Also the colts anthony gonzalez sprained his finger during the first possession of the game which forced him to sit out later in the game so they really only had one receiver for much of the game. Had harrison played or gonzalez not got hurt i believe the colts would have gotten a td on the play that gonzalez dropped the ball in the endzone.
Yes NE won, but I also think Indy will be fully confident they can beat them in the playoffs (and vice versa). I would not be suprised to see the Pats go in there at 17-0. The Colts were missing key cogs offensively, and their defense looks better than the Pats--very much disrupting NE's passing offense. Don't think the Colts can't beat them in NE in Feb. Right now Indy is the more physical team and NE the more finese team that past years--kinda different than the old formula. Assuming everyone is healthy, I see it as a toss up in Feb and NE and I don't see bad weather helping NE much when Indy has the best interior runner (Addai) and the better balance right now. Nice win for NE--but both teams know it means little.
Where does this come from? The Patriots defense, by and large, outplayed the Colts today, particularly in the passing game. They sacked Manning more times than the Colts sacked Brady, hurried him more times, and limited him to 30 fewer yards than Brady. When the game was on the line, the Patriots' defensive line absolutely mauled the Colts on offense and forced two Manning fumbles. Outside of an incredible fluke dumpoff and run by Addai to end the first half, the Patriots' defense controlled the game. What game did you watch? The game I watched, as I said earlier, had the New England defensive front seven absolutely feasting on the Colts' offensive line as the game went on. Likewise, the Colts were unable to get pressure on Brady after about the midpoint of the third quarter. As the emotions wore off, the Patriots won the battles at the line of scrimmage and that's where the game was won. Finesse? Also, it's been documented for years and years that the Colts are not nearly the same at rushing the passer outdoors on grass that they are on turf. This game meant a lot because it takes Freeney and Mathis -- the cornerstones of that Colts defense -- off turf, and greatly diminishes their dominance.
NE played better, they are tough to beat. However, I think if colts have a few of their injured starters back, they still have a shot of beating them in the playoffs. A great game though.
i can't give the injury excuse to the colts. they were up 10 with 8 minutes to go. there's no reason they should have lost.
Very true, but playing with only two receivers is not good for manning (Harrison and Gonzales are both down).
All of this were compounded by the loss of Harrision and injured Gonzales (who dropped a TD and then was gone the rest of the game). That was a major reason the Colts had to settle for 3 FG tries in the 1st half that yielded 6 points inside of 17. And without both in the 2nd half the Colts and their timing offense just didn't do much, though despite that had Wayne not dropped a ball the Colts offense still probably holds off the Pats. It was the Colts offense that stopped them--particularly in the red zone and 3rd downs, and yes it had a lot to do with missing regulars including Manning's most comfortable guy in that situation. As for Brady and the Pats, they got two late TDs. It wasn't because they were manhalding the Colts. They got a big play on a lob pass to Moss and a short field on the other drive. Overall the Colts defense played well, holding that team to 24 points in perfect dome conditions normally would give you a win if your offense is set up right. As for the "finesee" comment, look at rush yards. The Colts have better balance, rushing more this season, and rushing more in that game (it wasn't like total yards were that different even without all the Colts offensive components--again the difference was redzone/efficiency). Hey, I used to say the Colts were soft too, but the way they run the ball AND stop the run in their superbowl run (including beating very physical Bears and Ravens squads on grass I believe) through yesterdays game when they stood toe to toe with NE without some key components, I call them soft no longer. They will almost surely meet again in the AFC championship game in NE, and if the teams continue to look like them have (Pats are pass happy--no matter how effective--but inconsistent running, and continue to look modestly vulneable defense as Dallas made them look/Indy at times made them look) and Indy is healthy, I will pick Indy for the upset. Lots of ifs, I know, but 1) I am saying writing off Indy now would be a big mistake, and 2) this is not the same Indy as the one that kept getting manhandled at the LOS in the AFC playoffs regardless of the turf (Pitt, NE).
