There is some credence to the notion that a football will travel a bit further and faster at 5,000+' because there is less air friction. I would guess that would be more prevalent with a game like baseball than football though. However, playing home games in Denver, there are other factors (like wind) that would potentially neutralize any advantage he may get from the thin air.

Overall, I think Manning just took all the factors and made his decision. I think Elway being there was huge, and he probably liked the talent he saw on the team. I don't think altitude had anything at all to do with it.

Woah where are you getting at with all this Denver and altitude stuff? I said nothing about that. Also, you're right about how stats can be manipulated to make pretty much any argument a person wants. For example, you stated Manning threw 10 picks and brady 8. With those two possesions gone with the two extra picks Manning threw, he still has one less TD pass. Not to mention Indy punted 54 times that season compared to NE's 45 (credit to FJC, I believe, for putting that stat up). Also I'm going to include the 4th down conversions. (FJC again)Indy 4/7, NE 15/21. Obviously Manning had less opportunities that Brady to rack up the stats, yet Brady only has a 1 TD difference to show for it. And I'm not even including the games where Manning came out in the 3rd quarter because the games were already over, despite having 6 TDs with the perfect chance to go for the record.

[Superman]

Woah where are you getting at with all this Denver and altitude stuff?

That's the original topic of the thread.... way back when...

[Captain Americolt]

That's the original topic of the thread.... way back when...

ah I see now.. Thanks

[MAC]

One thing about 2007 that I haven't seen mentioned...

"Spygate" broke in Week 1. The Patriots had a complete and unrestrained "us against the world" mentality that season. People questioned their past accomplishments (heck, some people still do, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary, because it makes them feel better), and as a result, players are on record as saying that the mission that year was to basically destroy everyone they played.

Actually I made that argument. I thought it was common-knowledge that the Patriots were unusually aggressive in 2007. Whether that's a good or bad thing is up for debate. Whether or not it affected stats is not. My argument was non-the-less dismissed by one of your comPatriots who not only relishes the teams accomplishments in 2007, but insists that the Colts did the same thing in 2004, while seemingly comparing that team favorable to the Pats. Yet imagine how quickly that worm would turn if I claimed that the Colts of 2004 were simply a better team than the Pats of 2007. He wants to have his cake and eat it too rather than fairly discussing what happened. I have no such concerns with you.

[shakedownstreet]

[Vltrophy1]

The Rams drafted Isiah Pead as a RB. So when he scores did the other team just get Pead on? Lol

[21isSuperman]

That's the original topic of the thread.... way back when...

back in the day when we were all young and innocent...

[southwest1]

Supes, I completely disagree. You show pity and disrespect to the other team when you say, "Okay, we've whooped you well enough, we'll take it easy on you now." Not only that, but every snap during a game allows a team to develop and improve. That's what the Patriots do. They don't run plays, when they have large leads, just for the heck of it. They use those opportunities to tweak things, improve plays, etc. I'll take that approach every day of the week.

Wow, this thread is an absolute train wreck. First of all... I'm not a Manning basher (if you don't believe that, look at my posting history and show me one instance of me doing that) but Brady threw fewer INTs (8) in 2007 than Manning did in 2004 (10) despite throwing the ball 81 more times. Why mention that? Just to illustrate how stats can be manipulated to make pretty much any argument a person wants. One thing about 2007 that I haven't seen mentioned... "Spygate" broke in Week 1. The Patriots had a complete and unrestrained "us against the world" mentality that season. People questioned their past accomplishments (heck, some people still do, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary, because it makes them feel better), and as a result, players are on record as saying that the mission that year was to basically destroy everyone they played. I would question anyone on this thread... if everything you worked for throughout your life suddenly got called into doubt, fair or not, how would you respond? Belichick does indeed keep an eye on his players' stats relative to getting records. Last season he had Hoyer throw Gronk a pass late in a game to give him the yardage record for TEs. I'm sure the same happened in '07, even though the Patriots actually NEEDED the late TD in the regular season finale against the Giants to actually win that game. On the same play, Brady and Moss set records. On topic though... I spend a lot of time at high elevations. I've been over 20,000' a half dozen times. I understand the science of altitude very well, and have spent several past years making a living as a guide. Every time I hear anything about the altitude in Denver I kind of chuckle. Is there a difference? Sure. Air at sea level is denser, and therefore there are more oxygen molecules in the air you breathe there. No disputing that. But when you're talking about highly conditioned professional athletes who arrive in Denver at least 24 hours prior to kickoff, it's almost completely a non-factor. The human body will adjust to that altitude in hours. Not days. There is some credence to the notion that a football will travel a bit further and faster at 5,000+' because there is less air friction. I would guess that would be more prevalent with a game like baseball than football though. However, playing home games in Denver, there are other factors (like wind) that would potentially neutralize any advantage he may get from the thin air. Overall, I think Manning just took all the factors and made his decision. I think Elway being there was huge, and he probably liked the talent he saw on the team. I don't think altitude had anything at all to do with it.

