PDA

View Full Version : While We're What-Ifing (and Speaking of Playcalling), What of This One?



Joel
11-26-2013, 04:22 AM
1
7:26
1
10
NWE 44
Knowshon Moreno (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MoreKn00.htm) right guard for 5 yards (tackle by Chris Jones (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/J/JoneCh04.htm) and Joe Vellano (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/V/VellJo00.htm))
14
0
2.65
2.78
6.6


1
7:00
2
5
NWE 39
Knowshon Moreno (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MoreKn00.htm) left guard for 6 yards (tackle by Rob Ninkovich (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/N/NinkRo20.htm) and Joe Vellano (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/V/VellJo00.htm))
14
0
2.78
3.38
5.9


1
6:29
1
10
NWE 33
Knowshon Moreno (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MoreKn00.htm) left tackle for 2 yards (tackle by Kyle Arrington (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/A/ArriKy00.htm) and Chandler Jones (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/J/JoneCh03.htm))
14
0
3.38
3.11
6.1


1
6:05
2
8
NWE 31
Montee Ball (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BallMo00.htm) up the middle for 4 yards (tackle by Duron Harmon (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/H/HarmDu00.htm) and Rob Ninkovich (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/N/NinkRo20.htm))
14
0
3.11
2.94
6.2


1
5:51
3
4
NWE 27
Montee Ball (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BallMo00.htm) up the middle for 6 yards (tackle by Chris Jones (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/J/JoneCh04.htm) and Duron Harmon (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/H/HarmDu00.htm))
14
0
2.94
4.17
5.1


1
5:26
1
10
NWE 21
Montee Ball (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BallMo00.htm) right guard for 16 yards (tackle by Duron Harmon (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/H/HarmDu00.htm))
14
0
4.17
6.06
3.6


1
4:51
1
5
NWE 5
Montee Ball (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BallMo00.htm) up the middle for -1 yards (tackle by Chandler Jones (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/J/JoneCh03.htm) and Rob Ninkovich (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/N/NinkRo20.htm))
14
0
6.06
4.95
4.3


1
4:18
2
6
NWE 6
Peyton Manning (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MannPe00.htm) sacked by Chandler Jones (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/J/JoneCh03.htm) for -10 yards
14
0
4.95
2.85
6.1


1
3:39
3
16
NWE 16
Knowshon Moreno (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MoreKn00.htm) right guard for 7 yards (tackle by Rob Ninkovich (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/N/NinkRo20.htm) and Jamie Collins (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/C/CollJa00.htm))
14
0
2.85
2.83
6.0


1
3:00
4
9
NWE 9
Matt Prater (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/P/PratMa20.htm) 27 yard field goal good
17
0
2.83
3
5.7


1
3:00


DEN 35
Matt Prater (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/P/PratMa20.htm) kicks off 50 yards, returned by Devin McCourty (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/McCoDe99.htm) for 14 yards (tackle by David Bruton (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BrutDa99.htm))
17
0
0
-0.87
6.6


http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201311240nwe.htm#pbp_data::none

I almost forgot that drive, though it seemed like the deathblow to NE after Balls powerful 16 yd run up the gut gave us 1st and G at the NE 5; we looked unstoppable and a 21 pt lead halfway through the first quarter all but certain. Then a stumble when we went to the well once too often, then a major screw up when Clark blew his block on Chandler Jones (Clark seems to have trouble with speed rushers, especially on turf) and finally one of the few genuinely bad playcalls from Manning: Another run up the gut on 3rd down, even though we were 16 yds from the end zone.

That conclusion appeared trivial at the time; we did at least get points out of the turnover and take a three score lead off of NEs first three possessions. Yet if we punch it in there the measly two TDs the offense mustered on their own in 4.5 quarters would've been enough to win the game in regulation; NEs fourth TD would've only tied the game rather than giving them the lead, and when we answered with a TD of our own their FG on the next drive wouldn't have been enough. They probably go for it on 4th and 4 from their 29 with just 1:45 to play, but remember our D never let them score again.

What if, with 1st and 10 on their 44, we hadn't run 8 times for 45 yds only to find ourselves 9 yds from the end zone thanks to a sack on our ONLY pass play? There's a lot of ways to parse that; maybe if we try more than one pass we manage >-10 yds passing, or maybe if we just try another plunge for a yard or two from the Pats 6 Morenos 7 yd run is a TD instead of putting us at their 9. One of the nice things about running instead of passing is that it rarely gains much, but VERY rarely LOSES ANYTHING, while protecting the Ball (as long as Moreno's running anyway.)

