Brady/Manning XV: AFC Championship Game
- Thread starter Dogman
- Start date
Ironically, Cole still had a locker at Gillette.
https://twitter.com/jeffphowe/status/423215365322055680
https://twitter.com/jeffphowe/status/423215365322055680
No, he actually had seizures on the way to the airport for the KC game back in November. It sounds pretty serious.Ed Hillel said:
http://nfl.si.com/2013/11/30/denver-broncos-derek-wolfe-hospitalized-seizure-symptoms/
No, he actually had seizures on the way to the airport for the KC game back in November. It sounds pretty serious.
http://nfl.si.com/2013/11/30/denver-broncos-derek-wolfe-hospitalized-seizure-symptoms/
Yeah, I didn't phrase it well, but I was wondering if it was a hit to the head yhat triggered it/them. That article seems to indicate it may well be the case. I don't remember him being stretchered off the field with a head/neck issue.
http://nfl.si.com/2013/11/30/denver-broncos-derek-wolfe-hospitalized-seizure-symptoms/
Yeah, I didn't phrase it well, but I was wondering if it was a hit to the head yhat triggered it/them. That article seems to indicate it may well be the case. I don't remember him being stretchered off the field with a head/neck issue.
Just found out I will be in Florida shooting all day during the game. I will need to get that audio package and just have an earphone in.
Not happy about that.
Not happy about that.
So what's the game plan?
I can't see abandoning the run, with all its advantages, having found gold in Blount; but it seems likely they swing back to more of a balance to test the Denver secondary.
Since Ridley's benching in Houston, over the last five games the snap count has been: Vereen 37%, Blount 34%, Ridley 25%, Bolden 4%--averaging pass-heavy and run-heavy games.
I'd guess something like that for Sunday. It's fascinating how Vereen rarely lines up in the same formation twice--wideout, slot, HB--I would think a challenge for the coverage.
Over this five-game stretch,the early two with only 11-12 carries, Blount has gained 525 yards, a 5.4 ypc average, 105/game--LeSean McCoy, Marshawn Lynch, Jamaal Charles territory.
I can't see not giving him the ball 20 times.But as Deion said Sunday night, "If Quentin Jammer is out there, TB will find him early and often."
I can't see abandoning the run, with all its advantages, having found gold in Blount; but it seems likely they swing back to more of a balance to test the Denver secondary.
Since Ridley's benching in Houston, over the last five games the snap count has been: Vereen 37%, Blount 34%, Ridley 25%, Bolden 4%--averaging pass-heavy and run-heavy games.
I'd guess something like that for Sunday. It's fascinating how Vereen rarely lines up in the same formation twice--wideout, slot, HB--I would think a challenge for the coverage.
Over this five-game stretch,the early two with only 11-12 carries, Blount has gained 525 yards, a 5.4 ypc average, 105/game--LeSean McCoy, Marshawn Lynch, Jamaal Charles territory.
I can't see not giving him the ball 20 times.But as Deion said Sunday night, "If Quentin Jammer is out there, TB will find him early and often."
Corrente worked the Patriots-Saints game this year and also worked the Houston playoff game last year.mpx42 said:
One stat that I do not like with Corrente is that this season home teams have a winning percentage of .800, but his crew only called 5 more penalties on the road team than the home team. Of course, if there are all-star crews these stats won't mean much.
But Corrente can set a tone, and I find your second stat encouraging and more meaningful than the first.RedOctober3829 said:
Also, while I don't follow closely the flogging of these officials, I can't remember Corrente associated with a high profile fuck up.
This is not the game to screw up from an officiating standpoint. From the perspectives of visibility and historical importance, given where M and B are in their careers now, it may be the biggest non-SB game ever.
If this is tarnished by an officiating fiasco, it is going to be very bad.
Wolfe got blown up in the preseason in Seattle. He left on a stretcher with a neck injury that kept him out the rest of the preseason.Ed Hillel said:
He came back and played, but seemed less effective than his rookie year (which may have been due to the injury, or a sophomore slump, or playing without Von and Dumervil, who knows?).
Then he had a seizure on the team bus and it was reported that he had also dropped a significant amount of weight. The team made references to illness (as opposed to injury) but has not been specific. I suspect they are respecting his HIPAA privacy rights.
