New England AT Dallas Oct 14th (1 Viewer)

[duaneok66]

again, like I said way back on page 1, it will be an easy win for the Pats . . . the Boys looked mediocre against a banged up Bills defense . . .

 

[SteveInChicago]

Curious how many of you think Vegas effed up on this one? Pats moneyline -235 = Vegas thinks Pats win this game less than 70% of the time. How much money would you put on this?

This is a better Dallas team than the one that ended the Colts' undefeated season last year. You can argue this year's Pats are better, but it's really hard not to look good when four of your first five games are against the Jets, Bills, Bengals, Browns. (and another against a struggling Chargers squad that's nowhere as dominant as they were built up to be this season)

Monday's game was probably a good wakeup call for Dallas to get their act together. It was the classic trap game when a huge showdown is on the horizons, I wouldn't go so far as calling for the upset here against the Pats, but I sure as hell know I'm not smarter than Vegas. 70% chance of winning is no lock.

This game could turn out to be a blowout... but there's also about a 50% chance that it could turn into a dogfight. I know I'm not going anywhere Sunday afternoon.

 

[eom]

are you a scientician, by any chance?

 

[Doxology]

Are you willing to put money up against that line?

Why would he when he can get a better line? Lines that are set this far off balance are exactly what you should be looking for. Saying that the line should be set at 9.5 is a good way of describing how far this line is off of where it should be.

Exactly. The thing is, if New England needed to win by 17, I'd say they would do it. Now since they don't need to win by 17 the odds are against them doing it, but they're that much better than Dallas. 41-10 wouldn't surprise me.

Pathetic.

 

[bostonfred]

Patriots 71Cowboys 7

So CLE can score 17 and hold NE to 34, but DAL will yield 2X+ that and score less than 1/2 of the 17? Seems realistic.

If Cleveland doesn't throw picks in the endzone and give up Td's on offense to their defense that 34-17 would have been a lot closer.To be honost, I'm handicapping that game as a lot closer than the 17 point total.

Many Patriot players said that that game was their worst of the season so far. Technically, they're right, as they only won by 17. The fact that the defense made a bunch of interceptions shouldn't be heartening to Tony Romo, who just threw 5 in a game where they had to squeak by Buffalo. New England also stumbled early against Buffalo, allowing an early Lynch TD, and only beat them 38-7 as a result. Realistically, the Pats played down to the Browns in their 17 point win, which is not great news for them. But the Cowboys are not firing on all cylinders right now, and this is not a good matchup for them. They're coming in on short rest, off a game where they were intercepted five times, against a team that just made 3 interceptions. They gave up a 103 yard kickoff return for a TD, against a team that just tied the record for longest kickoff return in history. They've scored a bunch of points, but it's against the 22nd, 23rd, 25th, 28th, and 30th scoring defenses in the league. The biggest thing they have going for them is that they're the #2 scoring offense in the league, except that they're playing the #1. I don't see a lot of reasons to favor the Cowboys in this game, and I wouldn't take just 5 points against a team that hasn't won by less than 17 all season. I won't tell you how to spend your money, but I really don't think Cowboys +5 is a good bet.

I stand by my earlier prediction.I'd take New England -9.5.

And you'd have won. Chris I hope you took my advice.

 

[duaneok66]

again, like I said way back on page 1, it will be an easy win for the Pats . . . the Boys looked mediocre against a banged up Bills defense . . .

no surprises . . .

 

[Zow]

again, like I said way back on page 1, it will be an easy win for the Pats . . . the Boys looked mediocre against a banged up Bills defense . . .

no surprises . . .

um, that wasn't an easy win, bud... NE played their best ball and were losing 28-24 in the third quarter. They were no doubt the better team but they had to play great and get the benefit of a couple of TOs and a bonehead decision by Phillips to win it.

 

[tomarken]

again, like I said way back on page 1, it will be an easy win for the Pats . . . the Boys looked mediocre against a banged up Bills defense . . .

no surprises . . .

um, that wasn't an easy win, bud... NE played their best ball and were losing 28-24 in the third quarter. They were no doubt the better team but they had to play great and get the benefit of a couple of TOs and a bonehead decision by Phillips to win it.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Are you willing to put money up against that line?

Why would he when he can get a better line? Lines that are set this far off balance are exactly what you should be looking for. Saying that the line should be set at 9.5 is a good way of describing how far this line is off of where it should be.

Exactly. The thing is, if New England needed to win by 17, I'd say they would do it. Now since they don't need to win by 17 the odds are against them doing it, but they're that much better than Dallas. 41-10 wouldn't surprise me.

Pathetic.

Ok, change the 17 to 21.