You can play the what if game both ways. It's the Patriots defense, for example, that made a play it wouldn't make again in a million years when they allowed Addai to score before the half. The Patriots stopped themselves when Brady made an incredibly uncharacteristic throw into triple coverage. Also, the Colts wouldn't have even been in position for two of those FG tries if not for highly controversial pass interference calls that are unlikely to be repeated in Foxboro. This sounds fairly biased. The Patriots' offensive and defensive lines manhandled the Colts down the stretch. It's why Brady had the time to let Moss get downfield. It's why he had the time to hit Stallworth deep left. It's why the Patriots forced two Manning fumbles. The difference in rushing was minimal -- 119 to 105 -- and the Colts were essentially shut down on the ground in the second half, when the game actually mattered. Also, how in the world do you call the Patriots vulnerable defensively but not the Colts? The Colts defense gave up more points yesterday. They gave up more yards. The Patriots have a better total defense (275.2 to 281.5) for the season than the Colts, even though the Colts' average defensive time of possession is much less (26:15 to 29:12). To say the least, I'm very curious how the Patriots defense can be considered vulnerable after that game, whereas the Colts' defense cannot.
Manning had an uncharacterstic INT like that, plus a fumble. Neither was perfect. The rushing yards were slightly for the Colts, passing and total slightly for the Pats. The difference was the efficiency in the redzone. And I don't think it is big leap to think the Colts would have had a minimum of 17 points, even without that Addai play, with a full offensive compliment. And you can take out the Addai play, than why not count the Wayne drop that he catches 90% of the time. Or uncharacterstic misplay by the Colts secondary on the Moss play. Lots of what ifs on both sides. And all this happened when the Colts had a 50% offense (missing two of their 3 best WRs). What happens if the Colts can keep balance. They run the ball better. They keep their defense off the field more. All these things work together. I wouldn't say it is a big difference, but yes I think it watching the Cowboys game and this game (Indy didn't punt until midway in the 3rd quarter) NEs defense looks slightly more vulnearable. Indy's D has really handled better comp for the most part--including yesterday aganst the best O in the NFL for 3.5 quarters. All I can saying is anyone who thought it was a whipping or decisive victory that crowns a champion can't certainly call another biased. These two teams are very close, and Indy certainly had lots of chances to win the game. Yes it was at Indy, but yes Indy's offense was at 60% strength (think if NE was - Moss plus either -Stallworth or Welker). So in the end, the game means the AFC championship is played in NE. But don't think for a second Indy can't win with a full squad in a bad weather grass game (since NE is now more reliant on the pass than Indy), and NE knows it better have its A game ready. I'll stick to my position that if the only difference in what we saw yesterday is Harrison is back and Indy's 3rd WR spot is solidifed (Gonzales healthy and integrated), and that the teams keep their trends, I'll pick Indy to win.
They ran the ball fine without Harrison in the first half. They seemed to tire as the game got to its later stages. The Patriots have played the Colts, Cowboys, Chargers... they've had tests just like the Colts have. The Colts schedule is more difficult from this point forward, but as of now, the results are comparable. As for the defenses, I don't get it. The Patriots allow fewer yards per game despite being out there for more total minutes. They held the Colts to 20 points yesterday, with seven of those set up by an INT. Did Dallas move the ball on New England? Sure, but who have the Colts played (besides the Patriots) that even have remotely close to the caliber of offense that Dallas does? Also, just like yesterday, the Patriots buckled down when it mattered and essentially shut Dallas out. I'm not saying the Colts will struggle in Foxboro based on style of offense. I'm saying they'll struggle based on their defense. They've always had a problem winning the battles at the line of scrimmage because Freeney and Mathis are significantly slower on grass, as is the entire Colts' front seven. Furthermore, the Patriots' defense is built around playing outdoors, whereas the Colts' defense is built around maximizing the speed of artificial turf. I also don't think you've done enough research on Harrison's injury. He looked terrible in the game he tried to play (Jacksonville), and it looks as though that pain will persist at least for the rest of this season and potentially for the rest of his career. It's a chronic injury. He may come back, but he won't be the Marvin Harrison of a year or two ago. Comparing the impact of an aging/injured Harrison and Anthony Gonzalez to Randy Moss and Wes Welker is like comparing high school wideouts to college wideouts. I don't think yesterday was a decisive victory. However, when I couple what I saw yesterday with things that I don't think will happen again -- awful officiating, the bizarre Addai touchdown, and the game being in Foxboro in January -- I'd be shocked if the Colts keep the rematch closer than 14 points.
