They were going for a perfect season and were supposed to win that game by 40 points. I say it was a huge loss.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
NFL Football 2010/2011 Season
- Thread starter rhett7660
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
The thing I didn't understand is why Bellicheck didn't make changes from the last game of the season where the Giants started to find kinks in the armer. The Giants made that game closer than it should have been and when it came to the Superbowl they kept pounding and really out gamed the Pats.
I think they played not to lose because the moment was so big
If they had played loose, they win going away
But they were tight from the get go and just tried to survive till the gun, and almost did
And even so, if the officials had called the holding, it would be a moot point now
I should clarify that the Pats loss in the SB was not a huge point differential, but more that the Pats didn't put up what most of us expected to be big points.
I don't care about Manning's late drive. What is more shocking is that the Pats didn't put at least 30 points on the board, that's all I am saying. It was a choke in that respect.
I don't care about Manning's late drive. What is more shocking is that the Pats didn't put at least 30 points on the board, that's all I am saying. It was a choke in that respect.
Hard to do that when Brady spent the entire game on his back/running for his life. Pats had no answer for the Giant's pass rush that day. I'm surprised that he wasn't carried off the field on a stretcher..The Giant's opening drive was almost ten minutes long. That set the tone for the game..
Pretty much. It took way too long for them to adapt to the shotgun and solve that pass rush. Awful game planning and play calling. Thats what cost them the game.
If the Pats make it to the SB this time, there is no way they will make those same mistakes. While I thought the Jets were the threat in the division against the Pats, the only AFC threat I see is the Steelers, but then only on a good day.
Where the Pats could come into trouble is GB (if Rodgers the highest rated QB in NFL history is healed), Philly (if Vick decides to have a good day and not a dog, no pun intended), N.O. of course as they are still relevant on many levels, the Bears (who will have modified their game by then to improve on an already great season), and definitely Atlanta who seem nearly perfect in every way. Right now, for an NFC team, it's Atlanta's to lose and they have won 7 in a row, and many from good teams.
And it's appearing that it's the Pats to lose for the AFC but I can't say that with the same authority when they were undefeated at this time a few years ago and when they finished with a perfect regular season.
Atlanta, New Orleans, and the Patriots will be favs to win the SB but only if they blow it for themselves. With Atlanta avoiding penalties and Brady avoiding interceptions, the pressure this week is on those two teams.
I will also keep a close eye on the two teams from Pennsylvania. If their game plans tighten up and they play to their potential but play smart utilizing strict ball control and hogging the clock, we can see an all-Pennsylvania Super Bowl not unlike when the SF 49ers went against the SD Chargers and we had an all-California classic.
Forecasters calling for a nor'easter rolling in here during the day on Sunday. Could be another snow game. Around here in December, there's no place like home when it comes to watching football..
6x pro bowl,
36,000 yards passing,
and too many TDs to count.
Great HoF stuff there.
Only one thing, he didn't get those numbers overnight. We have to face he's past his prime. What makes any of you think this great QB is supposed to last longer than other great QBs like Aikman who left football around that age?
He's 34 years old, has spent many years the target of big assasins on defense paid well to get QBs, and also this isn't golf, folks.
Favre has shown us that QBs in their second half of their 30s who were great in their 20s will only disappoint us 9 times out of 10. Old QBs with that many pro bowl picks may (and it's just a guess) think that somehow father time and physics doesn't apply to them. That and making millions could make one think they belong in the NFL into their middle aged years.
We have seen the very sad fact of aging in a young sport happen with Montana getting benched when he declined, Marino playing too long, possibly Warner playing too long, and most visibly with Favre and his ego not seeing what everybody else sees.
McNabb is through, and though job well done in the NFL, it's time for younger people to do his job in Washington. P. Manning will be next, followed by Brady and those two will join McNabb in the Hall of Fame. It appears impossible for McNabb to get another ring, it's looking worse by the week for Manning, and only 1970s born Tom Brady has any chance at a ring.
McNabb's impact on football was no small thing as even out here in San Francisco, people still sport Philly McNabb jerseys. The number 5 is more associated with him than any sports figure I can think of.
Oh, and the old man has 3,400 yards rushing with 28 touchdowns. Not bad.