I can't help thinking that drive symbolizes the whole game for us: Championship level running that came up just a little short because our HoF QB and Pro Bowl WRs did us more harm than good. I mean, really, if you gain 45 rushing yards from the other teams 44, that should be a TD, right? And it probably would've been if running on all but one play hadn't told them to play the run and stuff Ball for a short loss on 1st and G from the 6, or if our ONE pass hadn't been a sack; if Manning even manages to throw it away Morenos 7 yd run is a TD (though they probably don't call the same D.)

A lot of speculation and second-guessing, yes, but there's plenty of that going around now. It's a pity Moreno needed a breather after three runs for 13 yds, and that Ball didn't quite have the balance to make it all the way to end zone on that big 16 yarder (it WAS close; he almost made it, and might be one of the heroes instead of one of the many goats if he had.) What if Moreno's in, and finishes that run with the aggresion typical of him this year? That was the ONLY sack our line allowed, but, MAN, did it prove costly, far more so than it seemed at the time. Anyone thought of getting Manning a pair of heated gloves for Christmas...?

artie_dale
11-26-2013, 11:19 AM
1
7:26
1
10
NWE 44
Knowshon Moreno (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MoreKn00.htm) right guard for 5 yards (tackle by Chris Jones (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/J/JoneCh04.htm) and Joe Vellano (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/V/VellJo00.htm))
14
0
2.65
2.78
6.6


1
7:00
2
5
NWE 39
Knowshon Moreno (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MoreKn00.htm) left guard for 6 yards (tackle by Rob Ninkovich (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/N/NinkRo20.htm) and Joe Vellano (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/V/VellJo00.htm))
14
0
2.78
3.38
5.9


1
6:29
1
10
NWE 33
Knowshon Moreno (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MoreKn00.htm) left tackle for 2 yards (tackle by Kyle Arrington (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/A/ArriKy00.htm) and Chandler Jones (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/J/JoneCh03.htm))
14
0
3.38
3.11
6.1


1
6:05
2
8
NWE 31
Montee Ball (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BallMo00.htm) up the middle for 4 yards (tackle by Duron Harmon (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/H/HarmDu00.htm) and Rob Ninkovich (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/N/NinkRo20.htm))
14
0
3.11
2.94
6.2


1
5:51
3
4
NWE 27
Montee Ball (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BallMo00.htm) up the middle for 6 yards (tackle by Chris Jones (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/J/JoneCh04.htm) and Duron Harmon (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/H/HarmDu00.htm))
14
0
2.94
4.17
5.1


1
5:26
1
10
NWE 21
Montee Ball (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BallMo00.htm) right guard for 16 yards (tackle by Duron Harmon (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/H/HarmDu00.htm))
14
0
4.17
6.06
3.6


1
4:51
1
5
NWE 5
Montee Ball (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BallMo00.htm) up the middle for -1 yards (tackle by Chandler Jones (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/J/JoneCh03.htm) and Rob Ninkovich (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/N/NinkRo20.htm))
14
0
6.06
4.95
4.3


1
4:18
2
6
NWE 6
Peyton Manning (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MannPe00.htm) sacked by Chandler Jones (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/J/JoneCh03.htm) for -10 yards
14
0
4.95
2.85
6.1


1
3:39
3
16
NWE 16
Knowshon Moreno (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MoreKn00.htm) right guard for 7 yards (tackle by Rob Ninkovich (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/N/NinkRo20.htm) and Jamie Collins (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/C/CollJa00.htm))
14
0
2.85
2.83
6.0


1
3:00
4
9
NWE 9
Matt Prater (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/P/PratMa20.htm) 27 yard field goal good
17
0
2.83
3
5.7


1
3:00


DEN 35
Matt Prater (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/P/PratMa20.htm) kicks off 50 yards, returned by Devin McCourty (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/McCoDe99.htm) for 14 yards (tackle by David Bruton (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BrutDa99.htm))
17
0
0
-0.87
6.6


http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201311240nwe.htm#pbp_data::none

I almost forgot that drive, though it seemed like the deathblow to NE after Balls powerful 16 yd run up the gut gave us 1st and G at the NE 5; we looked unstoppable and a 21 pt lead halfway through the first quarter all but certain. Then a stumble when we went to the well once too often, then a major screw up when Clark blew his block on Chandler Jones (Clark seems to have trouble with speed rushers, especially on turf) and finally one of the few genuinely bad playcalls from Manning: Another run up the gut on 3rd down, even though we were 16 yds from the end zone.