I've said it many times before. #1: It's the defense's job to stop the run and the opposition from scoring. If a team can't do either, keep doing it. As ViriLudant suggests all squads have formations, timing, and chemistry they themselves need to tweak, tinker, solidify, and strengthen. #2: I, for one, believe that NE did NOT cheat or commit SPYGATE. Belicheck was a great DC for the NY Giants under Bill Parcells in the early 1990's and his coaching prowess is proven with his 3 SB rings, 5 SB appearances, and consistent team Playoffs contention IMO.

GOPats,

I appreciate your perspective on thin air and high elevation as a guide. I have often wondered about the scientific authenticity of high altitude and a person's ballpark recovery time on average in relationship to rigorous activity. Thin air would play a role in a game as the 2nd half progresses, but to what extent does it speed up a player's exhaustion? I have no frame of reference in this domain and I am not the expert in this realm that you clearly are. When a person is subjected to thin air and shortness of breath, what techniques can they implement to alleviate this condition at high elevations? I would appreciate any insights you could provide about this matter. Thank you. Naturally, every athlete's body chemistry is different. I get that. So is how each athlete handles stress to their body and bloodstream medically speaking.

[Jay Kirk]

Lol his choice had nothing to do with thin air,I will walk out on a limb and gaurantee that.Baseball will fly farther,the football not noticable throwing,kicking possible that it can increase by maybe five yards.PM needs no advantage physicaly,his advantage is his mind.Lol tetnically the thin air could be a disadvantage,less oxygen to the brain.IMO lol its a non factor in anything

[GoPats]

Woah where are you getting at with all this Denver and altitude stuff? I said nothing about that. Also, you're right about how stats can be manipulated to make pretty much any argument a person wants. For example, you stated Manning threw 10 picks and brady 8. With those two possesions gone with the two extra picks Manning threw, he still has one less TD pass. Not to mention Indy punted 54 times that season compared to NE's 45 (credit to FJC, I believe, for putting that stat up). Also I'm going to include the 4th down conversions. (FJC again)Indy 4/7, NE 15/21. Obviously Manning had less opportunities that Brady to rack up the stats, yet Brady only has a 1 TD difference to show for it. And I'm not even including the games where Manning came out in the 3rd quarter because the games were already over, despite having 6 TDs with the perfect chance to go for the record.

Denver comments were made in reference to the original topic.

And the last thing I intended to do there was to start any kind of debate about Brady's '07 season versus Manning's '04 season. You could make a case for either one being better. There's no completely subjective formula for that. There are a lot of great ice cream flavors, so if you like chocolate the best, that doesn't mean that black raspberry is awful. ;-)

GOPats,

I appreciate your perspective on thin air and high elevation as a guide. I have often wondered about the scientific authenticity of high altitude and a person's ballpark recovery time on average in relationship to rigorous activity. Thin air would play a role in a game as the 2nd half progresses, but to what extent does it speed up a player's exhaustion? I have no frame of reference in this domain and I am not the expert in this realm that you clearly are. When a person is subjected to thin air and shortness of breath, what techniques can they implement to alleviate this condition at high elevations? I would appreciate any insights you could provide about this matter. Thank you. Naturally, every athlete's body chemistry is different. I get that. So is how each athlete handles stress to their body and bloodstream medically speaking.

Good question.

When a person ascends to a higher elevation, the air is literally thinner. The percentage of various gases in the air (oxygen, nitrogen) is the same; there's just less of all of it.

