This is good for a laugh

[GoPats]

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."

I will do that amigo! Thanks...

[GoPats]

Double post, sorry!

[Jay Kirk]

Lol dont stop talking about mountains on my acount,its where i feel at home,where i want to live,and something in the moutains calls my name

[southwest1]

Lol dont stop talking about mountains on my acount,its where i feel at home,where i want to live,and something in the moutains calls my name

That's why I enjoy your friendship brother...Your American Indian heritage, your military background and respect for discipline/hardwork, your vast football knowledge, your appreciation for nature and a more laid back life, and your exceptional musical tastes and interests. You are a very intriguing fellow Jay and I am glad to call you my friend.

[GoPats]

Lol dont stop talking about mountains on my acount,its where i feel at home,where i want to live,and something in the moutains calls my name

Nice... I've always said, about mountains, "It's one of those things... if I have to explain it to you, the words will fail, and you still won't understand unless you already get it," LOL...

[Yehoodi]

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.

It is rare that a team has a 38 point lead late in the 3rd qtr, but is not a rare that a team has a "game over" lead late in the 3rd qtr and in those instances you will find that more often than not, the QB will still be in the game . . . now there is no written rule on the matter but for the most part QBs simply don't come out until the 4th qtr, regardless of the score . . . must less only after one possession in the second half. Indeed, in the blow out of all blow outs and with opponent clearly quitting early in the game and thus it was game set and match at half time, was the 59-0 Pats win over the Titans a few years ago, the pats had plenty of time to think about their seond half game plan (and perhaps looked to the skin game as a precedent, the first time they had a biglead late in the third and it was a case of first impression for them against Wash, and will act via custom and leave TB in and pull him in the 4th) . . .

In that Tenn game NO one complained (even the yahoos whiners here in Boston) about TB coming out in the second half to get his at bats and had single possession up by 59 points, no one complained about this . . . But some how these same yahoos will complaing about the Skins game, about a single additional posession/at bat, with 3 TDs fewer lead, that does not compute in my head how one can be so inconsistant . . . not sure how some can say the former is okay and whine about the later and being the basis of some vile evil individual, sorry call me slow but i can't process that inconsistency . . . surely if you are running into a 3rd, 4th, 5th possession into the 4th qtr when custom has the QB coming out it is a different story . . . but as i said way back when in this thread, two possession is merely two possessions I dont care when they happen at the 7 min mark or the 2 min of the 3rd is just an extra possession, not really sure what all this fuss is about . . . it think people look at the time they score, 8 mins later, 6 mins into the 4th, and whine, but the decision to put TB in happen much earlier than that and again its just a second possesssion . . .

As for comparing it to the Indy/Det game . . . I was not trying to say that it was an exact copy of the game, but mentioned it as a reference point that one needs to look at the two games and view them with the same set of eyes and measureing stick . . . and if you have a 4 score lead against a team that hasn't won a Thanksgiving Day game since the Nixon Administration (I know I kid, but I think you get my point), the game is bascially over, and you trot out your QB for a 2nd and 3rd possession in the 3tr qtr and say that is "totally clean and classy" you are not in a position to then claim (or wish to prevent) that a coach putting his player in for his possession is completely wrong, the two coaching ideals are not that far apart . . . if we view the continium of coaches decisions in playing to win and score and being clean through and until a situation as being way out of line and running up the score, as a pedulum with say 5 points in the swing, with point 1 being left and the clean okay decison, and point 3 being the bottom swing of the pedulum and being acceptable, and point 5 right being way out of line . . . if you want put the colts decision at point 1, there is no way you can convince me that the pats decision is at point 5, it may be off by a notch, say point 2 or 3, but it stills falls in the realm of acceptable decisions . . . .

As for the coach's decisions, the decision to "run up the score" that is a mindset and you need put yourself in the mind of the coach

and prove your point . . . the problem is sometime the coaches have reason other than running up the score and leaving their starters in the game or put them in the game . . . for instance: Why do the colts (and other teams) put in their starters in week 17 win things are locked up? Why is PM in those game? Why? it had to do with keeping his consecutive streak going . . . hey no complaints here, fair enough, but the reason for PM being in those game and during meanlings set of downs, hands nothing to do with running up the score, or trying the secure PM another passing TD before you sit him, but for him to get another start . . . similar the reasons for keeping WRs (or QBs) in those games to achieve a milestone of yards or receptions, had little to do with winning or running up the score, in both and all of these situations, i would be incorrect in trying to label this decisions as trying to run up the score, but must label the decision for what they are, and are not what i wish them to be . . .

