2007 NFL Playoffs thread

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 9:36 pm

I agree about Keading...He is no Viniaterri...God I hate that guy

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 9:46 pm

F*ckin' Brady is money. Even when he has a bad game with three picks, he's money when it counts. Leads the team to a TD just before halftime, marches the team downfield for the winning field goal late.

New England has to be the favorite to win the Super Bowl now, as No. 12 is just so much more clutch than the other three pretenders taking snaps next Sunday.

You cats have said it all about the undisciplined, stupid Chargers. How does Marty continue to fool people about being Mr. Discipline and Mr. Old School when either he or his players make such dumb mistakes time and time again?

I do feel bad for Tomlinson. He deserves the Super Bowl showcase at some point in his career. It would have been cool to see a Chargers-Saints Super Bowl because you would have had two great running backs on the field in LT and Deuce.

Take care,
PK

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 9:54 pm

pk500 wrote:F*ckin' Brady is money. Even when he has a bad game with three picks, he's money when it counts. Leads the team to a TD just before halftime, marches the team downfield for the winning field goal late.

Great point...With all the stupid s*** the Chargers were doing ..I think we forgot about him....You are right on about Brady...Hes a winner.

10spro · Post by **10spro** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 10:50 pm

pk500 wrote:Hasselbeck, on the other hand, looked clueless for the second consecutive week. He KILLED the Seahawks with that late interception right after the bobbled pass that was intercepted by the Seahawks. I sure hope that was a blown route, as Hasselbeck threw that ball nowhere near the receiver.PK

The fourth down and one to go & bobbled snap to Alexander was crucial. I thought #37 could have scored a potential TD. Another key momentum is with 30 seconds to go on the last quarter, he gets sacked. On most nights as Hasselbeck goes, so does the offense. Not tonight. Many thought it would be a walk in the park with SEA's injuries. Good win for CHI, BEAR-ly but they advance.

pk500 wrote: Why wasn't Stevens worked into the offense more this week like last week? Did the Bears really shut him down that much?

They could have. But do you know how many passes Stevens dropped this season? And we are talking easy ones.

Feanor · Post by **Feanor** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:32 am

pk500 wrote:You cats have said it all about the undisciplined, stupid Chargers. How does Marty continue to fool people about being Mr. Discipline and Mr. Old School when either he or his players make such dumb mistakes time and time again?

I'm not a fan of Marty, but I do feel a bit sorry for him. It really isn't his fault that the punt returner tried to pick the ball up instead of just diving on it, or that one of his players headbutted a Patriot when the Chargers had them backed up to halfway.

kevinpars · Post by **kevinpars** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 10:32 am

Brady was lucky money in this game. If the Chargers had just knocked that pass down instead of intercepting it and trying to run it back, we would be talking about Brady's 3 interceptions. Sure, he found Caldwell alone in the end zone, but if the officials had called the push off that got him so open, it also might have been a different story.

The key to stopping Brady is the same as most QB's. He doesn't like to be hit and makes mistakes under pressure. But his line does an excellent job of holding and grabbing jerseys on practically every play, which not only gives Brady time to pass, but frustrates the defense into making stupid retaliation penalties. Watching the Patriots play is like watching the NHL before the new rules came into effect.

AcemanPR · Post by **AcemanPR** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 10:42 am

How ironic how the two remaining games will have QB's from the Big Ten and SEC squaring off. So if we go by the results of the National Championship game, you'd have to pick the Bears and Colts winning on Sunday. However, I am hoping the Saints win. Don't care who wins in the AFC. If the Saints win, that is the team I am rooting to win the Super Bowl. If the Bears win, whoever wins the AFC game is who I am rooting to win in the Super Bowl.

RallyMonkey · Post by **RallyMonkey** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 11:05 am

Brady was lucky money in this game. If the Chargers had just knocked that pass down instead of intercepting it and trying to run it back, we would be talking about Brady's 3 interceptions. Sure, he found Caldwell alone in the end zone, but if the officials had called the push off that got him so open, it also might have been a different story.

The key to stopping Brady is the same as most QB's. He doesn't like to be hit and makes mistakes under pressure. But his line does an excellent job of holding and grabbing jerseys on practically every play, which not only gives Brady time to pass, but frustrates the defense into making stupid retaliation penalties. Watching the Patriots play is like watching the NHL before the new rules came into effect.