Last edited:
^^^^
I think he is still a pretty good QB when you consider some of the starters in the league right now. Not great, but good. But the point is, why sign him to a multi year high dollar contract only to bench him a month later and say he may not be on your roster the next season?
Sounds like a front office that doesn't know its ass from a hole in the ground to me
I think he is still a pretty good QB when you consider some of the starters in the league right now. Not great, but good. But the point is, why sign him to a multi year high dollar contract only to bench him a month later and say he may not be on your roster the next season?
Sounds like a front office that doesn't know its ass from a hole in the ground to me
^^^^
I think he is still a pretty good QB when you consider some of the starters in the league right now. Not great, but good. But the point is, why sign him to a multi year high dollar contract only to bench him a month later and say he may not be on your roster the next season?
Sounds like a front office that doesn't know its ass from a hole in the ground to me
Signing a 34 year old QB to a multi-year contract is foolish, no matter who it is.
Heck, with that type of thinking, let's keep Favre in the league another couple of years. He's technically better than the Raiders or 49ers starters for sure.
No, I don't want to go there and talk about Bay Area football, and if you mention it, I will change the topic to baseball (Giants WS, A's and the Godzilla). 
I hope it will be a Falcons - Patriots Super Bowl
The Saints and Steelers are probably the next best in their respective Conferences
But I don't think anyone wants to play the Eagles in the NFC playoffs
And I don't think they want to see the Bolts in the AFC playoffs
The Giants and Ravens have their moments, but they need to step it up
The Saints and Steelers are probably the next best in their respective Conferences
But I don't think anyone wants to play the Eagles in the NFC playoffs
And I don't think they want to see the Bolts in the AFC playoffs
The Giants and Ravens have their moments, but they need to step it up
Anything less than the Patriots for the Falcons would be a boring game, imho. Even then I still don't think the Pats could take on the Falcons. It's possible that in another few weeks the only team that could beat the Falcons is, well, the Falcons. This seemed the case when the Cowboys were the power in the NFL and nobody in the AFC stood a chance. I will be more sure of this though if Atlanta wins their remaining games.
If the Bolts, Ravens, or Steelers went against the Falcons, it would be a clear runaway game for the NFC, especially if it's those first two teams. For all of us out in California, it would be a nice surprise to see San Diego win the Super Bowl. They definitely have the best QB in rating, next to Rodgers, in all of the NFL but not the same weapons (or as deep) as Atlanta, New Orleans, or the Falcons have.
A dream scenario is if SD plays well for the remainder of the season, then beats an AFC rival (like NY Jets) who is much better in the playoffs, then wins in the AFC championships against a much better team (like Patriots), and then beats Atlanta in the Super Bowl. Outside of Rivers who is as good as any QB, it would be a totally unexpected season for the team. I can't see SD doing this, but stranger things have happened in past playoff seasons.
My 49ers looked like they could have had some chance at salvaging a season, but then SD just put a hit on them. It's possible that SD is in their peak right now and getting better.
Last edited:
i'm going to put this one up for debate: the saints, who are now 10-3, will likely be the #5 seed and have to travel to the nfc worst winner, who right now is the 6-7 rams. i heard someone on radio suggested that the saints get the home game because they have a better record, and shouldn't have to travel to see a 7-9 team that was dreadful and get screwed. should the nfl change the home field rules in these types of cases? should it only be if teams fail to reach .500? i want to get some debate on this.
personally, i think they should change it, at least in the part about sub-.500 teams. 7 win teams don't host 13 win teams in playoffs. 7 win teams are thinking about the draft, unless you're in the nfc worst, the worst division of all time, even outmatching the 2005 nl worst. (actually, sub-.500 teams wouldn't be in the playoffs at all). it's unbelievable that the cardinals and 49'ers are still alive, even though they will finish under .500.
in other nfl news, the falcons, steelers and jaguars are in with wins. colts could be finished if they lose sunday, which means peyton's place in the playoffs is cancelled.
personally, i think they should change it, at least in the part about sub-.500 teams. 7 win teams don't host 13 win teams in playoffs. 7 win teams are thinking about the draft, unless you're in the nfc worst, the worst division of all time, even outmatching the 2005 nl worst. (actually, sub-.500 teams wouldn't be in the playoffs at all). it's unbelievable that the cardinals and 49'ers are still alive, even though they will finish under .500.
in other nfl news, the falcons, steelers and jaguars are in with wins. colts could be finished if they lose sunday, which means peyton's place in the playoffs is cancelled.