Harrison is a stud. However, before Moss went to Oakland he was on pace to break Rice's records. Considering that Marvin has never really been a Patroit killer, and that he hasn't been studly this season (even pre-injury), I'm not sure it would have made that big of a difference. Besides, injuries are a part of the game...ask the Texans...
IMO one of Manning’s biggest characteristics is making a crucial mistake if he is pressured, especially in a “big game”. I wasn’t surprised when he turned the ball over to end the game. I was actually expecting him to make a mistake to be honest. The Colts have had many a playoff defeat when they had all of the studs in the lineup offensively. Unless Indy does a better job of protecting Manning (who struggles when hit or hurried) then I don’t see a different outcome. And again, they were up 10 late in the 4th, with homefield advantage. And again, injuries are a part of the game. I recall NE winning a SB when they had one of their WR’s (Brown) playing in the secondary due to injuries.
The Colts were embarased in Foxboro twice by the Patriots in the playoffs when they had all of their guys, again in Indy by the Steelers, and were hammered 41-0 by the Jets in another playoff game in 2002. And frankly I was shocked that Brady didn't lead the Pats to win on the final drive last yr. The Patriots have won 3 SBs having never had one decent reciever and having a great RB once maybe with an aging Corey Dillon.
No doubt that Manning gets really antsy during crunch time in big games -- I do think Harrison would have made a difference. Maybe they will play again this season, but there are several good teams that could be stepping up -- the Steelers (one of those teams) are crushing the Ravens right now.
I agree about the old Colts. But the Colts of about the last year (playoffs through yesterday) do have a physical defense. They have been tough to run on and tough get long drives on them--that was the real key to their superbowl (including 2 games on grass versus the most physical teams) and 7-0 start this year. If Harrison doesn't get back to 90% that will hurt them big time (more than losing Welker or Stallworth affect the Pats). Just last year he lead the team in catches, yards and TDs, so lets not pretend he is far removed from top form. My assumption the Colts have an excellent chance in Foxboro assuming Harrison's good health. And yesterday they were hurt by more than just missing those guys talents. They had to turn 4th and 5th guys who hadn't got a lot of reps--critical with Manning's timing and it showed on 3rd down and the Redzone a lot. Gonzalez should get more solid and steady with reps. In the second half NE could just really key on a lot fewer weapons than normal for the Colts--Addai, Wayne and Clark. If you remember the Colts-Pats game last year (and the Colts killed them statistically despite the score)--that gashed them up the gut at the end because they were worried about the WR weapons. I would gladly take a healthy Colts and 14 points. Bad weather in years past helped NE, but I am not sure now with their greater focus on timing pass routes and I still think all in all the Colts D is slightly better. One final point I do think Dallas and the Stealers have the personelle to challenge either. Dallas is still getting a lot of their better defenders in the mix (secondary and Dline in part) and working together (probably will have the best offense and defense in the NFC if they can stay healthy). The Stealers have been inconsistent, but they are physical and talented and could be very formidable to Indy (probably 1st draw) or NE in Janurary.
This is past history. The Pats havn't won ia superbowl in 2 years and had lost 3 strait games versus the Colts (since we are counting last weeks regular season game so much, that is what 1-3 in that period). The Colts beat physical teams last year to win the Superbowl. I think the Pats are more finesee than they used to be (offensively), their defense looks older/slower, and the Colts more physical. Don't get me wrong, the Pats are the best right now. But the Colts are close. And some others (Pitt, Cowboys) could beat them on a good day. From the past decade in the NFL we should know not to count chickens midway in the season and the playoffs often have surprises.