There's speculation that perhaps the August neck injury is at the root of his troubles (perhaps an endocrine issue caused by the trauma?) but that's all speculation. It might be a straight up illness.
Hopefully he can overcome it and be healthy next year. The kid has a pretty inspiring story. He grew up without a home and bounced around crashing on couches throughout his childhood. He overcame a lot to rise to the pros.
In re-watching the Divisional game against the Colts, I'm reminded of how idiosyncratic this game is, and how our perception of how well a team plays is driven by the final score -- the 4th QTR turned this into a laugher, but it was a close game for a long time.
To wit, at the beginning of the second half, the Patriots receive the ball with a 9 point lead. They run the ball with Blount for ~3 yards on first down, and then on second down are lucky to pick up ~5 yards when the ball bounces off Hooman, and instead of being intercepted for a Pick6, Hooman grabs it --- but the ball was hanging there in the air with a defender nearby. Third down, incomplete to Vereen. So, a 3 and out to start the second half. And to note, the Patriots only had 80 rushing yards at the half, not shabby by any means, but hardly dominating.
Colts get the ball back, and move down to the Red Zone on a big third down conversion, Luck to Hilton. Next play, pass to Fleener to the 5. So at 11 minutes to go in the 3rd quarter, the Colts were 5 yards away from making it a 2 point game. Collins makes a play on 3rd down and makes them kick a FG, and Blount gets taken down at the 10 on the ensuing kickoff.
Next, Amendola makes a big play, and things get moving after that (including a PI penalty to keep a drive alive). But one could easily flip a switch on a small number of plays and, halfway though the 3rd quarter, the Patriots are playing from behind. I know this is hardly profound analysis, but all the success that came in the 4th quarter was enabled by getting some breaks beforehand, breaks that just as easily go the other way in a game you end up losing.
All of which is to say, is it Sunday yet?
To wit, at the beginning of the second half, the Patriots receive the ball with a 9 point lead. They run the ball with Blount for ~3 yards on first down, and then on second down are lucky to pick up ~5 yards when the ball bounces off Hooman, and instead of being intercepted for a Pick6, Hooman grabs it --- but the ball was hanging there in the air with a defender nearby. Third down, incomplete to Vereen. So, a 3 and out to start the second half. And to note, the Patriots only had 80 rushing yards at the half, not shabby by any means, but hardly dominating.
Colts get the ball back, and move down to the Red Zone on a big third down conversion, Luck to Hilton. Next play, pass to Fleener to the 5. So at 11 minutes to go in the 3rd quarter, the Colts were 5 yards away from making it a 2 point game. Collins makes a play on 3rd down and makes them kick a FG, and Blount gets taken down at the 10 on the ensuing kickoff.
Next, Amendola makes a big play, and things get moving after that (including a PI penalty to keep a drive alive). But one could easily flip a switch on a small number of plays and, halfway though the 3rd quarter, the Patriots are playing from behind. I know this is hardly profound analysis, but all the success that came in the 4th quarter was enabled by getting some breaks beforehand, breaks that just as easily go the other way in a game you end up losing.
All of which is to say, is it Sunday yet?
brandonchristensen said:
If you can't get that, the app "TuneIn" is a decent way to listen. I use it all the time to listen to random games if I can't watch.
The more I think about this game and legacies, the more I think Brady needs it just as much as Manning.
For starters, Brady has not won in the postseason with as much consistency as he did at the beginning of his career (2001-2004). More importantly, his performances in conference championship and Super Bowls since '04 have been average at best, with a losing record to go along with it (2-4). Five of his eight playoff wins since the teams last Super Bowl have been in the divisional round, as have the majority of his best games statistically.
If you're not literally going to Super Bowls every two years, and you routinely get byes, your record isn't going to stack up to a stretch where you went undefeated in 3 postseasons.
It doesn't illustrate a thing.
It doesn't illustrate a thing.
No question there.Stitch01 said:
But what if this was not only their last playoff matchup, but even the last playoff game for either of them. I'm not saying there's any particular reason for either of them to start their decline, but would it really be a huge shock if either of them took one bad hit, or just lost too many weapons, and just had a couple extra 'any given Sundays'?