That conclusion appeared trivial at the time; we did at least get points out of the turnover and take a three score lead off of NEs first three possessions. Yet if we punch it in there the measly two TDs the offense mustered on their own in 4.5 quarters would've been enough to win the game in regulation; NEs fourth TD would've only tied the game rather than giving them the lead, and when we answered with a TD of our own their FG on the next drive wouldn't have been enough. They probably go for it on 4th and 4 from their 29 with just 1:45 to play, but remember our D never let them score again.

What if, with 1st and 10 on their 44, we hadn't run 8 times for 45 yds only to find ourselves 9 yds from the end zone thanks to a sack on our ONLY pass play? There's a lot of ways to parse that; maybe if we try more than one pass we manage >-10 yds passing, or maybe if we just try another plunge for a yard or two from the Pats 6 Morenos 7 yd run is a TD instead of putting us at their 9. One of the nice things about running instead of passing is that it rarely gains much, but VERY rarely LOSES ANYTHING, while protecting the Ball (as long as Moreno's running anyway.)

I can't help thinking that drive symbolizes the whole game for us: Championship level running that came up just a little short because our HoF QB and Pro Bowl WRs did us more harm than good. I mean, really, if you gain 45 rushing yards from the other teams 44, that should be a TD, right? And it probably would've been if running on all but one play hadn't told them to play the run and stuff Ball for a short loss on 1st and G from the 6, or if our ONE pass hadn't been a sack; if Manning even manages to throw it away Morenos 7 yd run is a TD (though they probably don't call the same D.)

A lot of speculation and second-guessing, yes, but there's plenty of that going around now. It's a pity Moreno needed a breather after three runs for 13 yds, and that Ball didn't quite have the balance to make it all the way to end zone on that big 16 yarder (it WAS close; he almost made it, and might be one of the heroes instead of one of the many goats if he had.) What if Moreno's in, and finishes that run with the aggresion typical of him this year? That was the ONLY sack our line allowed, but, MAN, did it prove costly, far more so than it seemed at the time. Anyone thought of getting Manning a pair of heated gloves for Christmas...?

My wife asked why we ran it on 3rd & 16 instead of trying to pass it, even though we were in field goal range. I told her that it came down to "risk". Risking throwing an INT or fumbling the ball while so close to getting points on the board. That hold did that drive in. If the game was closer (21-21 or 21-14), I'm sure they would have tried to score a TD. Everything was going pretty well up to that point so I understand the call. "Too conservative"? Maybe, but from a risk standpoint, I think it was right.

Ravage!!!
11-26-2013, 11:27 AM
Not to mention the risks of sacks and pushing the ball back even further.

I'm not going to play this game of "what if we did this on this drive" for the entire game. We have the benefit of knowing the outcome and question the outcome while this "guessing" of "what we could have done instead".... doesn't have that benefit. VERY easy to think you can out-call a coach/QB when you have hindsight on your side. Perhaps if we could simply go back in time and call a play over and over again until it works?

Joel
11-26-2013, 12:01 PM
Honestly? I think I'd have just put Moreno back in and kept running it from their 6 after the 1 yd loss on 1st and G. You don't gain yards on EVERY run, but you do gain at least a few on MOST, and from the 6 it doesn't take many, especially against a team missing BOTH starting DTs.

Yet, on the other hand, if we ARE going to pass, we shouldn't just give up after ONE try results in one of NEs TWO sacks all game and leaves just ONE chance to gain 16 yds so we don't have to settle for an easy FG. Running on 3rd and G from the 16 was basically giving up, but giving up seemed Mannings theme Sunday night. It's not like a 3rd down pass obligated us to force it into double coverage or take a sack instead of throwing it away (as Manning should've done on 2nd down.) If nothing's there or protection breaks down fast, do like Montana before The Catch: Heave it through the back of the end zone. Still a FG.

Krugan
11-26-2013, 12:49 PM
If we are going to second guess, why not go directly at Talibs replacement when he was out those three plays?

