PDA

View Full Version : WHEW!!!


Amnorix
09-09-2004, 10:23 PM
Well, off to bed for me, but I'll respond further in this thread tomorrow if anyone cares to discuss it.

1. Having the tie-breaker in hand against Indy is HUGE down the road, IMHO.

2. Indy is better than I thought.

3. If the Pats run defense isn't better than what it looked like for portions of that game, we're gonna relive 2002 all over again.

4. I **LOVE** our new punter and Corey Dillon.

5. Some, no doubt, will stupidly call it luck. But to me, if you beat the same team 3 times within one calendar year, in your house and their house, then there really isn't a helluva lot left to talk about in terms of which team is better on *most* "given Sundays".

6. Indy goes to Tennessee next week. They could easily start the season 0-2.

Did I mention -- whew!

dirk digler
09-09-2004, 10:25 PM
Your team maybe the SB Champs but your D sucks. Great game though.

cdcox
09-09-2004, 10:26 PM
Willie! Willie!

Indy's defense did not look like a total disaster. Their offense looked as good as ever, except for the tunovers and the final sack.

KcMizzou
09-09-2004, 10:26 PM
Congrats on the win, man.

alanm
09-09-2004, 10:26 PM
I've yet to see the game I'm posting from school. But I guess N.E. won. Seems like they have the Colts number. Colts are just intimidated by New England.

morphius
09-09-2004, 10:27 PM
Well, if you can call the Chiefs wins lucky last year, this pretty much fits the mold perfectly...

the Talking Can
09-09-2004, 10:28 PM
your D will improve I'm sure...but you miss Washington big time and teams are going to run it down your throat until you stop it (like us)

Brady looked awesome....but you did get lucky with Edge fumbling twice, they could have scored almost 40 on you

anyways, congrats....you won, and that's all that matters

wazu
09-09-2004, 10:29 PM
7. Rodney Harrison is a cheapshotting scumbag, and if he is on the receiving end of a crippling injury caused by a late hit someday it will be a great justice for all mankind.

KcMizzou
09-09-2004, 10:30 PM
7. Rodney Harrison is a cheapshotting scumbag, and if he is on the receiving end of a crippling injury caused by a late hit someday it will be a great justice for all mankind. Karma.

As for #6, I hope you both lose next week. :D

HolmeZz
09-09-2004, 10:36 PM
Indy's not better than you thought. Your Pats just aren't as good as you think. That defense is a far cry from what it was last year, and if you guys played like this on most nights, you'd lose. You guys needed 3 red zone turnovers and a missed FG to win.

If I was a Pats fan, I wouldn't be all that excited with what I saw from my team. Your offense looked good, but I'd even take our defense before I'd take Indy's. Your defense took a huge step back though. You're lucky y0u've got the schedule you got.

KcMizzou
09-09-2004, 10:38 PM
Indy's not better than you thought. Your Pats just aren't as good as you think. That defense is a far cry from what it was last year, and if you guys played like this on most nights, you'd lose. I don't know about that. They played against a pretty damned good offense tonight.

Count Zarth
09-09-2004, 10:38 PM
Tom Brady is a master. The comparisons to Joe Montana are deserved. There is no QB I'd rather have on the Chiefs.

Also Deion Branch is going to be a good receiver. Reminds me of Andre Rison.

HolmeZz
09-09-2004, 10:41 PM
I don't know about that. They played against a pretty damned good offense tonight.

And that offense tore them up.

I'm not talking about losing if they played like this against like the Cardinals. I mean like the playoffs.

KcMizzou
09-09-2004, 10:45 PM
And that offense tore them up.

I'm not talking about losing if they played like this against like the Cardinals. I mean like the playoffs. You're probably right about that. You said "if you guys played like this on most nights, you'd lose" I assumed you meant in most games. The Colts have an offense that is MUCH better than average... They wont face many better offensive teams. (except, of course, the Chiefs.) :D

cdcox
09-09-2004, 10:47 PM
And that offense tore them up.

I'm not talking about losing if they played like this against like the Cardinals. I mean like the playoffs.

Like we did any better last time we played the Colts. Matter of fact, I think we managed to do a lot worse. No way can we talk this smack against the SB champs who have twice held this team to far fewer points than we allowed last time we played them. Unbelievable.

Chiefs Pantalones
09-09-2004, 10:47 PM
Tom Brady is a master. The comparisons to Joe Montana are deserved.

You're retarded.

Don't even mention him in the same sentence with Montana until he gets 4 SB wins and 3 SB MVPs, or at least until his career is over with.

