KeaneyBlue - The URI Basketball Forum

Did I hear Tom Jackson's assessment of the game correctly? I was walking around the house after the game and could have sworn That I heard him say that the best part of the Broncos' team yesterday was their defense. Then, he mentioned that the O line did a pretty good job.
If I heard correctly, I must have been watching another game.

Almost as inane as Troy Aikman saying this giant dump
Peyton Manning took, has no affect on his legacy.
These guys are so up the player's butts, there's little
candor.
Manning, regular season hero. Post season zero.
Plays in a time when the QBs wear skirts, and get every benefit from the rules.
He threw two more picks yesterday, than Joe Montana threw in four Super Bowls.

I bet the network was thrilled when he stated, halfway through the third quarter, that the game was over.
According to all of the ex-quarterbacks who are colormen, no quarterback has ever thrown a bad pass.

For me personally, the game was perfect. I don't know how other Pats fans on this board feel, but I like Welker. So, I wanted him to have a nice game, for Peyton to choke, and for Sherman to get beat deep on at least one play. I got 2 out of the 3, so this was a success for me.

Loved last night!!

Didn't the Pats start a big game (I thought it was the Super Bowl) giving up a safety?
Even if the Pats beat Denver, they weren't going to beat Seattle last night. It could have even uglier.

rodfromcranston wrote:He threw two more picks yesterday, than Joe Montana threw in four Super Bowls.

He threw more picks in his first four drives than Montana threw in four SBs!
And people still are adamant that Peyton is the G.O.A.T. Give me a break.

ramfan85 wrote:Didn't the Pats start a big game (I thought it was the Super Bowl) giving up a safety?

Yup, it was the most recent SB vs the Giants. Brady intentionally grounded in the end zone.

ramfan85 wrote:Didn't the Pats start a big game (I thought it was the Super Bowl) giving up a safety?
Even if the Pats beat Denver, they weren't going to beat Seattle last night. It could have even uglier.

I don't think it can get much uglier than 43-8. I do not believe the Pats would have won, but they wouldn't have folded as easily as the Broncos did.

Pats wouldn't have turned it over four times, I'd bet on that. I don't think their special teams would have been as bad either. And I think Brady would have been better than Manning.
The Pats defense could have been worse than Denver's, though. I dunno - because of their coaching, the Patriots are usually in every game.

SmartyBarrett wrote:Pats wouldn't have turned it over four times, I'd bet on that. I don't think their special teams would have been as bad either. And I think Brady would have been better than Manning.
The Pats defense could have been worse than Denver's, though. I dunno - because of their coaching, the Patriots are usually in every game.

Everything you said I agree with...Who knows what the Pats defense could have done. Brady's kryptonite recently has been fast and tough defenses. Beating Seattle would have been very tough.

Better showing. Same results.
Brady's post season magic seems to have left him.

I don't get the hate the EEI guys are spewing about Manning.

He, along with Marino, are the two greatest regular season QB's in history. Amazing career.

So he hasn't won a bunch of Super Bowls. I guess they love the fact that their boy Brady has 3, and Peyton has only one.

Well, they're both future Hall of Famers, and they aren't going to win any more Super Bowls...so what.

Give the guy some credit.

I agree with your post, RB. Somehow, those sports shows have to tear down another player to try to convince themselves that things aren't that bad around here. It's like "Manning went to the Super Bowl, but we have the better QB."
I'd be happy winning the Super Bowl with any quarterback. But, it's not happening with the Pats unless they select some good players to get them over this ceiling they seem to be limited to. They can use someone who knows how to evaluate talent, too, especially in the defensive backfield.
If I was Brady, I'd tell them that if they don't get me some real talent, I'm retiring.
It's so comforting to know how much under the salary cap the Pats were this year. I guess they're getting ready for the next Mathew Slater contract.

How about Kraft today, saying "it's about the lower 1/3 of the roster,
and talking about "value".
Does he realize the window is closing on Brady, and he needs to be surrounded by talent,
not penny saving?

I would say in Patriots/Bellichick/Kraft defense that it WAS the penny pinching value management that allowed this team that lost virtually all their top offensive weapons for Brady AND the top defensive pieces and yet STILL earned the 2nd seed and advances as far as they were "supposed" to go.

I think that's pretty amazing that they had enough depth at so many positions to sustain all those losses and still win.

What if Gronk didn't get hurt upon his return. How would things have turned out in the playoffs... probably not as bad.

Right, ATP, but they can't have it both ways, what with the salary cap system they have.

Can't have great depth and pay your top players big money anymore. The Pats are about to find that out this offseason.

Either they cut some big money players, or keep that depth. They are at the cap.

If they want to win another SB, they had better keep their best players, cross their fingers, and hope they stay healthy.

If they want to just make the playoffs, then keep the quality backups.

They are between a rock and a hard place.

Rambone kind of touched on this already, but yeah - It's probably not a coincidence that the two best teams this year were most likely the Seahawks and the 49ers, and they both have QBs on rookie deals. With the way the NFL cap works, if you have a franchise QB on a high salary deal, it means you're missing out on 3 to 4 quality depth players elsewhere on the roster. Teams that have QBs on a rookie deal have a huge temporary advantage, although it remains to be seen what happens once those guys are eligible for raises.

True. You can restructure a top QB's deal only so many times.

After a while you run out of options.

Wilfork, if he comes back, has a 11.7 million hit on the cap. Do they bring him back, or cut him?

The Pats have a history of letting guys go while they are still in their prime, knowing that if they extend their deals at big money, they will no longer be as good toward the end of those deals.

It's a system that has worked very well for them, because they've done a great job of developing backups to take their place, for far less money.

That's why the Pats have been so good for so long.

Playing in the AFC East hasn't hurt them, either.