This game was a mess of what ifs, as all of them.

jhildebrand
11-26-2013, 01:35 PM
If we are going to second guess, why not go directly at Talibs replacement when he was out those three plays?


That's one of the simple adjustments I am railing on in another thread. As soon as Kayvon went in Belichick made the call to target him. Why not go after his replacement and Talib once he came back? :confused: Why not double Gronk and pound him at the line? :confused: Del Rio was a deer in headlights and it showed in several camera shots!

Buff
11-26-2013, 01:45 PM
What if we could have sustained one effing drive in the second half? Or not turned it over 3 times in our own territory? Those stand out to me.

Dapper Dan
11-26-2013, 03:16 PM
What if I would have stayed at work and watched instead of going home?

Dzone
11-26-2013, 03:47 PM
the 3rd and 16 run by Moreno was frustrating. Maybe if Tebow was qb, but we have manning

jhildebrand
11-26-2013, 04:24 PM
the 3rd and 16 run by Moreno was frustrating. Maybe if Tebow was qb, but we have manning

In fairness there was a 2nd or 3rd and very long earlier in the game that was picked up with a similar run. They went to the well again thinking they may be successful again and minimizing all risk.

jhildebrand
11-26-2013, 04:25 PM
What if we could have sustained one effing drive in the second half? Or not turned it over 3 times in our own territory? Those stand out to me.

Amen to ^^

What if Decker actually fought for position on his route? What if Decker would actually catch the ball with his hands instead of being content letting it come in to him? What if he fought as hard on the play as he does for a flag?

We can what if this thing to death. The biggest failure that requires no what if's is what you stated.

Dapper Dan
11-26-2013, 05:00 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_PawcvFrMQ

NightTrainLayne
11-26-2013, 05:30 PM
What if we could have sustained one effing drive in the second half? Or not turned it over 3 times in our own territory? Those stand out to me.

The turnovers are really the killers. I think that sans turnovers, we'd be applauding the commitment to the running game in giving us a tough win on the road in bad weather.

But the turnovers giving Brady short fields in quick succession killed us.

On to the Chiefs. There's no shame losing in OT on the road.

Buff
11-26-2013, 05:35 PM
The turnovers are really the killers. I think that sans turnovers, we'd be applauding the commitment to the running game in giving us a tough win on the road in bad weather.

But the turnovers giving Brady short fields in quick succession killed us.

On to the Chiefs. There's no shame losing in OT on the road.

All fair points - especially in regard to the turnovers. Really the only way you can lose that game is by turning it over multiple times.

But I wish people would quit minimizing the fact that we blew a 24 point 2nd half lead. In a vacuum there is no shame losing in OT on the road... But when you snatch defeat from the jaws of victory like we did there is a little shame involved, IMO.

Joel
11-26-2013, 05:37 PM
If we are going to second guess, why not go directly at Talibs replacement when he was out those three plays?

This game was a mess of what ifs, as all of them.
I totally agree there; it was so obvious even Collinsworth caught it. Pro Bowl WR goes from covered by their best CB to their fourth best (Dennard was out, and Arrington on the other side.) That's obligatory, and a HoFer like Manning should've been all over it; as off target as he was all night, just toss up three more of those floaters he kept lobbing and wait till the MUCH better player runs under it or you get a conversion by PI, Holding or Illegal Contact (I mean, that's pretty much what passes for "offense" now ANYWAY; for PFM and DT against a scrub it's easy money.)


That's one of the simple adjustments I am railing on in another thread. As soon as Kayvon went in Belichick made the call to target him. Why not go after his replacement and Talib once he came back? :confused: Why not double Gronk and pound him at the line? :confused: Del Rio was a deer in headlights and it showed in several camera shots!
Again, Del Rio's not the one barking the dictionary right up till the playclock expires on EVERY down. He's a defensive coach who's been repeatedly quoted as saying he calls his own game because he can't crawl inside Foxs (also defensive coachs) head and try to be two guys at once—yet the offensive playcalling is the same as it was when Fox was on the sideline. Same as it was when everyone insisted "McCoy's a cowardly moron!" but McCoy's been in SD all year.

Maybe it was as simple as superior coaching, and maybe that isn't (in itself) an indictment of either the DC (Del Rio and, to a great extent, Fox) OR the OC (Manning in all but name.) I despise Belicheat and everything he represents, but, in a world where almost all head coaches are VERY good with offense OR defense and much weaker with the other, his knowledge of BOTH is deep, wide and holistic: He knows and sees how all the pieces work and how they fit together, from the micro to macrosopic levels and all those between them.