HolmeZz
09-09-2004, 10:47 PM
Even so, the Colts do most of their offense through the air, but the Pats had problems stopping them on the ground.

And there are much better running teams than Indy.

Miles
09-09-2004, 10:49 PM
Even so, the Colts do most of their offense through the air, but the Pats had problems stopping them on the ground.

And there are much better running teams than Indy.

Depends if Edge is really back to his old form like he looked tonight. If so, with their passing game opening up the run, they could easily be one of the top rushing teams in the league.

38yrsfan
09-09-2004, 10:52 PM
Very entertaining game .... thought NE was fortunate to pull it out though ... took another missed FG to do it. Indy must be sore with all those gunshot wounds to the foot.

Was pathetic hearing Madden reference the FG against the Raiders as one of the greatest ... glad the Raiders lost but it was more like the last election - an "official" decision and a homefield snowblower - great sportsmanship.

Sure-Oz
09-09-2004, 10:53 PM
Congrats on the W, Colts choked that game away, could've been a blow out. W is a W though!

HolmeZz
09-09-2004, 10:56 PM
Like we did any better last time we played the Colts. Matter of fact, I think we managed to do a lot worse. No way can we talk this smack against the SB champs who have twice held this team to far fewer points than we allowed last time we played them. Unbelievable.

I don't get why you'd compare their defense to our defense. I was simply saying that NE's strength is their defense, and it looked bad tonight. Comparing our defense to their's is like comparing their offense to ours. Sh0uldn't be done.

Count Zarth
09-09-2004, 11:07 PM
You're retarded.

Don't even mention him in the same sentence with Montana until he gets 4 SB wins and 3 SB MVPs, or at least until his career is over with.

Give Brady a chance first. He's only played 3 years in this league. He's got 2 SBs and 2 SB MVPs in that span. Jeez.

Tom Brady is the first QB since Joe Montana that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy. I want KC to trade for him when he's old and crusty.

cdcox
09-09-2004, 11:09 PM
I don't get why you'd compare their defense to our defense. I was simply saying that NE's strength is their defense, and it looked bad tonight. Comparing our defense to their's is like comparing their offense to ours. Sh0uldn't be done.

So if KC doesn't put up 40 points against Denver Sunday night we can definitely conclude our offense sucks?

KcMizzou
09-09-2004, 11:09 PM
Give Brady a chance first. He's only played 3 years in this league. He's got 2 SBs and 2 SB MVPs in that span. Jeez.

Tom Brady is the first QB since Joe Montana that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy. I want KC to trade for him when he's old and crusty. I don't know that I like him as much as you seem to. (heh) But he was damned impressive tonight. His accuracy was amazing... and he was great under pressure. I already thought he was good, but this game raised my opinion of him.

HolmeZz
09-09-2004, 11:15 PM
So if KC doesn't put up 40 points against Denver Sunday night we can definitely conclude our offense sucks?

I don't understand your logic.

My original point was that the Pats won't win the Super Bowl if this is how their D is going to play.

You responded by saying that their defense did better than ours did. And I agree.

I said that our defense doesn't have to play as good as NE's to win against Indy because our offense is better than the Pats.

Then you said that if we don't put up 40 against Denver, our offense sucks. I kinda got lost there.

Rausch
09-10-2004, 12:08 AM
Tom Brady is very Montana-esque.

He isn't flashy, he just does whatever's needed to win. And he keeps winning.

I hate him...

Count Zarth
09-10-2004, 12:12 AM
Tom Brady is very Montana-esque.

He isn't flashy, he just does whatever's needed to win. And he keeps winning.

I hate him...

At least he deserves the praise, unlike that two-bit hack named Plummer.

BigRedChief
09-10-2004, 12:26 AM
Either way, Indy or Pats..They both looked beatable..

ChiefFripp
09-10-2004, 12:32 AM
Damn Brady looked accurate. I can't wait to see Green shred the donkey's D.

Amnorix
09-10-2004, 06:26 AM
Your team maybe the SB Champs but your D sucks. Great game though.

Pats D allowed 30 to the Titans early last year too. Colts have a great offense. I'm pretty confident our defense will tighten up. (it had better...)

Amnorix
09-10-2004, 06:27 AM
your D will improve I'm sure...but you miss Washington big time and teams are going to run it down your throat until you stop it (like us)

Brady looked awesome....but you did get lucky with Edge fumbling twice, they could have scored almost 40 on you

anyways, congrats....you won, and that's all that matters

Hey thanks.

We had our share of lousy, "unlucky" plays too.

htismaqe
09-10-2004, 06:29 AM
Pats D allowed 30 to the Titans early last year too. Colts have a great offense. I'm pretty confident our defense will tighten up. (it had better...)