Similiar with the Pats game (and why i asked you to put yourself in BB shoes at halftime) . . . but nonetheless the Pats were only up 24 points and the mindset would be to keep TB in for at least a few possessions to help secure the game . . . and that was the inerta of the game (as opposed to lets score and win by 70) . . . and when we got a surprise and rare score and were up by 38 pts, i think its too muich to ask BB to put out some kind of Las Vegas card counting Black Jack card that gave him acceptables times when a QB can go in the game and when he can not . . . TB was going back in that game for the 2nd possession regardless of the score, as opposed to some evil plot, hehe, we get to get more points, . . . the pats were going with they gameplan as opposed to wantig to run up the score . . .

As for teams being up and keeping there starters in the game, i just know from watching football for 40 years that what teh pats did was not out of the ordinary . . . i am not one to keep records at my finger tips to make counter arguments, but I will say that after having this same discusion with a friend of my late in the 2009 season, I paid closer attention to some of the game that I watched on Sunday afternoon and did not take much time to find examples of my points . . . most involved the giants as there are more ofen broadcast here in Boston

But the gmen were up by 4 scores against the same skins and left Eli in the game for his 2nd possession that spilled over into the 4th and he punch in a TD . . . and week following the Panthers beat the Gmen 42-9 and leaving their starters in for the entire game, and week following that the Vikings beat the Gmen and had Farve in for a second possession (there i go again with that evil second possession) up by 34 points (which is not too far off 38 points) and he punched it in to go up 41-0 . . . I did keep close track after this as my friend insisted that the was a difference . . . like there is a real difference being up by 38 pts as opposed to 34 points and in the former its a crime to put in your QB for a 2nd possession but okay for the latter . . . I knew I this point if it did not sink it, he had an agenda, as opposed to one who wishes to engage in a thoughful conversation . . . i stopped keeping track cause if he can't see the light after three games, he never will . . . But it would not take too much effort, which I dont want to do, to skim throught the games over the last five years and fine many more examples similar to the above and you will find that what the pats did was in the normal flow of our beloved sport . . .

I did however take a look at 2004 season to look at other games and found interesting the two games immediately prior to the indy-det game . . . the colts played Chi and won 41-10 with PM playing into the 4th qtr (and not scoring so he was in the 4th up 31 points) and sorgi only came in late in the game to take a knee down . . . the week before that they bet houston 49-14, with PM playing the entire game, coming in at the 2 min mark of the 3rd up by 28, and then twice in the 4th, up by 35 and 28 points respectively . . . sorgi never saw the field . . . just two data points Supes . . . now perhaps in the 3rd game in a row up big in the 3rd on Thanksgiving, the colts might of thought about the two prior games and being on national TV, only game on at the time, might of thought that descretion was teh better part of valor and only had PM in for 3 possession up 4 scores and decision to pulled him (as you can always bring him back) . . . whose knows . . . i do think the Pats might of had that Skins game in mind when they went into the TN 2nd half and figured to pulled TB after one possession . . .

But eitherway I do not think the Indy/Det is that far off from the Skins game (and do think the colts might of pulled PM a possession early do to my comments above) to say that the pats and colts in thos two games are at opposite ends of the pedulum of coaching decisions, maybe a difference of a notch or two . . . but certainly in the history of our beloved sport, and with special referenced to the above mentioned games, you will find out that what the Pats did was not that out of the ordinary, what a case of first impressionf or them, and was more to do with them wanting to give TB his at bats as opposed to running up the score . . .

and after all of this and our posts going back and forth, i come back to my original point (which I sadly did not think needed further elaborate, explanation, illustrations, or perseptive) and this is simply this one simple point which is: Two possessions in the 2nd half is well, two possession and nothing more . . .