The most telling argument there is that he's as famous for getting far more than anyone else expected out of dozens of scrub players at every position as he is infamous for cameras.


the 3rd and 16 run by Moreno was frustrating. Maybe if Tebow was qb, but we have manning
Well, I mean, pick a horse and ride it; if you want to zing 'em with a scoring strike once you've they sell out on the run because you've done it SEVEN TIMES STRAIGHT for 39 yds, don't give up after the first sack and go back to the run expecting to get a 16 yd TD out of ONE third down play. That's just giving up completely. If you aren't committed to passing to exploit personnel mismatches your great running attack created, then don't start; stick with the run that's working when you have three (maybe four) tries from their 5 against a hollow run D.

Above all, for the love of all that's holy, if the blitz is coming on 2nd and G from the 6 (guess you didn't outsmart Belicheat) THROW THE BALL AWAY! You've still got the FG, and a third down run from the 6 has a shot, and will probably at least get close enough against two rookie DTs to make going for it on 4th a worthy consideration (though admittedly unlikely; at that point, a three score lead is more important than risking it by going for a BIGGER three score lead.)

Manning just didn't look like Manning, neither physically, emotionally nor mentally. He looked like Ponder: Uncomfortable, confused, frustrated and even scared.

Joel
11-26-2013, 05:39 PM
What if we could have sustained one effing drive in the second half? Or not turned it over 3 times in our own territory? Those stand out to me.
Yeah, that would've been nice; couldn't hurt, and probably would've helped a smidge.

embeeteeay
11-28-2013, 08:32 AM
All fair points - especially in regard to the turnovers. Really the only way you can lose that game is by turning it over multiple times. But I wish people would quit minimizing the fact that we blew a 24 point 2nd half lead. In a vacuum there is no shame losing in OT on the road... But when you snatch defeat from the jaws of victory like we did there is a little shame involved, IMO.

Interesting perspectives running rampant in this thread. I saw it differently. Really the only way you win that game is by NE turning it over multiple times, giving Denver a TD and two short fields...No?

WTE
11-28-2013, 08:48 AM
Interesting perspectives running rampant in this thread. I saw it differently. Really the only way you win that game is by NE turning it over multiple times, giving Denver a TD and two short fields...No?

I would agree with this. NE's offense was moving the ball very effectively all game both with the wind and especially against it.

It would appear the better team won that day and if you look at it from that prospective there really are no "What-ifs."

MOtorboat
11-28-2013, 09:15 AM
Interesting perspectives running rampant in this thread. I saw it differently. Really the only way you win that game is by NE turning it over multiple times, giving Denver a TD and two short fields...No?

Denver also gave New England three shorts fields off turnovers in the second half, so, no, that's obviously not the only way Denver could win. The two teams are more evenly matched than you obviously want to believe.

MOtorboat
11-28-2013, 09:15 AM
I would agree with this. NE's offense was moving the ball very effectively all game both with the wind and especially against it.

It would appear the better team won that day and if you look at it from that prospective there really are no "What-ifs."

Like, a prospective buyer or something?

WTE
11-28-2013, 09:25 AM
Like, a prospective buyer or something?

Edit for all you geek English teachers, 60 yr old librarians and Mo. "Perspective."

embeeteeay
11-28-2013, 11:22 AM
Denver also gave New England three shorts fields off turnovers in the second half, so, no, that's obviously not the only way Denver could win. The two teams are more evenly matched than you obviously want to believe.

No, you just took my point out of context. Denver fan says, all things considered (ie the entire circumstances of the game), it was the Bronco turnovers that spelled the difference. I was simply saying, this was a two-way street.

You think without the three first half TOs, and 17 points, Denver definitely wins that game? feel free to enlighten us.

Army Bronco
11-28-2013, 11:55 AM
It was a ******* 3 point game on OT...Jesus. everyone was acting like it was an ass whooping or something. The difference in the game was a freak bounce. That could've happened in any part of the game. NE was no better or worse than Den. The bounce never happens and it could've been a tie. DRC never gets hurt, maybe a diff game. Brady still sucks.