 

[zoonation]

Are you willing to put money up against that line?

Why would he when he can get a better line? Lines that are set this far off balance are exactly what you should be looking for. Saying that the line should be set at 9.5 is a good way of describing how far this line is off of where it should be.

Exactly. The thing is, if New England needed to win by 17, I'd say they would do it. Now since they don't need to win by 17 the odds are against them doing it, but they're that much better than Dallas. 41-10 wouldn't surprise me.

Pathetic.

Ok, change the 17 to 21.

NE was the better team, but they were losing in the third quarter. Dallas just couldn't get pressure and stop them on third downs. I don't think the Pats looked unbeatable today. Brady is a machine though...until you get some pressure.Dallas made a lot of mistakes.I will take the field all day for the Superbowl.

 

[Ghost Rider]

NE was the better team, but they were losing in the third quarter.

Yeah, but not for long.

I don't think the Pats looked unbeatable today.

And yet they won by 21 on the home turf of what is probably the best team in the NFC.

 

[zoonation]

NE was the better team, but they were losing in the third quarter.

Yeah, but not for long.

I don't think the Pats looked unbeatable today.

And yet they won by 21 on the home turf of what is probably the best team in the NFC.

I still think the game came down to a few key lays...the final score didn't mean anything. Dallas gave up after thier coach decided to kick a meaningless field goal.A lot of the credit has to go to that o-line, which is simply unreal. Brady just sits there forever, hardly ever being hurried. If a team can get some pressure, they will have a chance.Dallas showed me they have the best talent in the NFC today. Came out soft, not ready to play (again), and dug a hole early against a team you can't do that against. But they really put it together for a stretch there but managed to take penalty after penalty.If they played a more solid game and got some pressure, they would have a chance.

 

[Ghost Rider]

The final score doesn't matter? Then why even bother keeping score?

How about this one:

Total Yards

New England 448

Dallas 283

Or this:

Time of Possession

New England 38:15

Dallas 21:45

Or the other seven or eight categories that the Patriots dominated.

Sorry, but no matter how you slice it, the Patriots were the much better team today.

And it is easy to say, "If a team can get some pressure, they will have a chance," but that can be said about beating any NFL team. Saying it and doing it are two different things.

 

[zoonation]

The final score doesn't matter? Then why even bother keeping score?

How about this one:

Total Yards

New England 448

Dallas 283

Or this:

Time of Possession

New England 38:15

Dallas 21:45

Or the other seven or eight categories that the Patriots dominated.

Sorry, but no matter how you slice it, the Patriots were the much better team today.

And it is easy to say, "If a team can get some pressure, they will have a chance," but that can be said about beating any NFL team. Saying it and doing it are two different things.

agreed. it amazes me how amazing those pass blocking schemes are. No question the Pats were the better team today.I just don't think they are unbeatable, is all.

 

[Ghost Rider]

The final score doesn't matter? Then why even bother keeping score?

How about this one:

Total Yards

New England 448

Dallas 283

Or this:

Time of Possession

New England 38:15

Dallas 21:45

Or the other seven or eight categories that the Patriots dominated.

Sorry, but no matter how you slice it, the Patriots were the much better team today.

And it is easy to say, "If a team can get some pressure, they will have a chance," but that can be said about beating any NFL team. Saying it and doing it are two different things.

agreed. it amazes me how amazing those pass blocking schemes are. No question the Pats were the better team today.I just don't think they are unbeatable, is all.

I agree. No team is unbeatable. The Broncos looked unbeatable back in '98, but were upset by the Giants in December, preventing them from going to 14-0 and having a shot at a perfect record. Any team can beat any team on any given Sunday. But this Patriots is extremely dominant, and probably the most dominant regular season team since that Broncos team.

 

[duaneok66]

again, like I said way back on page 1, it will be an easy win for the Pats . . . the Boys looked mediocre against a banged up Bills defense . . .

no surprises . . .

um, that wasn't an easy win, bud... NE played their best ball and were losing 28-24 in the third quarter. They were no doubt the better team but they had to play great and get the benefit of a couple of TOs and a bonehead decision by Phillips to win it.

if woulda, and . . . , but . . . , coulda . . .please go on . . .

 

[Borat]

again, like I said way back on page 1, it will be an easy win for the Pats . . . the Boys looked mediocre against a banged up Bills defense . . .

no surprises . . .

um, that wasn't an easy win, bud... NE played their best ball and were losing 28-24 in the third quarter. They were no doubt the better team but they had to play great and get the benefit of a couple of TOs and a bonehead decision by Phillips to win it.

