Gimme a freakin' break. God almighty, virtually everyone is picking the Pats. Everything I've seen has been "the Jags can win" and "the Pats will win."
I've never seen a fan base so worried about what the media says about them. ESPN.com lists eight "expert" picks and ALL EIGHT ARE PICKING THE PATRIOTS INCLUDING HOGE AND SCHLERETH!!!! FoxSports only has five "experts" on their website, but yup, all five pick the Patriots.
Get over yourself. You're better than this kind of crap.
Yeah, not my favorite piece I've written, to be honest. The tone was supposed to be tongue in cheek, but I went off the rails too often.
I'm skeptical that Hoge ultimately picked the Pats, though - I'm pretty sure he took the Steelers.
The point does stand, however, that the vast majority of people want to see the Pats lose. Schlereth and Hoge and the rest in particular.
I understand where this is coming from. All year, the only game I knew we were going to win was the Washington game. I just felt - It's the NFL, no one wins them all. Any given Sunday, and all that.
And with the playoffs it had gotten even worse. Then I started actually thinking about the Xs and Os of the game.
Running team with a young QB who will try to beat you with his legs...
Physical defense...
Peaking at the right time...
hmmm...
Is this a repeat?
Haven't I seen this half a dozen times over the past 7 years?
Why such a subdue post? Todays game is such a mismatch in that the Jag's have proven all year they cannot stop a decent QB, a 31 point spread would have been more apprpriate.
And that is coming from a guy who will take Indy and the 8 points next week, and will be praying all game that the Pat's pull it out.
Indy's constructed to beat the Pat's, especially in cold weather. These Jag's? oh, please.
48-13
I'll also back Chad up in saying I don't care who picked who, all the talk has been about the Jags.
How many times did you hear "The Jags scored the most points in the second half of the season...except for the Patriots."
Yeah, great point!
And how nutty is Tom Jackson these days? I don't expect him to sign up to the Bill Belichick fan club or anything, but my goodness.
This is how Tom's mind works:
"Even if they beat Jacksonville, they will be beat up because the Jags are so physical. And then next week, if they play S.D., S.D. is a very physical team. Or if they play Indy, Indy is a very physical team."
Um, so Tom, couldn't your point extend to the winner of the S.D. / Indy game as a team that will be beat up and then have to play a very physical N.E. team?
It's a nation of Pats Haters - and honestly I'm so much more comfortable with that than the feel good vibes of 2001
I'm with you Chad. That people are even discussing the possibility of Jacksonville beating this year's Patriots is laughable.
Did anyone think the '85 Bears could be beat in the playoffs? How about those vintage Montana/49ers teams? Assume for a second that one of those squads had gone undefeated through the regular season. Would there be a single analyst out there saying Montana, Rice and Walsh could be beat by some 12-4 team? OF COURSE NOT!!!
Yet for some reason, there are people out there looking for a chink in the Patriots armor. Sure, there's a weakness or two there, but that's 5 or 6 less weak spots than any other team (except the Colts) has.
That's why they're 16-0. And that's why the Jaguars don't stand a chance.
Brett Favre is a phony and Randy Moss is the best wide receiver in the history of the league? I'm hoping that these are two of the tongue-in-cheek parts.
Nope. And I said arguably the best. There's Jerry Rice, and I'd put Moss second.
Favre loves the game, daggummit, but he also knows how to play the media like a fiddle. And he does.
Pats fans are offended they're even making them play these games, and aren't just giving them the Lombardi right now.
This is not going according to plan.
The plan seems to be coming back together nicely...
They could use a stop. Garrard's very impressive.
Garrard was damn impressive. Fortunately, Brady was even more so. 26 of 28, and the only incompletions were drops of easily catchable balls. He...did...not...miss...a...pass...all...night. In the playoffs, against a tough defense. And he's still datin' a supermodel. Yeesh.
It also looks like they've been hiding Maroney all season long -- he was another weapon to use when they needed, and not before. (Plus, his relatively light workload kept him fresh for the postseason.) He ran like a first-round pick tonight, that's for sure.
I do wonder about the defense. If they can make Eli and Garrard look this good, what'll they do with the real Manning?
If it's a choice between choosing Brady and the Pats O-line, I'm picking the line and taking my chances with an average QB who has 5 seconds to throw the ball every drop-back.