WTE
11-28-2013, 12:00 PM
It was a ******* 3 point game on OT...Jesus. everyone was acting like it was an ass whooping or something. The difference in the game was a freak bounce. That could've happened in any part of the game. NE was no better or worse than Den. The bounce never happens and it could've been a tie. DRC never gets hurt, maybe a diff game. Brady still sucks.

Remember when you were having a serious meltdown in the 4th qtr? That was great.

embeeteeay
11-28-2013, 12:03 PM
It was a ******* 3 point game on OT...Jesus. everyone was acting like it was an ass whooping or something. The difference in the game was a freak bounce. That could've happened in any part of the game. NE was no better or worse than Den. The bounce never happens and it could've been a tie. DRC never gets hurt, maybe a diff game. Brady still sucks.

It sure felt like an ass-whupping to me, there in the third Q!

It didn't feel like an ass-whupping to you?

Simple Jaded
11-28-2013, 12:25 PM
It was a ******* 3 point game on OT...Jesus. everyone was acting like it was an ass whooping or something. The difference in the game was a freak bounce. That could've happened in any part of the game. NE was no better or worse than Den. The bounce never happens and it could've been a tie. DRC never gets hurt, maybe a diff game. Brady still sucks.
No, no, no. That doesn't fit the Manning sucks/scared/weak/feeble/old/MakesTooMuchMoney/NotTimTebow narratives. Try again!

Army Bronco
11-28-2013, 12:56 PM
It was a ******* 3 point game on OT...Jesus. everyone was acting like it was an ass whooping or something. The difference in the game was a freak bounce. That could've happened in any part of the game. NE was no better or worse than Den. The bounce never happens and it could've been a tie. DRC never gets hurt, maybe a diff game. Brady still sucks.

Remember when you were having a serious meltdown in the 4th qtr? That was great.so am I now not allowed to be frustrated? Do you wanna take that right away from me. And my issues weren't with the game. Did you enjoy that I was frustrated? Did it get you off. Does my bitterness towards the fuvkinv Pats bring you happiness?

Army Bronco
11-28-2013, 12:57 PM
It was a ******* 3 point game on OT...Jesus. everyone was acting like it was an ass whooping or something. The difference in the game was a freak bounce. That could've happened in any part of the game. NE was no better or worse than Den. The bounce never happens and it could've been a tie. DRC never gets hurt, maybe a diff game. Brady still sucks.

It sure felt like an ass-whupping to me, there in the third Q!

It didn't feel like an ass-whupping to you?the first half felt like an ass whooping.

WTE
11-28-2013, 01:02 PM
so am I now not allowed to be frustrated? Do you wanna take that right away from me. And my issues weren't with the game. Did you enjoy that I was frustrated? Did it get you off. Does my bitterness towards the fuvkinv Pats bring you happiness?

No
No
Yes
No
Yes

Army Bronco
11-28-2013, 01:11 PM
so am I now not allowed to be frustrated? Do you wanna take that right away from me. And my issues weren't with the game. Did you enjoy that I was frustrated? Did it get you off. Does my bitterness towards the fuvkinv Pats bring you happiness?

No
No
Yes
No
YesYour a sad sad shell of a human being. Whats worse is you troll for a decent team that was only good by cheating. Tainted SBs..all of them..oh, and that whole money thing with Den...most of the league believes the Pats have tainted SBs and could give a Belkicheat about Denver's controversy. You never hear Den won because Elway got paid but you do hear NE cheated..that must suck huh?

MOtorboat
11-28-2013, 03:31 PM
No, you just took my point out of context. Denver fan says, all things considered (ie the entire circumstances of the game), it was the Bronco turnovers that spelled the difference. I was simply saying, this was a two-way street.

You think without the three first half TOs, and 17 points, Denver definitely wins that game? feel free to enlighten us.

Do you think without the four second-half Broncos turnovers, New England definitely wins that game? You can't explain away one team's turnovers and act as if the other team's were inevitable. That's just stupid dumb logic.

Army Bronco
11-28-2013, 04:52 PM
No, you just took my point out of context. Denver fan says, all things considered (ie the entire circumstances of the game), it was the Bronco turnovers that spelled the difference. I was simply saying, this was a two-way street.

You think without the three first half TOs, and 17 points, Denver definitely wins that game? feel free to enlighten us.