Have you watched this team at all this year? New England most certainly did not play their best ball on Sunday.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

again, like I said way back on page 1, it will be an easy win for the Pats . . . the Boys looked mediocre against a banged up Bills defense . . .

no surprises . . .

um, that wasn't an easy win, bud... NE played their best ball and were losing 28-24 in the third quarter. They were no doubt the better team but they had to play great and get the benefit of a couple of TOs and a bonehead decision by Phillips to win it.

Have you watched this team at all this year? New England most certainly did not play their best ball on Sunday.

New England played very good football on Sunday. Brady's having his best year ever statistically and Sunday was his best of the year. How is that not great?Dallas going into that game was 1a with the Patriots in offensive categories and their defense only let up 20 points when Dallas averaged about 34. How is that not great?New England consistently converted 3rd down and long to break the will of the Dallas D and eventually their stamina.I'm not sure what game everyone else watched but New England definately played very good. I mean, I can say Dallas didn't play their best. What does that mean, it means nothing because an easy argument is that they didn't play their best because New England didn't let them. Teams usually look their absolute best when they're playing miserable teams. Don't expect everything to go absolutely perfect against teams that have talent and also want to win.The best team won, New England played better and all of that but it's ridiculous to say things like they didn't play their best because every losing team can certainly say the same thing. From my experiences in sports, most of the time there's a good reason why they didn't play their best.Tell me this, does it make Pats fans feel more powerful or that they think they have this ace in the hole that they somehow have this magical reserve of playing better in a game? All I heard before the game is how they're going to be Vanilla (which they weren't, they threw a bomb the first play of the game and threw it multiple times in the game) and after the game how the Patriots didn't play their best.You guys can think whatever you want, I just find it comical. I can remember the Cowboys in the 90's and rooting for them those years and I don't recall ever saying or others saying after wins over Green Bay or Philadephia we're going to win by being Vanilla or after the win saying we won but it wasn't our best.Who gives a crap. You should take after your coach and understand a Win is a Win.

 

[twitch]

yes, absolutely, a win is a win. you take 'em any way you can get 'em. and no team really ever plays their best game. Dallas didnt. NE didnt. they both 'left alot of plays' out there. those 90s Dallas teams usually played fairly vanilla imo, because that was just part of their mentality. theyd line up and smashmouth you. if they needed a 3rd down conversion, theyd get it to Irvin or Novacek. everyone knew it was coming, they just couldnt stop it. NE does similar things, meaning that when it gets right down to it, theyre just gonna give the ball to Brady and let him do his thing. i didnt buy the "NE's gonna play vanilla" talk. that was just probably just ranting from overconfident homers. they played a great game Sunday against Dallas. and of course those guys are gonna think they didnt play their best game because theyre just looking to get better. most importantly, they did the one thing they needed to do. they kept Dallas' O off the field. I guarantee that was priority 1 . thats the way you beat Dallas. and its the way you beat NE as well. as for playing better in big games, I think that boils down to Brady. he does have some ability to rise to the occasion. he doesnt do it every time, but alot more often than not. but it was his 1st game in Dallas, his 1st against the Cowboys, and his 100th start, and winning that game meant tying Staubach himself as the winningest QB after 100 starts. id imagine reporters at some point during the week made him aware of that, if he didnt already know. but Im 100% certain that the players didnt care how they won that game. they just wanted the W no matter how they got it. and Ill always fall in line with the players. if an ugly win is good enough for those guys, then its good enough for me.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

yes, absolutely, a win is a win. you take 'em any way you can get 'em. and no team really ever plays their best game. Dallas didnt. NE didnt. they both 'left alot of plays' out there. those 90s Dallas teams usually played fairly vanilla imo, because that was just part of their mentality. theyd line up and smashmouth you. if they needed a 3rd down conversion, theyd get it to Irvin or Novacek. everyone knew it was coming, they just couldnt stop it. NE does similar things, meaning that when it gets right down to it, theyre just gonna give the ball to Brady and let him do his thing. i didnt buy the "NE's gonna play vanilla" talk. that was just probably just ranting from overconfident homers. they played a great game Sunday against Dallas. and of course those guys are gonna think they didnt play their best game because theyre just looking to get better. most importantly, they did the one thing they needed to do. they kept Dallas' O off the field. I guarantee that was priority 1 . thats the way you beat Dallas. and its the way you beat NE as well. as for playing better in big games, I think that boils down to Brady. he does have some ability to rise to the occasion. he doesnt do it every time, but alot more often than not. but it was his 1st game in Dallas, his 1st against the Cowboys, and his 100th start, and winning that game meant tying Staubach himself as the winningest QB after 100 starts. id imagine reporters at some point during the week made him aware of that, if he didnt already know. but Im 100% certain that the players didnt care how they won that game. they just wanted the W no matter how they got it. and Ill always fall in line with the players. if an ugly win is good enough for those guys, then its good enough for me.