And I'll take Brady and beat you . . .
And I'll take receivers able to seperate, and come in second after CF.
Outstanding offensive game, and once again their old, inferior D held their opponant to a reasonable score. Also, gotta love how Maroney has progressed and how this team dominates 2nd halves.
Watcha gonna do, Indy?
Go Chargers.
Put Brady behind an average line against, say, the Colts, and I'll provide the spatula for you to peel him off the turf midway through the third quarter.
Garrard made himself a lot of money these last few weeks. Guy has a lot of presence.
I think Mr. Burba enjoys complaining and discrediting all the time. Hopefully he has fun with it.
Glad they won, but unless I missed something they aren't going to be able to stop the Colts* with any regularity. It'll be another 38-34 game, no idea who wins.
*Assuming the champions send Norv, his panties, the pissy little bitch LT, and the simpering sissy Schlocktor Phil back to Shamu.
1) Brady was magnificent, but he did "miss" on 3 passes. Brady had 2 rushes and took a sack on designed pass plays.
2) I think (hope?) that part of Gerrards' success was based on the defense gearing up to stop the run. I think they had 8 in the box the entire 1st half, then adjusted in the 2nd half to slow him down (which they did). You know how they say, "blitz a QB until he proves he can beat it"? Well, the Pats loaded up against the run until Garrard proved he could beat them like that. And boy did he ever.
3) I have a sneaking suspicion that the Pats aren't going to be loading up to stop the run against the Colts. Does that mean they'll shut down Manning? No, but I think they'll look a bit better than they did this week.
4) And, of course, which games did the Pats look vulnerable? Philly, Ravens, Jets (2nd time), and Giants. I think the plan was to:
Stop Westbrook and make AJ beat them, and he almost did by exploiting the in-cut routes vacated by the LB/37 who was spying Westbrook
Stop Magahee, and let Redman try to beat them. This game was a muddle, but really Magahee had a lot of stuff and a few long runs (and that play where Redman had his head about taken off, got away, then nearly was intercepted on what turned into a long play). Plus, the damn wind was whipping, hurting the Pats O. Still, far and away the Pats worst game.
Jets was all about the wind and one bad special teams play. Neither offense could get much going, and Jets scored a fluke TD to make the margin 10.
Giants was again, "let the QB try and beat us", and he almost did.
5) So, I'm hoping that the game plan next week is not "let Manning try and beat us". If it isn't, the defense should look better. Oh, and maybe get Ellis Hobbs in there for Gay, he looked like poop.
Jacksonville points per game 2007: 27
Jacksonville points per game over final 8 games of 2007: 32
Points yesterday: 20
What seems to be the problem, officer?
The problem is that they only stopped the Jags once save for the pick at the end when it was desperation time. The Jags moved the ball pretty freely, it was a matter of limited possessions.
I'm on the side of dburba. Great QB, mediocre line or mediocre QB, great line I'll take the great line. Give Brady a mediocre line last night and he gets sacked a couple of times, probably throws a pick because he got hit as he threw and throws 3 or 4 more incompletions. Still a magnificent effort of course but potentially game changing.
Any decent NFL QB given Brady's time will be successful. Not as successful as Brady who is truly brilliant, but still successful.
You guys better not start taking Brady for granted. There were five or six times last night where he could have been sacked, but he shuffled just out of danger, or rolled out away from the pressure, or did something savvy to avoid the rush at the last minute, He has the best pocket presence of any quarterback I have EVER seen. The only one who was close was Marino.
The line is great, Mankins in particular and the unit as a whole. But the QB makes them look even better than they are.
Am I really supposed to root for Philip Rivers today? Gah, I hate that fool.
You two fail to understand that it is the QB, receivers and play calling that make a good offensive line look better, not the other way around. You actually think Bledsoe could have done that last night with the same line. You actually think Del Rio would have schemed as he did if Bledsoe was in the pocket?
Brady gets time because the alternative is rushing more linemen and dying a quicker death. So if you must credit anyone for the time Brady received last night, do not think O-line, think Moss.
"only stopped the Jags once"
They also stopped them on the second possesion and gave Brady the ball on the Jax 29.
Also held them to 2 red zone FGs in the 2nd half.
Forced 2 turnovers.