The body quickly recognizes this, as there is less oxygen coming in with every breath a person takes. As a result, more red blood cells are produced, carrying more oxygen out to the muscles that need it for fuel. Typically, assuming the gain in elevation is not too great (less than 5,000'/day), the body will adjust within hours. That's the process known as acclimatiziation. Some people react better to altitude than others, and they've never really been able to explain why that is... seems as though it just has a lot to do with your body chemistry. VO2-max, other factors... basically it comes down to how well your body processes oxygen. Sort of like a car with a clean-running engine versus one that burns more fuel to go the same speed/distance.

If the altitude gain is too great, and too sudden, that's where you run into problems with HACE (High Altitude Cerebral Edema) and HAPE (High Altitude Pulmonary Edema), where basically your body drowns in its own fluids and you die. (Too much blood is pumped to the brain or lungs to try to compensate for the lack of oxygen.)

When you're climbing a mountain that's around 15,000' or higher, you have to take your time and do it in stages unless you were previously acclimatized (from another climb, or from being close to those elevations for a day or two). The mantra is "climb high, sleep low." So you'll spend a day carrying supplies to a higher camp on the mountain somewhere, and then climb back down to your last camp. Spend a night there, and then a day or two later you sleep a little higher. During that time, your body adjusts further until you're fully acclimatized.

There is definitely still a challenge, even for an acclimatized climber, when you get over 15,000'. You've adjusted, but when you exert yourself, you're gasping for air. On the highest peaks in the world, there's what climbers call "The Death Zone," which is generally above 25,000' or so. Humans cannot live at those altitudes permanently, and the body is literally deteriorating while you're there, no matter how acclimatized you are, and no matter how fit you are.

Without the acclimatization process, we never would have climbed anything above 20,000'. If you were taken from sea level to the summit of Mt. Everest instantly, you would be unconscious within a minute, and dead within 10. No matter how healthy or fit you are to begin with.

So, getting to Denver...

The altitude is under 6,000'. Most people who travel to those altitudes have minor symptoms (headaches are the most common, maybe a little nausea) for a day or so before they stop noticing the difference. When you're exerting yourself, you would definitley notice the altitude, but the key here is that football players are extremely well-conditioned athletes. Like I said before, it's not a total non-factor, but it probably isn't quite the home field advantage that many people believe it to be.

The physics of sports are also impacted, but again, probably not as much as people think. With fewer gas molecules in the air, there is less friction to slow down a baseball or a football traveling through it.

How's that for an extremely long-winded answer? LOL...

[southwest1]

Denver comments were made in reference to the original topic.

And the last thing I intended to do there was to start any kind of debate about Brady's '07 season versus Manning's '04 season. You could make a case for either one being better. There's no completely subjective formula for that. There are a lot of great ice cream flavors, so if you like chocolate the best, that doesn't mean that black raspberry is awful. ;-)

Good question.

When a person ascends to a higher elevation, the air is literally thinner. The percentage of various gases in the air (oxygen, nitrogen) is the same; there's just less of all of it.

The body quickly recognizes this, as there is less oxygen coming in with every breath a person takes. As a result, more red blood cells are produced, carrying more oxygen out to the muscles that need it for fuel. Typically, assuming the gain in elevation is not too great (less than 5,000'/day), the body will adjust within hours. That's the process known as acclimatiziation. Some people react better to altitude than others, and they've never really been able to explain why that is... seems as though it just has a lot to do with your body chemistry. VO2-max, other factors... basically it comes down to how well your body processes oxygen. Sort of like a car with a clean-running engine versus one that burns more fuel to go the same speed/distance.

If the altitude gain is too great, and too sudden, that's where you run into problems with HACE (High Altitude Cerebral Edema) and HAPE (High Altitude Pulmonary Edema), where basically your body drowns in its own fluids and you die. (Too much blood is pumped to the brain or lungs to try to compensate for the lack of oxygen.)

When you're climbing a mountain that's around 15,000' or higher, you have to take your time and do it in stages unless you were previously acclimatized (from another climb, or from being close to those elevations for a day or two). The mantra is "climb high, sleep low." So you'll spend a day carrying supplies to a higher camp on the mountain somewhere, and then climb back down to your last camp. Spend a night there, and then a day or two later you sleep a little higher. During that time, your body adjusts further until you're fully acclimatized.

There is definitely still a challenge, even for an acclimatized climber, when you get over 15,000'. You've adjusted, but when you exert yourself, you're gasping for air. On the highest peaks in the world, there's what climbers call "The Death Zone," which is generally above 25,000' or so. Humans cannot live at those altitudes permanently, and the body is literally deteriorating while you're there, no matter how acclimatized you are, and no matter how fit you are.