I would favor a rule that says a team has to have a winning record to host a home game. Heck, I would favor a rule that says a team has to have a winning record period to get in the playoffs whether they win a division or not. Even the NCAA requires a certain number of wins to be Bowl eligible.
The Saints could still win the South though. The Falcons are not a lock.
Why bother, soon they will have enough bowls for each school.
If you have a weak division so be it, the team won the division so it gets to host a home game. Do you want to give the wild card team home field because they might have a better record?
I agree about the bowls, we need less rather than more... much less
My Dawgs don't deserve a bowl at 6-6, but there they are
In college it gives them extra practice they would not have been allowed to have
Yes, I think a 12 or 13 win Saints team deserves a home game over 7-9 West winner. I understand the "they won their division" argument. The though I am suggesting is ONLY if they have a losing record, not if they are 8-8 or better.
You are right.
Oops, my bad. He's been around for so long I thought he had at least one. Anyway his career stats are impressive, he's done a good job, but now he's old and in decline and it's a good year to retire. In that age range of 34, maybe 35-ish is usually a good time for most NFL QBs to leave the sport if not earlier.
Any older, then it usually shows that he is no longer the same player and should retire. This is when fans start pleading with the player to hang it up. Outside of kickers, I can't think of many players who should play into their mid-30s and smart teams should always be bringing up new talent. Keeping an eye on the future is what keeps a team good year after year and mostly in the W column for more than a decade.
I think if he had a chance at an SB ring, it had already passed. The only thing he can do is to add numbers to his impressive stats, but like Favre would probably add numbers to his likely hall of fame induction but not realistically help any team in the process. At this point, and for at least five years, Favre has been adding numbers to his stats but not with what appeared to be the intention of helping the team or coach he was working with. One can almost sense the ego taking over. His earlier, more productive years in Green Bay where he went to two Super Bowls was when he was much more of a team player. That mid-90s Packers team was a well oiled machine with other strong weapons besides Favre. This kept him humble.
Warner did the classy thing and retired as did other great players like Barry Sanders who left while he was still great, but no longer on the rise. It's best to quit while one is ahead, and preferably after winning a Super Bowl, if possible.
For instance, if I were Brady or Peyton Manning and I won the Super Bowl this year or next, I would find it a great time to exit the NFL. Brady would have 4 rings and 5 SB appearances, and Manning would have 2 rings and 3 appearances and passing numbers unseen by any QB outside of Favre in the NFL right now.
Who wants to see a 40 year old Manning or Brady out there? And what shape will those teams be in when those two are starters into their late-30s or 40 and then retire? A new team would have to develop around a new QB and those teams would be in the NFL doghouse for five to ten years. This is what happened to the 49ers after the long run of Montana and Young and what seemed like a default winner every season, until it wasn't and then the team was put into a rebuilding phase. Hopefully, if a team plays it right, at worst a rebuilding phase should not be any less than an 8-8 season.
What can make the Patriots or Colts have a two decade type of dominance in the NFL like the old school Cowboys is if 1) they have a good backup set of coaches first and foremost, and then, 2) groom a QB as good if not better than a Brady/Manning. When SF had Montana, his rating numbers were through the ceiling and when Young took over as starter, not only did he match Montana's ratings, he surpassed them. This is what the Patriots and Colts have to shoot for and there is still time to look to the future while maintaining winning teams. Indy will probably have an OK season and the Patriots, if they never win one more, have had a great season.
As for other classy exits were the Bus from the Steelers after his Super Bowl win and Elway after his second Super Bowl win. Yes, there were some who wanted to see "one more", but as it turned out it was for the better to leave an ultimate winner.
Last edited:
Hate to break it to you, but Brady isn't retiring any time soon. He's said numerous times that he loves the game and wants to play until he's 40. In 2-3 years, Belichick is going to draft his replacement, and then he'll have a few seasons learning under Brady before he retires. This is essentially the same thing the Packers did with Rodgers. The only difference is I don't see Brady pulling a Brett Favre. Once he retires, he'll be done. He won't unretire and reretire 5 times.
- Status