Again, final 9 games the Jags played before last night they scored 32 points a game. The average record of those 9 opponents was 9-7.
We held them to almost 2 TDs less than what they have been doing against the rest of the NFL.
Can we play better D? Sure. But they weren't as bad as some are saying
Nobody's discrediting anyone; Brady and Manning are great. My point was that an offensive line is more important to a team's success than having a marquee quarterback.
Jacksonville may have lost, but I took them and the 13.5 points and won.
Hey-ho, who won the dough.
To the point of your post: yeah, it would have been alot of fun to read a week of "Pats rule! Jacksonville won't win" articles. The point was to figure out how Jacksonville might be able to win.
As for the game: Jacksonville did almost everything they had to do to have a chance: they never gave up the big play, they shortened the game by making the Pats take alot of time to score, they controlled the ball and the clock for a series of long scoring drives, they ran the ball and they limited their mistakes. And they STILL lost!
A hell of an impressive win, though not without some grounds for concern: the Pats defense was not very good, and it's reasonable to ask whether the Pats offense can be that good again. I'm ready to call Brady the best ever (grudgingly, as a Pats hater and a Montana fan), but I'm note sure he can be that accurate again. Though I'm sure Pats fans would accept 10 incompletions for a couple big strikes.
Today's Charger win reminds me of 1979 in reverse--backup QB and RB (and Gates gimpy). Hell of a win. But I have to wonder how much they'll have left for next week.
Chad, in Patriots terms, this column kind of made you 15-1, so to speak, so don't fret--your biggest weakness right now is the lack of Office posts, and there's not much you can do about that...
Jax did play well and execute their plan well. They just came up a few plays short against a better team. Hats off to them.
Where your argument falls apart DBurba, is that the same offensive line that was so porous that "poor" Drew Bledsoe became a tackling dummy during his final years in New England "magically" transformed into a great pass blocking unit the second Tom Brady was inserted as QB.
Only now, all these years later, has most of New England realized what those 49ers fans knew all along; a great QB with pocket presence and a lightning fast release makes the entire offense humm.
Maybe someday, you'll get it, too.
T.P., I'll refer you to the case of Billy Volek and the Chargers v. the Colts of Indianapolis as just one of many examples to support my argument. Say goodnight, Gracie.
Glad the Colts lost - screw the rivalry, I'm all for the easiest path - but I really hope someone punches Philip Rivers in the face. Ol' No. 37 might be up to it the way he played Saturday.
The only starting lineman remaining from Brady's first Super Bowl win is Light. Just thought that was worth pointing out.
At Footballoutsiders.com, they have pretty routinely found that a QB tends to bring his adjusted sack rate (sacks per dropback, adjusted for opponent) with him when he changes teams. Rob Johnson will get sacked a whole lot behind an all-star line scrimmaging BC, while Dan Marino would still stay upright most of the time behind a bunch of fat 40-year-olds playing pick-up games in the park. A good o-line is very important, but it is a lot more on the QB than most people seem to think.
that should say 'dropbacks per sack', not the other way around.
The San Diego 'there are 11 "I"'s in team' Chargers next week?
Suweeet. Here's to Rivers and the rest popping their mouths off, pronto!
Light:
Replaced Armstrong 3/4 of the way through 2001.
Armstrong retired the year before.
About the line being the key, well, they are A key. They are hand picked - home grown. And have played together for years even though they are still pretty young.
I think we are VERY lucky to have Dante Scarnecchia coaching them.
But yeah, don't be silly. Saying Brady is nothing special and it's just the O Line is like saying Larry Bird was only average and just excelled because of Kevin McHale.
You're just trying to be provocative but are just embarrassing yourself.
Yeah, you're right. But Light still didn't start the year there.
Ok, in line with the 2 quizzes offered earlier; who was the LT who replaced Armstrong and preceeded Light? He started the first handful of games of 2001.