Do you think without the four second-half Broncos turnovers, New England definitely wins that game? You can't explain away one team's turnovers and act as if the other team's were inevitable. That's just stupid dumb logic.Mo, were you expecting any better from these Pats fans??? Can't even police up their own when they cross the line.

embeeteeay
11-28-2013, 08:01 PM
Do you think without the four second-half Broncos turnovers, New England definitely wins that game? You can't explain away one team's turnovers and act as if the other team's were inevitable. That's just stupid dumb logic.

You just made my point.....the reason for my comments! It was a Bronco fan that was using that dumb logic. I was pointing out that you can't 'what if' one while ignoring the other.

This isn't a very complicated issue.

Poet
11-28-2013, 08:09 PM
What kind of loser shows up on another team's website to post?

:banplease:

embeeteeay
11-28-2013, 08:10 PM
Mo, were you expecting any better from these Pats fans??? Can't even police up their own when they cross the line.

Sounds to me like you miss NEP and have to troll the good guys.

BTW....you did a good job trolling him, but I do think you were a little harsh on him.

embeeteeay
11-28-2013, 08:12 PM
What kind of loser shows up on another team's website to post?

:banplease:


Oh, I don't know, but I'll take a guess.

A Bengals fan?

Poet
11-28-2013, 08:17 PM
Oh, I don't know, but I'll take a guess.

A Bengals fan?

That's right, and only Bengals fans. So these Patriot fans need to hit the road.

Army Bronco
11-28-2013, 08:45 PM
Mo, were you expecting any better from these Pats fans??? Can't even police up their own when they cross the line.

Sounds to me like you miss NEP and have to troll the good guys.

BTW....you did a good job trolling him, but I do think you were a little harsh on him.Harsh on who? I'm a gentle m' Effin soul!! I shit skittles.

Army Bronco
11-28-2013, 08:47 PM
What kind of loser shows up on another team's website to post?

:banplease:


Oh, I don't know, but I'll take a guess.

A Bengals fan? Wait....King is cool and a badass!!!!! Leave King alooooone!

WARHORSE
11-28-2013, 10:14 PM
We're playing the Kansas City Chancres this week.

We lost that game.

It was MENTAL mistakes that cost us, INCLUDING Balls fumble and Carter/Welkers punt flub.


Peyton should have thrown that ball out of the endzone.

embeeteeay
11-29-2013, 12:23 AM
Wait....King is cool and a badass!!!!! Leave King alooooone!

Well, he asked the question!

But I respect and admire you for the way you handled yourself yesterday, so if you say King is cool, that's good enough for me.

Joel
11-29-2013, 05:08 AM
Interesting perspectives running rampant in this thread. I saw it differently. Really the only way you win that game is by NE turning it over multiple times, giving Denver a TD and two short fields...No?
His comments strongly indicate he meant the only way we lose AFTER those turnovers and shortfields is by handing them right back again.


I would agree with this. NE's offense was moving the ball very effectively all game both with the wind and especially against it.

It would appear the better team won that day and if you look at it from that prospective there really are no "What-ifs."
They really didn't. They moved the ball to about midfield on the first drive—then the first turnover. They never had it long enough to move it well in the first half, and in the second half they only moved it well in the third quarter; after that they only managed a FG for the rest of the game, and that was on a drive where we gave them ball inside our 40 (IIRC.)

Our D was rocked by losing DRC (though that's no excuse for the other CBs, who are normally good) and, shortly thereafter, Vickerson, but by the fourth quarter they compensated and NE only got 6 pts off a pair of turnovers for the next two periods. On a freezing gusty night it didn't take the Steel Curtain to stop Vereen, Amendola, Edelman and a gimpy Gronk. The problem was our offense had nothing but Moreno, so it spun its wheels for the rest of the game until the muffed punt ended it.

Joel
11-29-2013, 05:09 AM
We're playing the Kansas City Chancres this week.

We lost that game.

It was MENTAL mistakes that cost us, INCLUDING Balls fumble and Carter/Welkers punt flub.

Peyton should have thrown that ball out of the endzone.
Agreed on all points; I'm just getting REALLY sick of the SAME mental mistakes recurring week after week. That's not what we pay coaches for, it's what we pay them to prevent.

