I am talking actual points allowed by the defenses. It doesn't count TDs scored from Manning INts or STs miscues. The Colts D has to score now too? Doesn't Peyton and Indy have the greatest O ever? I guess when they score less than 14 PPG in playoff losses w/ only ONE playoff loss scoring more than 20 then the D should score. You are right, the Colts D has been a tremendous disappointment b/c they don't score enough.
I feel like we’re making progress here. However, you still do not acknowledge JR Redmond’s amazing effort to get out of bounds to stop the clock after a swing pass behind the LOS, or Troy Brown’s effort to run across the field evading Rams defenders to get out of bounds. Without their plays NE doesn’t get into field position to score the FG. And still should have been caught. They held the Greatest Show on Turf to only 17 points. They were exhausted at the end which is why Belichick went for the win at the end instead of playing for OT. If it wasn’t for their effort in that game the Pats lose that game. SB XXXVIII they played horribly SB XLII they were the reason they were even in that game as well giving up only 17 points while the great record breaking offense could only put 14 up on the board. 13 of his 17 start they allowed 17 or fewer points. The year before they gave up 17 or fewer points only 5 times.
Still COULD have been caught not SHOULD. They did a great job through 3 qtrs but nearly blew it in the 4th- you don't get a trophy for playing great through 3 qtrs then blowing it and TB held that offense to 11 points AT St. Louis in the '99 title game. They played well against a mediocre Giant O 2 years ago BUT w/ the SB on the line they choked. In 2001 they were 6th in points scored, in 2000 they were 25th In 2000 they were -2 in TO ratio, in 2001 they were +7 I think the QB helps in both of those categories especially when the team was 0-2 after 2 weeks having lost to us at NE and to 6-10 Cincy.
SHOULD have been caught. TB had one of the greatest defenses ever assembled. What's your point? Are you suggesting that they weren't a good defense? I can agree with you that with the game on the line they choked. But that still doesn't defend the record breaking offense for only scoring 14 points. Holding the Giants to 17 should have been more than enough for that offense. Remember how insulted Brady was when Plaxico suggested that the Giants defense would allow only 17 points. What was Brady's comment? In 2000 they didn't have a running game. In 2001 they did. They also had 7 returns for TDs in 2001 (5 Defensive and 2 PRs).
COULD have been caught(this could be the new "tatses great, less filling":smile A week before at home if not fot a botched snap they don't beat Washington, that same D got torched by Philly the next 2 years in the WC rd. The NE O had a bad game, they weren't the same in postseason. teams were taking away Moss and daruing them to beat them w/ Welker and they were "struggling" compared to what they did in the reg season BUT w/ the SB on the line they marched 80 yds for the go ahead score late in the game. The running game wasn't great in 2001. 2001 RBs: 415-1593, 3.8 YPC It was better than 2000 but he didn't have Adrian Peterson behind him. 5 of those returns came in 2 games. 2 against Peyton and Indy:rofl: in a 44-13 win(if we take away those 2 INTs Indy still needs to make up 17 pts) and against 1-15 Carolina in week 17 they returned 3.
Could be. Those commercials were great. They were not torched by Philly in 2000. And I ask again, are you suggesting that TBs defense was not a good one? They hold just as much if not more responsibility for that loss than the defense. They did nothing all game. I didn't say their running game was great. I said they had one where as in 2000 they didn't. They ate up more clock, got more first downs and touchdowns by running the ball in 2001 than they did in 2000. Antoine Smith had a very good year running the ball while in 2000 their leading rushers were Kevin Faulk and JR Redmond (the same Redmond who saved the Pats on the final drive in SB XXXVI) Who cares who they came against. You mentioned their total points scored correct? I'm pointing out that 7 TDs were on returns and not the offense. I apologize if you had already taken those out when you mentioned their total points scored earlier (which I know you didn't)
21 pts to McNabb in his 1st career playoff game, you'd agree that isn't good, right? The difference in TOP from '00 to '01 was about 1.5 mins per game. Smith had a good year but that wasn't the difference from '00 to '01, if it was they wouldn't have started 0-2. I pointed that out b/c the bulk happened in 2 games, they still had a much higher PPG average the other 14 games. The bottom line is NE was a sinking ship until #12 rescued them. They were getting worse and worse each year bottoming out at 5-11 in 2000 and starting on that trend in 2001 before Brady started a game. Here's a good article on the "great" Pats Ds: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/football/nfl/07/25/chff.belichick/index.html
7 points off of a turnover where they got the ball on TBs 15. And another 7 right at the end of the game. New England running the ball more effectively absolutely contributed to them being a better team. As did their defense playing better. No, you said NE was No. 6 in PPG and I pointed out that 7 TDs came from teh Def and ST.
They scored 21 pts, I believe that '02 TB D was one of the best of all time- they wouldn't have allowed Philly 21 pts. Of course the running game helped but having an effective passing game helps a running game. I can't go through every D for 16 games to see if they allowed STs and Def scores. I'd be here until Wednesday.
TB gave up 7 after King fumbled to give Philly the ball on TBs 15. What does the 2000 and 2001 playoffs have to do with their 1999 team?
I don't know, all those years kind of blend together. Again, they were a botched snap from losing to the skins at home the week before they held SL to 11 pts.
Originally Posted by johnny You keep trying to equate the Colts and Pats defense. The difference has been 3.5 points per game (not less than 2 like you have said multiple times). If you take into account Peyton's pick six, presumably against the Pats in 2006 (like you have alluded to in at least one post) then you have to allow for Brady's near pick six (brought back to the NE 1 yard line) against Denver in 2006. Also, you fail to bring out that the Pats defense has scored 5 TD's in Brady's playoff games and Colts defense has scored 0 TD's in the same span. Again, not defending Peyton here, but trying to claim that the Pats defense hasn't been superior to the Colts defense doesn't wash. As far as I can tell Manning has only given one pick six (against the Pats) and the Colts special teams haven't given up any TD's. The Pats haven't given up any ST TD's as far as I can tell and Brady had what amounts to a pick six in the Bronco playoff game so I don't see where the numbers would change much from the raw numbers of 3.5 points per game difference. Also, who said that the Colts "D" HAS to score? I'm just comparing the relative performance of the Colts "D" to the Pats "D" based on your claim that the Colts defense has been as good as the Pats in the last ten or so playoff years. I am not saying that the Colts "D" has to score. I'm just saying that the Pats "D" has been better than the Colts "D". If you are considering overall relative performance of two defenses don't defensive TD's count? Or are you saying that a defense that gives up an average on 16 points a game with no defensive TD's is better than a defense that gives up 17 points a game but scores 10 defensive TD's (assuming they play the same opponents)? Again I'm not here defending Manning. I'm not say that Manning has performed as well as Brady in the post season. I have stated that Manning hasn't played all that well in the playoffs compared to his regular season record. I'm just refuting your arguement that Brady hasn't had an edge in the defense department all these years.
2003: KC KR for TD 2003: safety at NE 2006: INT for TD vs. NE 2006: KR for TD in SB That's 23 less points the D gave up. The Colts D in regulation actually gave up 294 pts in 15 games for 19.6 PPG The Pats D in regulation gave up 309 pts in 17 games for 18.2 PPG Brady has had an edge in D but the edge isn't as big as people think and part of the reason he has had the edge is he hasn't made the mistakes Manning has. manning has also had MUCH better weapons than Brady in every postseason w/ the exception of 2007.