Or maybe he did. (I don't know, I just recall Light coming in to play LT later on in the season, although the following does not jive with my memory -- which admittedly sucks)
"2001 (14/12, 3/3): Started at left tackle in 12 of 14 regular season games and all three postseason games during his rookie season … Earned Football News 2001 NFL All-Rookie Team honors in 2001. N.Y. Jets (9/23): Made first NFL start at left tackle and was part of offensive line that blocked for rushing attack that accumulated 107 yards on 26 carries (4.1 avg.). Indianapolis (9/30): Blocked for a rushing attack that gained 177 yards on 39 carries (4.5 avg.) and scored three touchdowns … Made key kick-out block on Antowain Smith’s 39-yard run. Indianapolis (10/21): Part of offensive line that opened holes for 123 yards rushing on 30 attempts (4.1 avg.) and did not allow a sack in 38-17 victory over the Colts. Buffalo (11/11): Played the bulk of the second half when he stepped in for an injured Grant Williams at left tackle … Part of offensive line that led the way for 134 yards rushing and a 100 yard rusher for the second consecutive week. New Orleans (11/25): Started at left tackle and was part of offensive line that led the way for 191 yards rushing, their second-highest total of the season and their third 100 yard rusher in the four games. Buffalo (12/16): Part of offensive line that opened holes for 129 yards rushing on 27 attempts (4.8 avg.) in the Patriots 12-9 overtime victory. Miami (12/22): Helped power the offense to a season-high 196 yards rushing and their fourth 100 yard rusher of the season. Carolina (1/6): Part of offensive line that led the way for 102 yards rushing and did not allow a sack in the second half. Oakland (1/19): Started at left tackle in his first career postseason game and was part of offensive line which only allowed two sack in 52 pass attempts. St. Louis (2/3): Started at left tackle and was part of offensive line that led the way for 133 yards on 25 carries (5.3 avg.) in the Patriots 20-17 victory in Super Bowl XXXVI"
Anyone remember?
Greg Robinson Randall?
Grant Williams?
I hope I see the 'Payton sitting on a stranger's couch asking for potato chips' commercial next weekend.
The Jaguars' vaunted running game gained 78 yards vs. the Patriots. That's a little more than half of Lawrence Maroney's total.
That's the Patriots' M.O. - take away their opponent's best weapon. They wanted to force Garrard to beat them. To his credit, he played well. But it wasn't good enough.
Mate,
you've morphed into a yankees fan where the gridiron is concerned...what a shame. I didn't read all the posters above me, so if someone already posted along similar lines, I apologise.
I like your writing but your stance regarding the pats has put you into the buttafucos category(isn't that what you call them)
Thankfully for those of us who like our football codes without pads, i.e rugby, gaelic football and Aussie rules, the baseball season will start soon enough.
Gotta love all the "Patriots have a terrible defense!!!!!!!!!!" jibber-jibber today. Never mind they made their adjustments and only gave up two second-half field goals, or that only the Giants allowed fewer points this weekend. Can't let anything get in the way of the storyline ...
My God, Keith, you're right! I've even grown a mustache and now smell like old taco meat! And rather than Jenna Fischer, I now dig Amy Fisher! Someone help me! OH GOD! I'm wearing zubaz pants and a wife beater!
Yeah, Mr. Burba. We'll see how great your theory works this week when the Patriots dismantle that great offensive line of the Chargers.
You were a mediocre pitcher...you're a lousier blogger!
So was it fear or hatred that made Peyton and the Colts blow that game against the outmanned Bolts?
Fear is obviuos, because Peyton didn't want to come to Foxboro. Hatred is a little more subtle. Obviously, Patriots fans everywhere have been looking forward to next week's rematch in the AFC championship game. This completely reminds me of the Lakers choke in 1986, depriving us of our payback attempt. The Rockets? Who wants to beat the Rockets. We wanted the Lakers. It is so pitiful that Mr. Manning stooped to that level of spite not to stand in like a man and take our rightful vengeance.
And speaking of Mannings, was it just me or did the Giants really try to blow that game yesterday? First quarter, you've been moving the ball the whole game, up 7-0, you drive to the Boys' 40 yd line and face fourth and inches and punt? I was literally screaming at the tv from my treadmill. (Later my three year old daughter asked me what a pansy was.
I've been sort of rooting for the Giants because they played their last game of the season to win rather than send out their scubs (a la Indy and Tampa). It would be great if the all of the teams played _all_ of their regular season games to win.
One more point about the Pats D: that first touchdown by the Jags was actually a sack.
I wasn't sure at first but I just rewatched it and there was one camera angle they showed that made it very clear that he was down.