Without the acclimatization process, we never would have climbed anything above 20,000'. If you were taken from sea level to the summit of Mt. Everest instantly, you would be unconscious within a minute, and dead within 10. No matter how healthy or fit you are to begin with.

So, getting to Denver...

The altitude is under 6,000'. Most people who travel to those altitudes have minor symptoms (headaches are the most common, maybe a little nausea) for a day or so before they stop noticing the difference. When you're exerting yourself, you would definitley notice the altitude, but the key here is that football players are extremely well-conditioned athletes. Like I said before, it's not a total non-factor, but it probably isn't quite the home field advantage that many people believe it to be.

The physics of sports are also impacted, but again, probably not as much as people think. With fewer gas molecules in the air, there is less friction to slow down a baseball or a football traveling through it.

How's that for an extremely long-winded answer? LOL...

GOPats,

You have provided me a thorough and beautiful definition of the true nature of elevation and the acclimatization process my friend. Clearly, you are a proficient master when it comes to rock climbing and thin air issues of preservation and protection. Thank you for indulging my curious, inquisitive question buddy. Have you yourself climbed the summit of Mt. Everest too just like Patriots LB Tedi Bruschi did fairly recently?

I also like your explanation that the NFL has well conditioned athletes so an elevation of 6,000 feet won't matter that much or pose a huge strategic advantage for Peyton Manning and the Denver Broncos. Although Safety Ryan Clark does suffer from Sickle Cell Anemia as a result of higher elevations, but I am assuming that this condition is quite rare in most athletes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/05/pittsburgh-steelers-ryan-clark-sickle-cell_n_1187062.html

Thank you GOPats for your exceptionally well detailed explanation. You my friend!!!

[GoPats]

GOPats,

You have provided me a thorough and beautiful definition of the true nature of elevation and the acclimatization process my friend. Clearly, you are a proficient master when it comes to rock climbing and thin air issues of preservation and protection. Thank you for indulging my curious, inquisitive question buddy. Have you yourself climbed the summit of Mt. Everest too just like Patriots LB Tedi Bruschi did fairly recently?

I also like your explanation that the NFL has well conditioned athletes so an elevation of 6,000 feet won't matter that much or pose a huge strategic advantage for Peyton Manning and the Denver Broncos. Although Safety Ryan Clark does suffer from Sickle Cell Anemia as a result of higher elevations, but I am assuming that this condition is quite rare in most athletes.

http://www.huffingto..._n_1187062.html

Thank you GOPats for your exceptionally well detailed explanation. You my friend!!!

I could probably talk anyone to death if the subject is mountains. :-)

I haven't been to Everest, no. I've climbed a couple of "smaller" peaks in Asia (one in the Himalaya, one in the Karakoram) as well as Aconcagua (highest point in South America) and Denali (highest in North America). I tend to gravitate toward the slightly smaller, but much more techinical peaks (meaning, no direct "walk-ups" and usually with a strong element of rock or ice climbing). Bruschi actually climbed Kilimanjaro, in Africa, as part of the "Wounded Warriors" project. Jeff Fisher too. Kilimanjaro is a pretty big mountain, and certainly has its objective dangers, but it's a safer mountain than most that are the same height.

And you're right about Ryan Clark and Sickle Cell. My understanding of that condition is that a person with SCT can't always adjust to higher altitudes because their bodies will not increase the production of red blood cells. And apparently that happens randomly... in other words, not every single time someone with SCT goes to a higher elevation. Might be fine one time, and have a life-threatening experience the next.

I've been blessed with biology that allows me to usually react pretty well when I'm climbing. I know climbers who are way more skilled than I could ever hope to be, but they didn't luck out like I did with their body physiology!

[southwest1]

I could probably talk anyone to death if the subject is mountains. :-)

I haven't been to Everest, no. I've climbed a couple of "smaller" peaks in Asia (one in the Himalaya, one in the Karakoram) as well as Aconcagua (highest point in South America) and Denali (highest in North America). I tend to gravitate toward the slightly smaller, but much more techinical peaks (meaning, no direct "walk-ups" and usually with a strong element of rock or ice climbing). Bruschi actually climbed Kilimanjaro, in Africa, as part of the "Wounded Warriors" project. Jeff Fisher too. Kilimanjaro is a pretty big mountain, and certainly has its objective dangers, but it's a safer mountain than most that are the same height.