I guess maybe my problem is people have different ideas of Vanilla. My take is that you aren't going to play your best on purpose. That you're leaving everything worth value in the bag for a later time.See, Dallas in the 90's seemed Vanilla but that's who they are. On 3rd and 3, they didn't do 4 man spreads with revereses and halfback passes.They lined it up, handoff Smith left behind Erik Williams for 5 yards. So, in a way that may seem Vanilla because it's sort of boring but that's who the Cowboys were. It wasn't like if it wre the Super Bowl, on this same play they'd try this super special play that would work 99.9 percent of the time. 3rd and 3 in the Super Bowl, 4th quarter. Hand off left to Smith.......for 5 yards.

 

[twitch]

yes, absolutely, a win is a win. you take 'em any way you can get 'em. and no team really ever plays their best game. Dallas didnt. NE didnt. they both 'left alot of plays' out there. those 90s Dallas teams usually played fairly vanilla imo, because that was just part of their mentality. theyd line up and smashmouth you. if they needed a 3rd down conversion, theyd get it to Irvin or Novacek. everyone knew it was coming, they just couldnt stop it. NE does similar things, meaning that when it gets right down to it, theyre just gonna give the ball to Brady and let him do his thing. i didnt buy the "NE's gonna play vanilla" talk. that was just probably just ranting from overconfident homers. they played a great game Sunday against Dallas. and of course those guys are gonna think they didnt play their best game because theyre just looking to get better. most importantly, they did the one thing they needed to do. they kept Dallas' O off the field. I guarantee that was priority 1 . thats the way you beat Dallas. and its the way you beat NE as well. as for playing better in big games, I think that boils down to Brady. he does have some ability to rise to the occasion. he doesnt do it every time, but alot more often than not. but it was his 1st game in Dallas, his 1st against the Cowboys, and his 100th start, and winning that game meant tying Staubach himself as the winningest QB after 100 starts. id imagine reporters at some point during the week made him aware of that, if he didnt already know. but Im 100% certain that the players didnt care how they won that game. they just wanted the W no matter how they got it. and Ill always fall in line with the players. if an ugly win is good enough for those guys, then its good enough for me.

I guess maybe my problem is people have different ideas of Vanilla. My take is that you aren't going to play your best on purpose. That you're leaving everything worth value in the bag for a later time.See, Dallas in the 90's seemed Vanilla but that's who they are. On 3rd and 3, they didn't do 4 man spreads with revereses and halfback passes.They lined it up, handoff Smith left behind Erik Williams for 5 yards. So, in a way that may seem Vanilla because it's sort of boring but that's who the Cowboys were. It wasn't like if it wre the Super Bowl, on this same play they'd try this super special play that would work 99.9 percent of the time. 3rd and 3 in the Super Bowl, 4th quarter. Hand off left to Smith.......for 5 yards.

which is why, for my money, all record and statistics excluded, Ive always felt the Dallas teams of the 90s were the most dominant that Ive ever personally seen. No particular season. All of them. They just lined up and beat you. I still havent see teams like that since. NE beats teams in different ways which is great. for pure dominance. again, man to man, unit to unit, Im taking Dallas early 90s every time. But these Pats are atleast giving me something else to think about.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

yes, absolutely, a win is a win. you take 'em any way you can get 'em. and no team really ever plays their best game. Dallas didnt. NE didnt. they both 'left alot of plays' out there. those 90s Dallas teams usually played fairly vanilla imo, because that was just part of their mentality. theyd line up and smashmouth you. if they needed a 3rd down conversion, theyd get it to Irvin or Novacek. everyone knew it was coming, they just couldnt stop it. NE does similar things, meaning that when it gets right down to it, theyre just gonna give the ball to Brady and let him do his thing. i didnt buy the "NE's gonna play vanilla" talk. that was just probably just ranting from overconfident homers. they played a great game Sunday against Dallas. and of course those guys are gonna think they didnt play their best game because theyre just looking to get better. most importantly, they did the one thing they needed to do. they kept Dallas' O off the field. I guarantee that was priority 1 . thats the way you beat Dallas. and its the way you beat NE as well. as for playing better in big games, I think that boils down to Brady. he does have some ability to rise to the occasion. he doesnt do it every time, but alot more often than not. but it was his 1st game in Dallas, his 1st against the Cowboys, and his 100th start, and winning that game meant tying Staubach himself as the winningest QB after 100 starts. id imagine reporters at some point during the week made him aware of that, if he didnt already know. but Im 100% certain that the players didnt care how they won that game. they just wanted the W no matter how they got it. and Ill always fall in line with the players. if an ugly win is good enough for those guys, then its good enough for me.