I watched the game and the point about Garrard being down or not is interesting in that it was rather clear his arm was moving forward when his knee touched the ground. Would this be like the Tuck Rule incident, ie, the ball is dead even though the QB's arm was moving forward/the ball comes loose? I'd like to hear the ruling.
Da book:
"(e) when a runner is contacted by a defensive player and he touches the ground with any part of his body except his hands or feet, ball shall be declared dead immediately"
Immediately.
If Belichick challenged you have to think the ref's would have reversed. There is little question a part of Gerrard's leg above his foot hit the turf before he released the ball.
Can you imagine if we had today's blabocracy back in 1986? "The Celtics only beat the Nets by 7 tonight!!! No way Bird can possibly stop the Lakers!!!!"
The always-reliable Gene Wojciechowski is the early leader in the dopey argument of the week race, with his column themed "The Chargers weren't supposed to beat the Colts and did, so what's to stop them from beating the Pats?" I wish I could bet with people like that.
How did he get that ESPN.com featured columnist gig, anyway? He's a good writer, but pretty bland.
just browsing his archive, we find columns like "LSU is awesome," "Tom Brady is great," and "Steroids are hurting baseball." I seem to recall Wojo being a good college football writer, but that may have been a long time ago, or I'm confusing him with someone else.
For the record, Chad, Amy Fisher looked pretty good in her recent sex tape. Not that I'm rooting for the Yankees because of it, but still ...
From my quick tally, Rodney Harrison is 57-7 as a Patriot:
2003 - 19 games (including playoffs), 17-2
2004 - 19 games (including playoffs), 17-2
2005 - 3 games, 2-1
2006 - 10 games, 8-2
2007 - 13 games (including playoffs), 13-0
He got injured in 2005 against Pittsburgh - the Pats lost 40-21 to the Colts.
He got injured in 2006 against Indianapolis and didn't face them in the playoffs - the Pats lost twice.
He faced them in 2007 - the Pats won.
I know he's not the be-all, end-all, but that's pretty freaking remarkable.
Re: Wojo, you could ask that about most of their writers. Simmons is the only one with anything memorable to say and he is way past his prime (not necessarily his fault given his format) and posts only slightly more frequently than they replace the pope.
Page 2 is largely unreadable aside from him--the mediocrity and, worse than blandness, weak writers trying to display flair, are baffling (nothing like criticizing writers in a poorly written sentence). I find Chad more interesting even on the rare subpar effort (for him).
Of course, this is the network that puts Stu Scott on the air/wire. Stu Scott is Alfonso Ribeiro sans talent, moves, ability to white it up or black it up, and appeal of any kind. I really dislike Stu Scott. No skidmarks if I drove up to him negotiating a cross walk.
I like Simmons's podcasts a lot. He comes across as much more likable than he does in his writing, for some reason. And as a writer, he doesn't get enough credit for how prolific he is while still being entertaining.
I'm hoping to get a First and 10 posted late tonight, FYI. I've been buried with a Red Sox freelance project that was due today, and now that that's done, I'm itching to write about the Pats again.
Re: Stu on a Crosswalk.
He'd never see it coming, either. What with the glass eye and all...
I agree with your observation, Craig. Harrison is a special player who transcends his talent by getting so deep into his opponents head they self destruct by the 4th qtr. Man, I would absolutely hate this guy is he were not a Patriot. And I hope he's teaching the new badass in town -Merriweather- what defensive football is actually about.
INTIMIDATION
Simmons's column today is why he gets so much flack. I didn't pay much attention after he suggested the Colts lost on purpose to avoid having to get beat by the Pats in the AFC Championship.
It's "flak" in that instance, not "flack." Had someone a little bit less obnoxious made that error, I probably would have let it pass.
I think what Simmons intimated was more on a subconscious level, i.e. the inner children of the Colts were thinking that whoever won would lose in Foxborough, which might have--again subconsciously--doused their fire a bit.
I think Simmons was totally, totally, totally wrong on this one. The Colts haven't been dominated by the Pats since Jan. 2005. The teams split 2 close games and the Colts won 2 decisive games in the 'Boro since the "cut that meat" game.
I think you two can have your conversation about Killing Me Softly on some other BLOG. I brought up the unconscious deliberate losing earlier in this same comment section. BS brought out the fear angle - but he didn't bring out the hatred angle. - as in Peyton hates Patriot Fans so much, he wanted to deprive us of our righteous revenge.