So it's possible that this could be one of their last playoff games, or even the last. The winner of this game would probably be then considered 'the best'. I know the 3-1 ring ratio, am nevermind total appearances etc. the general populace is still split, and fair or not this game will loom in their (puny little) minds.
Not that it matters much. Either way they be 1 and 1a.
Edit: it'll be interesting to hear how it's discussed a generation from now, because the emotions will be different. Maybe Tom will be more clearly #1 as the anti-patriot sentiment fades. Or, if they keep winning, he'll be seen as a founding father of a dynasty or something. I don't know.
Will Peyton try his hand at coaching?
SemperFidelisSox said:
Well, *nobody in the history of the NFL* has won in the postseason with as much consistency as Brady did from 2001-2004. Ever. So holding him to that standard is pretty silly. Since their last Super Bowl, Brady is 9-7, having made 5 AFC championship games and (so far) 2 Super Bowls. As you would expect, over the course of those 16 games, he's had some really good ones and some really bad ones. Since 16 games represents a full regular season's worth of games, let's see what his totals come to:
376-608 (61.8%), 4196 yds, 6.9 ypa, 31 td, 19 int, 86.3 rating
Yes, that's worse than his career regular season stat line (which you would expect, since he consistently faces very good defenses in the playoffs), but it's still pretty solid. The INTs are the key. If he doesn't throw picks, he's great. He just needs to keep the turnovers down and the Pats will almost certainly be fine.
Is it fair to say that, even without 01-04, Brady would be a borderline HOF player? He's led the league in yards twice, TDs twice, has had an impeccable TD/INT ratio, an amazing record, and guided his team to the Super Bowl twice.
Yes, the knock on him would be "no ring", but aside from that he's basically been better than anyone not named Manning or Brees. I'd argue he's been better than Rodgers.
Yes, the knock on him would be "no ring", but aside from that he's basically been better than anyone not named Manning or Brees. I'd argue he's been better than Rodgers.
Brady's playoff record through 2004 was unsustainable period. It was particularly so because after 2004, with the exception of 2007, the Pats teams have not been as good as they were in 2003-04. Did Brady contribute to this? Yes. Among other things, along with the team, he shit the bed in the 2005 playoff game in Denver, which was a pivot point of sorts. But you can't do it by yourself, even with a GOAT HC.
If you take away the rings, I'm not at all sure Brady is a HOF'er. Canton is tough. Bledsoe accumulated stats like a madman and won't get in.
I'd argue that the pressure on Manning should be greater on Sunday. The game is at home. Yes the Broncos are wounded, but the Pats are more so. And Brady is younger, with perhaps more time left in his career.
We're losing perspective. Give this Pats team to any other HC, and it probably would have been 9 and 7, 10 at 6 at the best, and probably not playing Sunday. Indeed, if you gave this injured squad to a lot of HCs, everything might well have come apart after Gronk went down.
If you take away the rings, I'm not at all sure Brady is a HOF'er. Canton is tough. Bledsoe accumulated stats like a madman and won't get in.
I'd argue that the pressure on Manning should be greater on Sunday. The game is at home. Yes the Broncos are wounded, but the Pats are more so. And Brady is younger, with perhaps more time left in his career.
We're losing perspective. Give this Pats team to any other HC, and it probably would have been 9 and 7, 10 at 6 at the best, and probably not playing Sunday. Indeed, if you gave this injured squad to a lot of HCs, everything might well have come apart after Gronk went down.
Disagree on the Bledsoe comparison. He threw for a lot of yards but otherwise his numbers are not particularly compelling. Take away the rings and Brady still has 2 league MVP awards, 2 first team All Pro awards and 9 pro bowls, plus he's currently:
-5th all time in completions
-7th all time in yards
-5th all time in TDs
-6th all time in passer rating
-2nd all time in interception percentage (only Rodgers is better, but he's played a fraction of the number of games as Brady).
And he probably still has 2-3 years left.
Plus he is still the only QB to ever be 100 games over .500 (if you want to use wins and losses as an individual stat). He's a no-brainer first ballot HOF QB even with zero rings.
-5th all time in completions
-7th all time in yards
-5th all time in TDs
-6th all time in passer rating
-2nd all time in interception percentage (only Rodgers is better, but he's played a fraction of the number of games as Brady).