And you're right about Ryan Clark and Sickle Cell. My understanding of that condition is that a person with SCT can't always adjust to higher altitudes because their bodies will not increase the production of red blood cells. And apparently that happens randomly... in other words, not every single time someone with SCT goes to a higher elevation. Might be fine one time, and have a life-threatening experience the next.

I've been blessed with biology that allows me to usually react pretty well when I'm climbing. I know climbers who are way more skilled than I could ever hope to be, but they didn't luck out like I did with their body physiology!

You're right about that. I had Tedi Bruschi climbing the wrong mountain. Sorry about that. I have a tremendous amount of respect for Tedi as a player, as a man, as a father, and as a positive role model for others to emulate and follow in the footsteps of.

You are also gifted GoPats at diluting down complicated concepts and making these foreign terms of SCT, HACE, HAPE, and elevation changes in the environment feel accessible, tangible, controllable, and real. I'll bet that you are a marvelous guide equipped to handle nearly any circumstance or situation.

God bless excellent genes and body physiology GOPats! Not every person is created equal or truly made the same now are they? It's what makes you uniquely qualified my friend!!!

[GoPats]

You're right about that. I had Tedi Bruschi climbing the wrong mountain. Sorry about that. I have a tremendous amount of respect for Tedi as a player, as a man, as a father, and as a positive role model for others to emulate and follow in the footsteps of.

You are also gifted GoPats at diluting down complicated concepts and making these foreign terms of SCT, HACE, HAPE, and elevation changes in the environment feel accessible, tangible, controllable, and real. I'll bet that you are a marvelous guide equipped to handle nearly any circumstance or situation.

God bless excellent genes and body physiology GOPats! Not every person is created equal or truly made the same now are they? It's what makes you uniquely qualified my friend!!!

, thanks buddy, and bonus points for the David Lee Roth solo album cover!

[southwest1]

I could probably talk anyone to death if the subject is mountains. :-)

I haven't been to Everest, no. I've climbed a couple of "smaller" peaks in Asia (one in the Himalaya, one in the Karakoram) as well as Aconcagua (highest point in South America) and Denali (highest in North America). I tend to gravitate toward the slightly smaller, but much more techinical peaks (meaning, no direct "walk-ups" and usually with a strong element of rock or ice climbing). Bruschi actually climbed Kilimanjaro, in Africa, as part of the "Wounded Warriors" project. Jeff Fisher too. Kilimanjaro is a pretty big mountain, and certainly has its objective dangers, but it's a safer mountain than most that are the same height.

There's always been something about the majestic power of mountains and the tranquility of Mother Nature at extreme heights that has always appealed to me personally. The intense focus a climber must have at high elevations must be incredibly challenging and exhilarating at the same time. It would be cool to hear about a few of your most memorable climbs some time GoPats. Climbing a tall mountain must be one heck of a sense of accomplishment and a great adrenaline rush too, especially when the endorphins kick in!

Send me a personal message/e-mail on here sometime. Just click on my picture, which takes you to my profile, and send me a PM when you have some down time to kill my friend.

Here's another rock climbing picture for you GOPats: Actor Tom Cruise in the film "Mission Impossible 2."

[gspdx]

I forget what this thread is about - is this a Manning > Brady thread? Or a Brady > Manning thread? I didn't notice at the beginning. I think the thin air isn't impacting Peyton's throws as much as it is impacting some of these posts.

[gspdx]

There's always been something about the majestic power of mountains and the tranquility of Mother Nature at extreme heights that has always appealed to me personally. The intense focus a climber must have at high elevations must be incredibly challenging and exhilarating at the same time. It would be cool to hear about a few of your most memorable climbs some time GoPats. Climbing a tall mountain must be one heck of a sense of accomplishment and a great adrenaline rush too, especially when the endorphins kick in!

Send me a personal message/e-mail on here sometime. Just click on my picture, which takes you to my profile, and send me a PM when you have some down time to kill my friend.

Here's another rock climbing picture for you GOPats: Actor Tom Cruise in the film "Mission Impossible 2."

Tom really did the climbing in this scene. The director said he was pretty worried about it.