I guess maybe my problem is people have different ideas of Vanilla. My take is that you aren't going to play your best on purpose. That you're leaving everything worth value in the bag for a later time.See, Dallas in the 90's seemed Vanilla but that's who they are. On 3rd and 3, they didn't do 4 man spreads with revereses and halfback passes.They lined it up, handoff Smith left behind Erik Williams for 5 yards. So, in a way that may seem Vanilla because it's sort of boring but that's who the Cowboys were. It wasn't like if it wre the Super Bowl, on this same play they'd try this super special play that would work 99.9 percent of the time. 3rd and 3 in the Super Bowl, 4th quarter. Hand off left to Smith.......for 5 yards.

which is why, for my money, all record and statistics excluded, Ive always felt the Dallas teams of the 90s were the most dominant that Ive ever personally seen. No particular season. All of them. They just lined up and beat you. I still havent see teams like that since. NE beats teams in different ways which is great. for pure dominance. again, man to man, unit to unit, Im taking Dallas early 90s every time. But these Pats are atleast giving me something else to think about.

I've always felt the same way, but of course I'm a Dallas fan and respect the 49er teams of the 80's and the Steelers of the 70's. The Patriots haven't been maybe as dominant in terms of scores they've beaten teams in Sb's or whatever but I put them right in there, especially with this team they have this year. I couldn't be more impressed with an organization than I am with the Patriots. I wish they didn't do that video thing but Dallas did so many crazy things with the drugs and the women etc...every team has some skeletons in the closet I'm sure.

 

[switz]

Didn't bother reading the thread, so excuse me if these points have been covered:

Dallas probably isn't the best team in the NFC. They have the talent, but they have terrible coaching. A better coach will knock them out of the playoffs.

The Pats are clearly one of the top-3 teams in the AFC, but they are not a shoe in to make or win the SuperBowl. Dallas showed a good defense can hold them down, albeit for only 40 of the 60 required minutes. If the Pats run into a solid D, and a top offense, they can be beaten.

You can take Moss out of a game, but only if you have two great safeties, and can put pressure on the QB and still leave LBs in coverage. Welker had his huge game because Roy can't cover anyone, and Donte scored his long TD because Roy was way out of position. If DAL had a good cover man at safety, they could have prevented at least 2 TDs, possibly 3.

 

[twitch]

yes, absolutely, a win is a win. you take 'em any way you can get 'em. and no team really ever plays their best game. Dallas didnt. NE didnt. they both 'left alot of plays' out there. those 90s Dallas teams usually played fairly vanilla imo, because that was just part of their mentality. theyd line up and smashmouth you. if they needed a 3rd down conversion, theyd get it to Irvin or Novacek. everyone knew it was coming, they just couldnt stop it. NE does similar things, meaning that when it gets right down to it, theyre just gonna give the ball to Brady and let him do his thing. i didnt buy the "NE's gonna play vanilla" talk. that was just probably just ranting from overconfident homers. they played a great game Sunday against Dallas. and of course those guys are gonna think they didnt play their best game because theyre just looking to get better. most importantly, they did the one thing they needed to do. they kept Dallas' O off the field. I guarantee that was priority 1 . thats the way you beat Dallas. and its the way you beat NE as well. as for playing better in big games, I think that boils down to Brady. he does have some ability to rise to the occasion. he doesnt do it every time, but alot more often than not. but it was his 1st game in Dallas, his 1st against the Cowboys, and his 100th start, and winning that game meant tying Staubach himself as the winningest QB after 100 starts. id imagine reporters at some point during the week made him aware of that, if he didnt already know. but Im 100% certain that the players didnt care how they won that game. they just wanted the W no matter how they got it. and Ill always fall in line with the players. if an ugly win is good enough for those guys, then its good enough for me.

I guess maybe my problem is people have different ideas of Vanilla. My take is that you aren't going to play your best on purpose. That you're leaving everything worth value in the bag for a later time.See, Dallas in the 90's seemed Vanilla but that's who they are. On 3rd and 3, they didn't do 4 man spreads with revereses and halfback passes.They lined it up, handoff Smith left behind Erik Williams for 5 yards. So, in a way that may seem Vanilla because it's sort of boring but that's who the Cowboys were. It wasn't like if it wre the Super Bowl, on this same play they'd try this super special play that would work 99.9 percent of the time. 3rd and 3 in the Super Bowl, 4th quarter. Hand off left to Smith.......for 5 yards.

which is why, for my money, all record and statistics excluded, Ive always felt the Dallas teams of the 90s were the most dominant that Ive ever personally seen. No particular season. All of them. They just lined up and beat you. I still havent see teams like that since. NE beats teams in different ways which is great. for pure dominance. again, man to man, unit to unit, Im taking Dallas early 90s every time. But these Pats are atleast giving me something else to think about.