And he probably still has 2-3 years left.
Plus he is still the only QB to ever be 100 games over .500 (if you want to use wins and losses as an individual stat). He's a no-brainer first ballot HOF QB even with zero rings.
I decided see how the "no ring" test would apply to the NFL's elite QBs of the SB era. So I subtracted out their SB wins to see what their W/L records was in years they did not win the ultimate prize.drleather2001 said:
For example in 11 post-seasons including the current season, Brady's post-season record is 18-7. If we subtract out his 9-0 SB record, he's 9-7.
John Elway in 9 post-seasons had a 14-7 record, subtract out his 7-0 SB seasons, he was 7-7 in the post-season.
Of the group that consisted of Brady, Manning (both P+E), Elway, Montana, Bradshaw, Aikman, Ben R., only TB12 has a winning record.
Brady 9-7
Elway 7-7
Ben R 3-4
Montana 4-7
Peyton 6-11
Aikman 2-4
Bradshaw 2-5
Eli 0-3
Now whether this approach prove TB's elite worthiness, or his consistency in the post-season, or just that Brady ability to knock-off tomato cans, is debatable, but its interesting to notice that no one other than Elway, approaches a winning record.
So if you take away the rings...
Id argue '10-'12 teams were all as good or (likely) better than the '03 team and almost as good as the '04 team. DVOA would make stronger arguments. That '04 team was a monster, the '03 team parlayed 8 one score victories into a very favorable playoff run (homefield, both games in adverse elements, drew the Panthers in the Super Bowl).dcmissle said:
Was looking through stats of that 2010 team last night. Holy shit is that a frustrated missed opportunity. They murdered just about everyone for 7 weeks, beat all of what would have been their playoff opponents during that stretch, and lost to the goddamn Sanchez Jets at home. No idea how BB had that team playing so well for most of that season perusing the roster.
dcmissle said:
I remember the awful end zone pick he threw to Champ Bailey that resulted in the famous Watson chasedown...but I mostly remember the Pats getting called for two or three absolutely bullshit PI calls that led to lots of points for the Broncos, not Brady blowing the game.
His stat line was pretty pedestrian 20 of 36 for 341 1 TD 2 INT but he was playing the game with a sports hernia...
edit: Looked at the game log, the Pats also fumbled three times that day.
I do think that in the eyes of many losing in the superbowl hurts your rep more than losing in the conference championship and possibly even in the divisional round. There are a fair number of posters and sports radio callers and commentators who say things like Brady hasn't won a big game since 2004 and point at the superbowl. Of course the people who say that are idiots--how you play in five conference championships and two superbowls without winning big games is beyond me--and their views should be mocked.
Pats only got called for one PI that game. You might be thinking of the regular season loss featuring a career ending performance from Duane Starks.Rico Guapo said:
Brady's INT played a big part, but Pats were up 3-0 with the ball at the two minute warning in the 2nd quarter and went to the half down 10-3 without Brady throwing a pass (two fumbles). That was a true team loss.
Bedard has a great column this week about the Pats and the running game and their last three playoff failures.
If they can run enough to get Denver to cheat the safeties up, that would be great.
One of the painful aspects of the Jets loss was they ran the ball great at the end of the game against the sub-defense but it was too late. That loss stinks but they were transitioning to the TE dominated offenses of 2011-12. Hernandez only had 1 catch in that game for 4 yards. Plus they were done in by Cotchery who has always killed them. Strange game they had the ball all day (34:56) and could not score.
If they can run enough to get Denver to cheat the safeties up, that would be great.
ShaneTrot said:
Colts tried to do the exact opposite of this. Sat in their base defense for most of the game and they were still burned by Blount/Ridley and the occasional play action pass. I would think the Broncos would attempt the Colts strategy and be better at stopping the run, though I'm not sure their best gameplan is sell out for the run and hope Brady doesn't kill you.
Going through the play-by-play of the Jets - Pats 2010 game is brutal. Has there been a dumber Patriots play in the BB era than the Chung fumble on the fake punt? It was 4th and 4 on the NE 38 in a 7-3 game with 1:06 left in the SECOND QUARTER. 4 plays later its 14-3 Jets going into the half. I try not to hate players but I despise Chung.