Is this a joke? Lucky money?? What does that mean? Good teams find ways to win on their worst day and they CREATE their own luck. Because no one taught the Charger D-back that on fourth down you shouldn't pick that pass off the Pats were lucky? Troy Brown stripping that ball wasn't luck, it was hard nosed, gritty football. The Patriots went into a hostile environment against a 14-2, and more talented team, and the Chargers let them hang around. And when you let good teams hang around they'll find a way to make you pay. Oh, and was it "luck" that the Chargers only had LT touch the ball 9 times in the second half? Oh wait no, it was the refs, that's right, my bad.

And i love the "Pats line hold and grab jerseys on every play thing". You could call holding on EVERY single play in the NFL. They don't do anything different than every other offensive line in football. Are you saying Merriman had two tackles because they were holding him all day? C'mon now. And just FYI, stupid retaliation penalties are a result of undisciplined players. Plain and simple.

The Patriots are simply a team that knows how to win. They are one of the few teams, and coaching staffs, that are willing to change their game plan mid-stream if they know something isn't working. They abandoned the run beginning with the drive before the half and it's what led them to a win. Not luck, just gritty play and having guys who know what they have to do to win.

I'm so friggin tired of the "it's the refs", "it's luck" crap. At some point this team deserves national recognition for being what they are. Winners.

Dave · Post by **Dave** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 11:19 am

RallyMonkey wrote:They are one of the few teams, and coaching staffs, that are willing to change their game plan mid-stream if they know something isn't working. They abandoned the run beginning with the drive before the half and it's what led them to a win. Not luck, just gritty play and having guys who know what they have to do to win.

That and the team's ability and willingness to run just about any offense, be it a 5-WR pass-only offense or a 2-TE pound-the-ball running game, make them such a dangerous team in the playoffs.

Sunday's game is either going to be the biggest win in the Indianapolis history of the Colts or the biggest, most disappointing loss; there's no in between for this one.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 11:37 am

kevinpars wrote:Brady was lucky money in this game. If the Chargers had just knocked that pass down instead of intercepting it and trying to run it back, we would be talking about Brady's 3 interceptions. Sure, he found Caldwell alone in the end zone, but if the officials had called the push off that got him so open, it also might have been a different story.

Huh? Lucky money? "If the Chargers ... ?" Well, if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

The fact is, Brady made the plays at the end of the half and the end of the game to help his team achieve crucial scores. He and Belichick constantly changed their game plan to find something that worked when running plays and screens were failing in the first half. They went to the spread-receiver, long-ball game in the second half, and it worked as Brady got into a rhythm.

Marty, on the other hand, did nothing to change his playcalling. Run Tomlinson on first down, let Rivers try to make high-percentage passes for gains, for the entire game. And when it came time for Rivers to make a big play, he couldn't do it.

Brady could, and that's why he and Belichick are 13-1 together in the postseason. There's no luck there. It's fine coaching and brilliant execution in the clutch. Nothing more than that. You make your luck.

And I'm not a Patriots' fan -- not at all. I'm a lifelong Bills' fan, so the Pats are enemies. Nothing would please me more to see them go down this Sunday in Indianapolis.

But you have to tip your fedora to excellence when you see it. And Brady, Belichick and the Patriots are THE model NFL quarterback, coach and organization of the last seven or eight years.

Take care,
PK

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 11:39 am

The Patriots are my worst NFL nightmare...but I give My honest opinions and Brady is Money.

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 12:20 pm

Brady is a great, great QB. The Pats are the smartest, most adaptable team in recent NFL history. AND they (particularly Brady) were fortunate...yes lucky...to win this one. If Brady is anything other than the walk-on-water Wonder Boy QB, we're all talking about how the Pats won despite his mistakes. Instead we are treated to chapter 241 of the ongoing and revolting hagiography. And keep in mind that I like this guy, and the Pats!

The Brady-Manning garbage this week is going to reach a new level of stupid. If I had a penny for every ridiculous conclusion drawn this week about the character of these two guys because of their on-field performance I'd be able to afford an NFC Championship ticket

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 12:26 pm

Rob:

To what performance are you referring regarding Manning? The guy hasn't won a big game since he was in high school. His litany of clutch gags at Tennessee and Indy is just as much the stuff of legends as Brady's successes.

Take care,
PK

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 12:36 pm

pk500 wrote:Rob:

To what performance are you referring regarding Manning? The guy hasn't won a big game since he was in high school. His litany of clutch gags at Tennessee and Indy is just as much the stuff of legends as Brady's successes.