I've always felt the same way, but of course I'm a Dallas fan and respect the 49er teams of the 80's and the Steelers of the 70's. The Patriots haven't been maybe as dominant in terms of scores they've beaten teams in Sb's or whatever but I put them right in there, especially with this team they have this year. I couldn't be more impressed with an organization than I am with the Patriots. I wish they didn't do that video thing but Dallas did so many crazy things with the drugs and the women etc...every team has some skeletons in the closet I'm sure.

I used to get hammered by guys when I told them I thought Aikman was the best QB in the game, because of course at the time there were Marino, Elway, Young, Favre, Moon. all those guys. granted, he did usually have all day to throw. but the guy was textbook in every way. he threw the prettiest pass ive ever seen, was as accurate as it gets, could make a play running if nessecary, and was always in complete control. he was the blueprint as far as im concerned, and still doesnt get nearly as much credit as he should have. he could have been a #s machine on alot of other teams. and I have little doubt that he could led some of the other good teams of that period to titles.

 

[switz]

I used to get hammered by guys when I told them I thought Aikman was the best QB in the game, because of course at the time there were Marino, Elway, Young, Favre, Moon. all those guys. granted, he did usually have all day to throw. but the guy was textbook in every way. he threw the prettiest pass ive ever seen, was as accurate as it gets, could make a play running if nessecary, and was always in complete control. he was the blueprint as far as im concerned, and still doesnt get nearly as much credit as he should have. he could have been a #s machine on alot of other teams. and I have little doubt that he could led some of the other good teams of that period to titles.

You deserved to get hammered if you think that.

 

[twitch]

Didn't bother reading the thread, so excuse me if these points have been covered:

Dallas probably isn't the best team in the NFC. They have the talent, but they have terrible coaching. A better coach will knock them out of the playoffs.

The Pats are clearly one of the top-3 teams in the AFC, but they are not a shoe in to make or win the SuperBowl. Dallas showed a good defense can hold them down, albeit for only 40 of the 60 required minutes. If the Pats run into a solid D, and a top offense, they can be beaten.

You can take Moss out of a game, but only if you have two great safeties, and can put pressure on the QB and still leave LBs in coverage. Welker had his huge game because Roy can't cover anyone, and Donte scored his long TD because Roy was way out of position. If DAL had a good cover man at safety, they could have prevented at least 2 TDs, possibly 3.

Switz, youre a tough guy to impress. throwing all the SB talk and superficial rankings aside and strictly looking at the game, what could NE have done to show you that any D will stop them? Dallas' D held them down for 40 minutes? what game were you watching? Dallas only had the one single turnover. NE gave them one, so those TOs offset. NE held the ball for over 38 minutes. Thats an eternity in a football game. and they scored in every quarter. By quarter, it was 14, 7, 10, 17. Which 40 minute period in there am I missing? Theyve scored in all but one quarter this year, the 3rd quarter against the Browns when they were already up 20-0 and at the point where they were about to completely embarass their former Dcoordinator Romeo Crennel. Ill tell you they absolutely pulled the reigns back in that game, but you wouldnt believe me. But they did manage to score 14 in the next quarter to put that game away. So, all its gonna take is 2 great safteties, a great Dline, and LBs who can cover? thats not asking alot is it? kindof sounds like the perfect D. I think what its gonna take is another offense that can keep the ball out of NE's hands. because such a defense doesnt currently exist.

 

[twitch]

I used to get hammered by guys when I told them I thought Aikman was the best QB in the game, because of course at the time there were Marino, Elway, Young, Favre, Moon. all those guys. granted, he did usually have all day to throw. but the guy was textbook in every way. he threw the prettiest pass ive ever seen, was as accurate as it gets, could make a play running if nessecary, and was always in complete control. he was the blueprint as far as im concerned, and still doesnt get nearly as much credit as he should have. he could have been a #s machine on alot of other teams. and I have little doubt that he could led some of the other good teams of that period to titles.

You deserved to get hammered if you think that.

like clockwork.

 

[switz]

Didn't bother reading the thread, so excuse me if these points have been covered:

Dallas probably isn't the best team in the NFC. They have the talent, but they have terrible coaching. A better coach will knock them out of the playoffs.