I was looking at some Broncos stats and holy crap they gave up a lot of points. Don't give me that "garbage touchdowns" excuse either. If teams are passing a lot to keep up or catch up they should be more predictable. Giving up 25 points per game when you know they are throwing is embarrassing. That means Denver can't stop the pass when they need to.
Perhaps the success rate of the Broncos stopping the run is due to only having to play the run for one quarter. Denver opponents run the ball only 39% of their plays which ranks fifth least. This is essentially the same defense that the Pats ran all over last year with Ridley and Bolden.
Perhaps the success rate of the Broncos stopping the run is due to only having to play the run for one quarter. Denver opponents run the ball only 39% of their plays which ranks fifth least. This is essentially the same defense that the Pats ran all over last year with Ridley and Bolden.
Eric Ampersand said:
This is a good point and something I was just looking into. Is the Broncos defense that much better at stopping the run, or are they just usually playing from ahead and the other team abandons it? I'm sure DVOA takes some of this into account and they are still pretty high on there, though I fully admit I'm not really informed on all the intricacies of DVOA.
The Pats are very balanced and (although this is pretty obvious) should go into this game with the plan of doing whatever the Broncos defense gives them. Base defense looking to stop the run early, come out passing trying to set up the run. If they start to play small (5 DBs) attack them with Ridley and Blount. Pretty much the opposite of the Chargers who decided we were going to run the ball whether Denver were set up to stop it or not (they were).
Brady and Aiken not spotted at the media portion of practice
Dobson and Ryan Allen were there
edit: 2nd by seconds!
Dobson and Ryan Allen were there
edit: 2nd by seconds!
Reiss also tweeted that Brady's regularly scheduled new conference today has been taken off the schedule. So, when do we start to panic?
Dobson being back, and Thompkins I assume practicing and ready to go, for this game would be pretty big. Otherwise I think DRC and Champ can matchup up pretty well on Amendola and Edelman. Would be great to have that third and fourth weapon to use against Chris Harris' backups.
What difference does it make who's the QB with LeGarrette Blount on the roster? Anyone with two hands can hand off to him.
Sorry, couldn't disagree more. First of all, Bledsoe is a ridiculous comparison. Brady's numbers relative to his peers are far better than Bledsoe's. As one example, Bledsoe finished in the top 10 for passer rating only 3 times on his career--and never higher than 6th. Brady finished in the top 10 11 times and was #1 twice.dcmissle said:
Brady sans rings is much more like Kelly, Marino, Fouts, and Moon, all of whom are in Canton with 0 rings between them.
It again depends on what is meant by excluding 2001-2004. If its Brady with his regular season stats the same but not getting a ring from '01-'04, he's likely in.. If its Brady starting his career in '05 as a second year quarterback (like he started his actual career) and three years younger, then he's likely to end up in. If its Brady sitting on the bench until '05 and then playing, he's got some work to do.
I'm not sure I agree with this (as noted above, both of their legacies are pretty secure), but in terms of how they compare head to head, this is pretty important for both. For most of their careers, Brady was the guy who got the big wins, Manning got the stats and the awards. This was especially true when they last met...Brady had 3 super bowl wins in his first 5 seasons, Manning had a bunch of records, 3 straight All Pro nods, and a couple of MVPs. Then, Manning won a Super Bowl, Brady got a couple of MVPs, and here we are.SemperFidelisSox said:
If Manning beats Brady and goes on to win another Super Bowl, there will be few national people who will continue to argue Brady is better. A 3-2 edge in super bowls isn't massive, especially when Manning will have 2 since Brady's last win (the rest of Brady's playoff and regular season success won't matter much in this argument), and Manning will be the guy who ends up with all the records, and a big 5-2 edge in MVPs. On the other hand, if Brady beats Manning and goes on to win another Super Bowl, the original narrative (Manning has the numbers, Brady has the wins) will be confirmed. If either QB wins the Super Bowl this year, their GOAT argument will be pretty strong. In that sense, both players need this game for their legacy.
One caveat: If Manning wins this game and loses in the Super Bowl, his legacy won't be improved much. If Brady wins this game and loses in the Super Bowl, he'll still have that huge Super Bowl edge, and will have more Super Bowl starts than any player in history, and will go down as having owned his matchup with Manning.