Take care,
PK

I'm referring to drawing what I deeply feel to be specious conclusions about "clutch" and who's a "winner" based on winning and losing the single most team-oriented game in American sports. If Vanderjagt makes that kick last year, the "legends" die...at least until he lost in the SB...then he's a loser again. Unless he won, in which case he pulled off the Elway Transformation to "winner."

The media and fans insist on mythologizing the performance of QB's, they always have. But it's taken to such absurd levels with these two guys that it's almost become self-satirizing at this point.

Dave · Post by **Dave** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 12:57 pm

Obviously, winning a Super Bowl shuts everything up for Manning.

But it has been amazing to watch the definition of "Big Game" change for the media. First it was a playoff game. Then he puts up two nearly-perfect games against KC and Denver a few years ago. Then he couldn't win a big game in New England...a week later it doesn't matter even though the media built it up to matter for an entire week. And in college, since he couldn't beat Florida, an SEC title game victory doesn't count, etiher.

Rob, I'm with you. The media's going to piss all over itself this week.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 12:58 pm

Their postseason numbers are comparable except for the two I've highlighted below. While no QB is solely responsible for a team's wins and losses, an larger number of picks makes it more likely the team will land in the L column:

Brady
274-452, .606
2,985 yards
19 TDs
8 INTs
13-1 record

Manning
238-390, .610
2,899 yards
16 TDs
13 INTs
5-6 record

Take care,
PK

Dave · Post by **Dave** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 1:08 pm

Oh, I agree that Brady's been the better post-season QB, by far.

But what drives me crazy is when leading up to the past weekend's playoff games, the blowhards on ESPN radio give the Ravens the nod at QB over the Colts.

McNair's playoff stats?

185-311, .595
1,764 yards
6 TDs
11 INTs
5-5 record

Post by **ScoopBrady** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 1:13 pm

Yesterday was one of the best Bears games I've ever been to. It was very entertaining and every part of the team contributed to the win. Special teams forced an errant punt to set up their field position in overtime. The defense came up big on several plays when they needed to. The offense, and in particular Rex Grossman, made plays to win the game. Suck on that Chicago and national media heads!

Soldier Field was loud as hell (did that carry over to the broadcast at all?) and was absolute bedlam when Robbie Gould kicked the game winner.

Every game this weekend was very entertaining. Even the field goal game in Baltimore was exciting, but I like watching defensive games as much, if not more than, offensive shootouts.

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 1:17 pm

pk500 wrote:Their postseason numbers are comparable except for the two I've highlighted below. While no QB is solely responsible for a team's wins and losses, an larger number of picks makes it more likely the team will land in the L column:

Brady
274-452, .606
2,985 yards
19 TDs
8 INTs
13-1 record

Manning
238-390, .610
2,899 yards
16 TDs
13 INTs
5-6 record

Take care,
PK

I've never suggested that Brady hadn't performed better than Manning. I take issue with the conclusions drawn from that fact.

How many of those games were at home vs. on the road for each? Most importantly, what sort of defenses did each QB have backing him up? Which had the better running games? Which QB had the better game plan behind him, and a coaching staff that made adjustments? All of those are more important than "intestinal fortitude" or some mythic ability to win, but that's where people are saying the difference is. I don't buy it.

Inuyasha · Post by **Inuyasha** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 1:30 pm

If Brady wins the SB this year, he's surpassed Montana. It's a pretty easy argument for Brady because Joe had so many other guys on the offense like Rice, Taylor, Craig, Clark, etc.... you name it. Who does Brady have? Pretty much nobody at a hall of fame level like Joe did.

But........I think the colts are going to win Sunday. It's finally time for Manning to get over the hump and beat his long time rival. I think after Saturday's game vs the RAvens, when they asked Manning who'd he like to face, he didn't say the Pats but you could tell by looking in his eyes that he wanted the Pats at home. It's going to be like when Steve Young got the Losses to the cowboys off his back when he finally beat them to get to the SB.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 1:33 pm

Rob:

It's a natural conclusion. Nearly every team sport has a position to which pundits gravitate when trying to distill a team's success. In baseball, it's a pitcher. In soccer, it's a striker. In hockey, it's a goalie.

In football, it's a quarterback. Is Tom Brady single-handedly responsible for winning 13 postseason games for New England? No. Is Rex Grossman really as bad as everyone says? No, and yesterday proved that.