The Pats are clearly one of the top-3 teams in the AFC, but they are not a shoe in to make or win the SuperBowl. Dallas showed a good defense can hold them down, albeit for only 40 of the 60 required minutes. If the Pats run into a solid D, and a top offense, they can be beaten.

You can take Moss out of a game, but only if you have two great safeties, and can put pressure on the QB and still leave LBs in coverage. Welker had his huge game because Roy can't cover anyone, and Donte scored his long TD because Roy was way out of position. If DAL had a good cover man at safety, they could have prevented at least 2 TDs, possibly 3.

Switz, youre a tough guy to impress. throwing all the SB talk and superficial rankings aside and strictly looking at the game, what could NE have done to show you that any D will stop them? Dallas' D held them down for 40 minutes? what game were you watching? Dallas only had the one single turnover. NE gave them one, so those TOs offset. NE held the ball for over 38 minutes. Thats an eternity in a football game. and they scored in every quarter. By quarter, it was 14, 7, 10, 17. Which 40 minute period in there am I missing? Theyve scored in all but one quarter this year, the 3rd quarter against the Browns when they were already up 20-0 and at the point where they were about to completely embarass their former Dcoordinator Romeo Crennel. Ill tell you they absolutely pulled the reigns back in that game, but you wouldnt believe me. But they did manage to score 14 in the next quarter to put that game away. So, all its gonna take is 2 great safteties, a great Dline, and LBs who can cover? thats not asking alot is it? kindof sounds like the perfect D. I think what its gonna take is another offense that can keep the ball out of NE's hands. because such a defense doesnt currently exist.

Nice way you try to take away one of the TOs... a TO is a TO.But I digress (not really, I just love that expression as a segue) - My point was that DAL's D (which is not very good) kept DAL in the game through 40 minutes, and then broke down, and that a couple of NE's scores were due to DAL's weakness at safety. If they played against a better defense, they haven't faced a tough one yet, they can be beaten. But yes, that good defense would need to be paired with a great offense.

I did say they were one of the top-3 teams in the AFC, didn't I? Is that unimpressive to you? When being top-3 in the AFC also means top-3 in the NFL?

 

[switz]

I used to get hammered by guys when I told them I thought Aikman was the best QB in the game, because of course at the time there were Marino, Elway, Young, Favre, Moon. all those guys. granted, he did usually have all day to throw. but the guy was textbook in every way. he threw the prettiest pass ive ever seen, was as accurate as it gets, could make a play running if nessecary, and was always in complete control. he was the blueprint as far as im concerned, and still doesnt get nearly as much credit as he should have. he could have been a #s machine on alot of other teams. and I have little doubt that he could led some of the other good teams of that period to titles.

You deserved to get hammered if you think that.

like clockwork.

Kurt Warner threw prettier passes, had a quicker release, amazing accuracy, decent mobility. He was just fragile.Really, what Troy showed the world is how important a strong OL is to a QB. Put half the QBs at the time in the NFL on that team and they would have won as many SuperBowls, some of them would have won more IMO.

Troy was a product of his offense.

 

[Routilla]

Kurt Warner threw prettier passes, had a quicker release, amazing accuracy, decent mobility. He was just fragile.Really, what Troy showed the world is how important a strong OL is to a QB. Put half the QBs at the time in the NFL on that team and they would have won as many SuperBowls, some of them would have won more IMO.Troy was a product of his offense.

I couldn't disagree with you more. Half the QBs in the league would not have survived Aikman's first year when he got killed behind a terrible OL. Aikman was as tough a QB as you can hope for. Half the QBs in the league are not nearly tough enough to stand in the pocket and deliver the ball accurately AND take the big hit game in and game out. Sorry Switz, I've got nothing for you on this one.

 

[twitch]

Didn't bother reading the thread, so excuse me if these points have been covered:

Dallas probably isn't the best team in the NFC. They have the talent, but they have terrible coaching. A better coach will knock them out of the playoffs.

The Pats are clearly one of the top-3 teams in the AFC, but they are not a shoe in to make or win the SuperBowl. Dallas showed a good defense can hold them down, albeit for only 40 of the 60 required minutes. If the Pats run into a solid D, and a top offense, they can be beaten.

You can take Moss out of a game, but only if you have two great safeties, and can put pressure on the QB and still leave LBs in coverage. Welker had his huge game because Roy can't cover anyone, and Donte scored his long TD because Roy was way out of position. If DAL had a good cover man at safety, they could have prevented at least 2 TDs, possibly 3.