EDIT: As i mentioned in an earlier post, I think this problem does not stem from something that the pats did from a coaching decision, but more do with the fact that the pats were very efficident and score more TDs that prior teams. Indeed on roughly the same amount of possessions as the '04 colts the pats score about 7-8 more TDs . . . i am sure if one were to spread 7-8 more TDs on the colts '04 season you too would find some people casting a suspcious eye on the colts, especially in like the the above mentioned three games that actually happened, but that would not mean they were necessarily running up score . . . one needs to look at each possession and look at the decision made at the time the coach decided to play his starters and too was there a reason separate from a desire to score to rack up points . . .

btw, i found very interesting FJC points about the pats going for more 4th downs that the 04 colts and it would be interesting to investigate more closer those additional 4th downs to see if the pats were similarly situated and extended more drives resulting in those additionals TDs . . . I have never looked into this and did not want to now . . . I would not want to be accused of hyjacking a thread mind you (oh btw what was this thread about :-) ) . . . .

[Yehoodi]

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.

yes the more 4th downs is an very interesting point, thxs FJC . . .

for me it still comes down to overall TDs when it comes to Qb's performances . . . surely passing TDs are very key, but when you are within one or two TDs for me the better season comes down to how many times did the QB help lead the team to a TD . . . the different between a passing TD and a rushing TD might just be a WR getting pushed out of bounds at the one and the team handing off to the RB who gets a rushing TD, had the WR made it to the endzone, the QB get the feather in his cap . . . similar if your inside the 5 and your RB gets stuffed on 1st and 2nd down and not in the end zone, the QB gets a chance to convert a passing TD on 3rd down . . .

for me overall I still lean towards Marino's 84 season, even tho he is behind both TB and PM, his WR core was not as strong as either ones and the 84 fins put up almost as many TDs as the 07 pats . . .

[Yehoodi]

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.

Hey I heard this :-) . . . not sure if this was directed at me or another . . . but yes, as I have mentioned, the Pats were on a mission in 2007, so agree there . . . and surely it helped out in the results catagory as they had more vigor start to finished, but for me it had a lot more to do with the Pats, like the 83 skins and 98 vikings, were very efficient, as opposed to throwing TB up by 35 in the 4th . . . the aforementioned extra TDs that I have mentioned in the past post were more the result of this vigor as opposed to tryng to punch in a late 4th qtr . . .

Perhaps some of these extras TDs came from extended drives from 4th downs . . . but untils further investigation the jury is out as to when and in what conditions these 4th downs occured . . .

As for the mind set of the Pats placing their starters in games to score at a point in the game that was over or more spefically in points in games where some may feel was unecessary or not consistent with other teams similarly situated, I wil just reference your attention to my above long post (post #163), and the few paragraghs in which I mention the Gmen games and the three colts games in nov 2004 (Chi/hou/det) . . . and what you will fine is that the pats did not do anything that far different that other teams similarly sitauated . . .

[Yehoodi]

btw could not edited my posts but just wanted to add . . . sry for the lengthly posts, i got a thingie about the pats 07 season . . . I have pretty much said my peace and wouldn't bother you all with lengthly posts, thanks for taking the time to read posts and to specifically Superman for taking time to respond . . . I know it was off topic but the "running up the score" thingie get me a little hot under the collar and also sry if I may have come off a little terse/snappy in my posts . . . :-) . . .

[MAC]

Hey I heard this :-) . . . not sure if this was directed at me or another . . .

Certainly not you.

[Superman]

and after all of this and our posts going back and forth, i come back to my original point (which I sadly did not think needed further elaborate, explanation, illustrations, or perseptive) and this is simply this one simple point which is: Two possessions in the 2nd half is well, two possession and nothing more . . .

Just as I said before, the number of possessions played in the second half isn't as relevant as the score or the time left on the clock. You can make it about possessions if you want, but I'm not buying that.

I understand that you're sensitive about the season, and I don't blame you. But that doesn't mean that you get to frame the debate using terms that have little bearing on the topic. To me, the difference is clear: The Colts pulled Manning with more time on the clock, with a smaller lead. So when someone says the Patriots ran up the clock, you don't get to say "the Colts did the same thing," because they didn't. Smaller lead, more time on the clock. The two situations were different, and if you had to choose which team did more to earn the label of running up the score, it's the Patriots, hands down.

You need to find a different comeback. This one doesn't work. It doesn't matter how you feel about the season or the way people talk about it. You can't defend the Patriots against the Redskins by bringing up the Colts against the Lions.