Of course, that might be a factor with the Bolts this week. We all remember a little field dancing last year.
What are you talking about, Sven? Merriman, after abstaining for a few games after his 'roid suspension, is back dancin' his fat heiny off again!
I can relate to the Simmons article, as inappropriate it may have been for him to write it. I do think there's some truth in what he wrote.
Would Indy have confidence coming into Foxboro without Freeney? Come on, how could they?
"and now that that's done, I'm itching to write about the Pats again"
tap..tap..tap..
Aiming for tonight after work, but we'll see.
Gosh, Sven, how clever of you. I mean really, really clever. Roberta Flack. What a rapier wit (will Sven now make a Mike Tyson or Bill Clinton joke?). Are you Stu Scott and Chris Berman's love child?
I didn't realize we needed your approval to comment on this blog. Or BLOG, as you put it.
While I'm here though, Sven, you need to review the difference between subconscious and unconscious.
I still think Indy could have had some confidence, even without Freeney. They are like the Patriots in that they deal relatively well with losing guys. With all their injuries, they were 13-2--losing a close game to NE and a freak game to SD.
If anything, I think they turned back into the Colts we all know and love (the "cut that meat") guys--I'd vote clock struck midnight over fear in-game.
To the Editor: pointless Office-related speculation would be welcome.
The reason I'm glad it's not the Colts is because they would have been the rarest thing in sports:
A defending champion with nothing to lose.
As far as Simmons, hey, as a Boston sports fan I'm happy there is a smart ass Boston sports fan with a national audience. So I'll listen to and read his stuff.
But I'm starting to realize that since I don't bet on games (or play fantasy) - he really has nothing to offer besides wise cracks.
In his pod cast this week one guy starts talking about 3-4 defenses and how S.D. has very little variation to theirs as apposed to the Pats or Steelers. And Simmons had nothing to say about that.
That's the stuff I want to read / hear about.
But most sports writers it's "Talk about the game? Why would we do that?"
And then you realize, it's because they don't have any insight to offer as far as what's actually happening on the field that you don't already know.
So that's why Simmons has to say things like the Colts lost on purpose. What's he going to talk about? Run blocking schemes?
Give me a break, ref.
Chris, "Indy" is a singular, so your sentence should read "It is like the Patriots in that it deals relatively well with losing guys. With all its injuries ..." etc., rather than "they."
You know, since you're making such a point of correcting everyone's syntax and grammar.
dburba - nice try, flack boy.
for one, subject-verb agreement is mainly an intrasentence proposition, technically. for two, "indy" is shorthand for "indianapolis colts," which is plural. for three, in moving to a new sentence and to a description of the specific people making decisions as opposed to an organization, "they" is okay and works better as well (try the "they" sentence with "it" and see how awkward it is -- another example: "Buick sucks. They build lousy cars."). finally, the people who invented the language, the english, always use "they" to describe a sports team, as in "Arsenal are a fine side."
there's no need to get so pissy because you didn't know the difference between flak and flack. anyway, i only pointed it out (and sven's thing) because you are a pompous twat most of the time, so stop acting like a twat (and work on your rebuttal skills, sheesh).
Interesting, I'll have to remember that on Memorial Day when I tune in to the Indianapolis Colts 500. You tried to be a smart ass by correcting grammar on a freakin' blog post, and failed. Man up and move on.
Grammar fight! GRAMMAR FIGHT!
(I really need to post something new.)
Chris -
What's wrong? Did somebody steal your cranberry juice?
Yes, I used unconscious instead of subconscious. You're just lucky I spelled it right. At no point, did I imply that you required my approval to post anything. My point was that arguments about grammar/spelling aren't particularly interesting in a sports "web log." For someone characterizing other people as obnoxious, you sure put out a fair facsimile of said.
And no way would I stoop to the levels of Bill Clinton or Mike Tyson. No sirree, bob.
I'll take The Rapists for $200, Alex.
"Man up and move on."
Good comeback, dburba. Why not tell me to "get a life" as well.
"Indy" was in a context, shithead. Do you know what a context is? You jumped on a non-error instead of moving on and manning up, all because your language skills are subpar.
Sven,
You're spinning. Your original post also objected to the substance.
Commenting by HaloScan