Salutethis
11-29-2013, 07:51 AM
I just want to give a little input here.
First I don't think all turnovers are the same. As in I consider a fumble by a running back/quarterback a win for the defense that was earned and planned for. This is why I would consider the 2 special teams turnovers gifts. There was nothing New England did to warrant those turnovers. One ultimately lost DRC for the game... the other gave the game to NE. Without those gifts Brady is lucky to get 10 points. Something has got to be done about the return situation.
And second, Denver still has Sundays game to win in KC to have that playoff 1st seed. That's the big business here. Last weeks game means nothing but a revenge game if Denver wins out. This Sunday and San Diego are the last real tests Denver has to get there. And honestly I still want that bye to help our gimpy Broncos heal up a bit and start passing more. If Denver gets NE in Denver I just hope for that match up!

Joel
11-29-2013, 09:14 AM
And second, Denver still has Sundays game to win in KC to have that playoff 1st seed. That's the big business here. Last weeks game means nothing but a revenge game if Denver wins out. This Sunday and San Diego are the last real tests Denver has to get there. And honestly I still want that bye to help our gimpy Broncos heal up a bit and start passing more. If Denver gets NE in Denver I just hope for that match up!
IF we win out; we'll almost certainly have to IF we want NE in Denver instead of another trip to Foxborough (provided both teams make it that far.) IF we lose Sunday there's still a good chance we win the division; all it takes is winning the rest and another KC loss anywhere, and they'll be on the road for all those games (including a SD rematch) except Indy.

Yet NE probably doesn't have another loss in a conference with only 6 teams >.500 They have a couple division games left (one on the road,) and the Ravens; that's it And if we both finish 13-3, we may get a bye, but they'll have the head-to-head and homefield throughout the playoffs. Odds are we can't win the SB without beating NE, one way or the other.

THAT'S why last weeks game mattered more than beating Washington and Baltimore by 20 pts: Because those teams suck; SB contenders SHOULD beat them, every time, especially at home (FWIW, the Pats are @Baltimore, but I doubt it matters; Baltimore barely beat them last year, and they had a team then.) To be the best you have to beat the best, and once the season ends for all the early-drafting teams it'll be down to the good ones. And if it comes to tiebreaks, 2 out of 3 division winners beat us.

This sucks; if we take care of business in ALL FIVE of our remaining games, no, it won't matter for homefield; we're the top AFC team now and we'll stay that way until/unless we blow it. But if we took care of business every week we'd have beaten the Pats by double digits once we led by 24 at the half. We don't, so we didn't.

That's not encouraging for those last five games: Even if we DO beat KC again, I wouldn't put it past the team we saw last week to let Tennessee or SD steal one in our house, then say it doesn't matter because it was just "mistakes" we can "fix." We're running out of time on those weekly mistakes we're always GONNA fix, but never do. The 10 pt win at home against KC was good, yes, but we didn't repeatedly turn the ball over, and that's been more the exception than the rule lately. Hopefully we can do it twice, then start a streak of NOT coughing up balls.

Dapper Dan
11-30-2013, 12:03 PM
King is a Bengals fan? :shocked:

Joel
11-30-2013, 03:15 PM
King is a Bengals fan? :shocked:
Someone has to be, and he drew the short straw. ;)

Poet
12-01-2013, 10:14 PM
Some has to be, and he drew the short straw. ;)

So you've drawn like, what, four or five in your life? :D

Simple Jaded
12-02-2013, 12:22 AM
So you've drawn like, what, four or five in your life? :D

Lmao.

Joel
12-02-2013, 01:05 AM
So you've drawn like, what, four or five in your life? :D
No, I'm a Broncos fan, though being an Oilers fan was admittedly depressing more often than not, and the Bengals usually didn't help much. That short-team AFC Central was brutal in the '80s (and not much fun for anyone but the Steelers dynasty in the '70s.) Meanwhile, the short-team NFC West just kept handing the '9ers division championships year after year from the early '80s through the mid-nineties. It's pretty sad when a division's so bad an expansion team actually improves it, but I guess they're making up for it now.

Poet
12-02-2013, 01:50 AM
No, I'm a Broncos fan, though being an Oilers fan was admittedly depressing more often than not, and the Bengals usually didn't help much. That short-team AFC Central was brutal in the '80s (and not much fun for anyone but the Steelers dynasty in the '70s.) Meanwhile, the short-team NFC West just kept handing the '9ers division championships year after year from the early '80s through the mid-nineties. It's pretty sad when a division's so bad an expansion team actually improves it, but I guess they're making up for it now.

But yet you like a bunch of others teams. Which was the point. Thank you, Joel. :D