But you can't deny that New England is 13-1 with Brady as quarterback, and those New England teams have not been clones of the 2000 Baltimore Ravens. Combine that with the natural attention cast on quarterbacks, and Brady will get his share of lionization, deserved or not.

Hey, just look at the 85 Bears. Sure, the 4-6 defense was awesome and got a TON of publicity and credit for the Bears' 15-1 regular season and march to the Super Bowl title. But people tend to forget Sweetness rushed for 1,551 yards that season.

I don't have to tell you that Americans don't embrace an overall team concept as a reason for success. They want to point to one unit, ONE GUY, as the superhero that guides a team to victory.

The Jets didn't win the Super Bowl; Namath did. San Francisco didn't dominate football in the 80s; Montana did. Favre and Elway single-handedly carried the Packers and Broncos, respectively, to the promised land of Super Bowl victory. Jim Kelly never won the Big One. Michael Jordan and his "supporting cast" dominated the NBA in the 90s, as if Scottie Pippen and Bill Cartwright were bit players.

Etc., etc., etc.

Take care,
PK

lexbur · Post by **lexbur** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 1:34 pm

ScoopBrady wrote: Soldier Field was loud as hell (did that carry over to the broadcast at all?) and was absolute bedlam when Robbie Gould kicked the game winner.

Yeah, especially after that last field goal. The place went nuts. Must have been awesome to be there!

What a GREAT weekend!!!

WillHunting · Post by **WillHunting** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 1:37 pm

Inuyasha wrote:If Brady wins the SB this year, he's surpassed Montana. It's a pretty easy argument for Brady because Joe had so many other guys on the offense like Rice, Taylor, Craig, Clark, etc.... you name it. Who does Brady have? Pretty much nobody at a hall of fame level like Joe did.

But........I think the colts are going to win Sunday. It's finally time for Manning to get over the hump and beat his long time rival. I think after Saturday's game vs the RAvens, when they asked Manning who'd he like to face, he didn't say the Pats but you could tell by looking in his eyes that he wanted the Pats at home. It's going to be like when Steve Young got the Losses to the cowboys off his back when he finally beat them to get to the SB.

I am a Pats fan, but I think you are right, the Colts are looking to win it all this year. I am thinking the worst case scenario is if Colts beat the Pats and lose the SB, that would be awful.... But anyway, NE definitely has to be able to run the ball next week, they won't beat the Colts by running for 50 yards again. And the Colts are playing some amazing defense in the playoffs, so if they can stuff NE's run, the game is over.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 1:39 pm

Well before this year, Brady has faced much easier defenses than Manning has.

Colts were beat up (and held like crazy) at Foxboro. Manning simply couldn't rise to the occasion.

Yesterday, Brady was under constant assault and he made mistakes but in the end, made the plays he had to.

But Manning also beat a brutal defense. Fortunately, the Ravens didn't mount enough offense that he didn't have to win the game all by himself.

Thing about the Colts is that they don't have a consistent enough running game and they're missing a dynamic 3rd WR at the slot. But with Clark in there, they may make up with toughness what they lack in explosion in the middle.

Compared to what they faced this week, both should have an opportunity to put up points this weekend.

Pats' receiving corps would be questionable but they find this guy Gaffney out of nowhere and they have two of the better receiving TEs in the game.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 1:45 pm

WillHunting wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:If Brady wins the SB this year, he's surpassed Montana. It's a pretty easy argument for Brady because Joe had so many other guys on the offense like Rice, Taylor, Craig, Clark, etc.... you name it. Who does Brady have? Pretty much nobody at a hall of fame level like Joe did.

But........I think the colts are going to win Sunday. It's finally time for Manning to get over the hump and beat his long time rival. I think after Saturday's game vs the RAvens, when they asked Manning who'd he like to face, he didn't say the Pats but you could tell by looking in his eyes that he wanted the Pats at home. It's going to be like when Steve Young got the Losses to the cowboys off his back when he finally beat them to get to the SB.
I am a Pats fan, but I think you are right, the Colts are looking to win it all this year. I am thinking the worst case scenario is if Colts beat the Pats and lose the SB, that would be awful.... But anyway, NE definitely has to be able to run the ball next week, they won't beat the Colts by running for 50 yards again. And the Colts are playing some amazing defense in the playoffs, so if they can stuff NE's run, the game is over.

I like the Colts sunday too.

The added bonus to the Colts wining is that we will never have to hear that Manning cant win the big one ever again ...well ...at least not for a day or two til the SB hype starts...