Switz, youre a tough guy to impress. throwing all the SB talk and superficial rankings aside and strictly looking at the game, what could NE have done to show you that any D will stop them? Dallas' D held them down for 40 minutes? what game were you watching? Dallas only had the one single turnover. NE gave them one, so those TOs offset. NE held the ball for over 38 minutes. Thats an eternity in a football game. and they scored in every quarter. By quarter, it was 14, 7, 10, 17. Which 40 minute period in there am I missing? Theyve scored in all but one quarter this year, the 3rd quarter against the Browns when they were already up 20-0 and at the point where they were about to completely embarass their former Dcoordinator Romeo Crennel. Ill tell you they absolutely pulled the reigns back in that game, but you wouldnt believe me. But they did manage to score 14 in the next quarter to put that game away. So, all its gonna take is 2 great safteties, a great Dline, and LBs who can cover? thats not asking alot is it? kindof sounds like the perfect D. I think what its gonna take is another offense that can keep the ball out of NE's hands. because such a defense doesnt currently exist.

Nice way you try to take away one of the TOs... a TO is a TO.But I digress (not really, I just love that expression as a segue) - My point was that DAL's D (which is not very good) kept DAL in the game through 40 minutes, and then broke down, and that a couple of NE's scores were due to DAL's weakness at safety. If they played against a better defense, they haven't faced a tough one yet, they can be beaten. But yes, that good defense would need to be paired with a great offense.

I did say they were one of the top-3 teams in the AFC, didn't I? Is that unimpressive to you? When being top-3 in the AFC also means top-3 in the NFL?

good ranking. but like Id said I was sort of throwing out the rankings. trying to stick primarily to the game. but youre point is taken about it being a game for 3 quarters. I was mainly challenging the "good D holding them down" statement. But Im with you, and the TO imbalance. these guys arent perfect. theyre going to get beat. someone will step up and play a great game against them. I really think its going to take a great game to do it. or strange circumstance. Indy can beat 'em. And NE's got a tough 3 game stretch where they play Sunday night against Philly, then on MNF at Baltimore, then at home against Pitt. If they dont lose to Indy, they could definitely lose one of those 3 games. And not saying he's the best, but Aikman is still the blueprint. that guy could fit a small boat in one of his hands.

 

[parrot]

Dallas' D held them down for 40 minutes? what game were you watching?

I wondered the same thing yesterday when Switz said the Patriots passing game wasn't able to do anything early in the game due to Dallas' pressure. Brady was on pace for 520 yards and 8 Tds at the end of the first quarter.

 

[Borat]

again, like I said way back on page 1, it will be an easy win for the Pats . . . the Boys looked mediocre against a banged up Bills defense . . .

no surprises . . .

um, that wasn't an easy win, bud... NE played their best ball and were losing 28-24 in the third quarter. They were no doubt the better team but they had to play great and get the benefit of a couple of TOs and a bonehead decision by Phillips to win it.

Have you watched this team at all this year? New England most certainly did not play their best ball on Sunday.

New England played very good football on Sunday. Brady's having his best year ever statistically and Sunday was his best of the year. How is that not great?Dallas going into that game was 1a with the Patriots in offensive categories and their defense only let up 20 points when Dallas averaged about 34. How is that not great?New England consistently converted 3rd down and long to break the will of the Dallas D and eventually their stamina.I'm not sure what game everyone else watched but New England definately played very good. I mean, I can say Dallas didn't play their best. What does that mean, it means nothing because an easy argument is that they didn't play their best because New England didn't let them. Teams usually look their absolute best when they're playing miserable teams. Don't expect everything to go absolutely perfect against teams that have talent and also want to win.The best team won, New England played better and all of that but it's ridiculous to say things like they didn't play their best because every losing team can certainly say the same thing. From my experiences in sports, most of the time there's a good reason why they didn't play their best.Tell me this, does it make Pats fans feel more powerful or that they think they have this ace in the hole that they somehow have this magical reserve of playing better in a game? All I heard before the game is how they're going to be Vanilla (which they weren't, they threw a bomb the first play of the game and threw it multiple times in the game) and after the game how the Patriots didn't play their best.You guys can think whatever you want, I just find it comical. I can remember the Cowboys in the 90's and rooting for them those years and I don't recall ever saying or others saying after wins over Green Bay or Philadephia we're going to win by being Vanilla or after the win saying we won but it wasn't our best.Who gives a crap. You should take after your coach and understand a Win is a Win.

What are you talking about? Just because the Pats won the game against a tough opponent, that means it was their best game of the year? Did you see all the wide open passes Brady missed on? Did you see Ty Warren take a stupid penalty? Did you see Hobbs, Samuel, and Harrison get picked apart? Did you see New England's ineffective running game? Did you see the offensive line letting Brady get knocked around in the pocket?If you've watched the Patriots this year, you know that this wasn't even close to their best ball.