Did they allow almost 200 yards rushing?

Forget about everything else, the pass defense, the offense, everything.

If you're run defense doesn't get SIGNIFICANTLY better (as in 200% better) you're in for a long season.

Amnorix
09-10-2004, 06:29 AM
Indy's not better than you thought. Your Pats just aren't as good as you think. That defense is a far cry from what it was last year, and if you guys played like this on most nights, you'd lose. You guys needed 3 red zone turnovers and a missed FG to win.

If I was a Pats fan, I wouldn't be all that excited with what I saw from my team. Your offense looked good, but I'd even take our defense before I'd take Indy's. Your defense took a huge step back though. You're lucky y0u've got the schedule you got.

Frankly, you're being dumb.

The Pats gave up 30 to the Titans early last year too, and looked worse than the defense did last night.

The Colts have a GREAT offense. One of the top 2-3 in the game, easily.

As for the rest of your babblings, we'll see how the season plays out.

Amnorix
09-10-2004, 06:34 AM
Patriots with Brady at the helm:

35-12 in regular season
41-12 including playoffs
7-0 in overtime
6-0 in the playoffs
5-0 against Manning's Colts

And some people here are calling the Patriots lucky? :shake: :shake: :shake:

KingPriest2
09-10-2004, 07:20 AM
Frankly, you're being dumb.

The Pats gave up 30 to the Titans early last year too, and looked worse than the defense did last night.

The Colts have a GREAT offense. One of the top 2-3 in the game, easily.

As for the rest of your babblings, we'll see how the season plays out.


You see the D is overrated. They cannot stop a good O

202 yards rushing? Against one of the top Ds in their OWN YARD? That is embarassing.

dirk digler
09-10-2004, 07:21 AM
Pats D allowed 30 to the Titans early last year too. Colts have a great offense. I'm pretty confident our defense will tighten up. (it had better...)


I was really surprised how bad your run D was. I know Peyton can make alot of teams look bad but your porous run D was what surprised me.

KCTitus
09-10-2004, 07:24 AM
I appreciate Amno's attempt to stem the tide of 'your team didnt win as much as Indy lost that game'...

If it's not lucky, I guess I can say they're living a charmed life. There was a big ol' "L" lurking and fortunately for NE, Peyton and Edge managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

NE's defense totally unimpressive and so much for that Dillon signing...5 wide and 10 straight passes to start the game?

KingPriest2
09-10-2004, 07:28 AM
Frankly, you're being dumb.

The Pats gave up 30 to the Titans early last year too, and looked worse than the defense did last night.

The Colts have a GREAT offense. One of the top 2-3 in the game, easily.

As for the rest of your babblings, we'll see how the season plays out.

Yet you still gave up 34 points against the Colts late in the season as well. And 26 to the Broncos without Plummer.

In the Titans game you gave up only 70 yards rushing NOT 202 yards. You did give up 372 passing though you gave up over 250 tonite. I think you looked worse tonite

shakesthecat
09-10-2004, 07:31 AM
Entertaining game.

Neither teams D looked very good, and NE's looked like it's taken a few steps back.

OTOH, NE got crushed in last years opening game, so I'm not ready to shovel dirt on them quite yet.

King_Chief_Fan
09-10-2004, 07:33 AM
Patriots with Brady at the helm:

35-12 in regular season
41-12 including playoffs
7-0 in overtime
6-0 in the playoffs
5-0 against Manning's Colts

And some people here are calling the Patriots lucky? :shake: :shake: :shake:

Not to contradict my Chiefs brethern, but I don't consider the Pats lucky.
Good teams find a way to win. The blitz that knocked the Colts out of field goal range was the play of the game.
Good teams find a way to win.

ROYC75
09-10-2004, 07:36 AM
Only watched the 1st half, how did the 5 yrd LOS penalty rule affect the game ?

King_Chief_Fan
09-10-2004, 07:39 AM
Only watched the 1st half, how did the 5 yrd LOS penalty rule affect the game ?

not at all

StcChief
09-10-2004, 07:39 AM
Your D better tighten up or your done.

Missed FGs and Redzone turn overs aren't going let Pats win every week.

Brady did look good.

Indy and Pats look beatable.

Brock
09-10-2004, 07:54 AM
You're retarded.

Don't even mention him in the same sentence with Montana until he gets 4 SB wins and 3 SB MVPs, or at least until his career is over with.

STFU, moron. Brady already has 2 super bowls, and I doubt he'll stop there.

Chiefnj
09-10-2004, 08:03 AM
Very good teams find ways to win, even when they are playing poorly. That's what the Patriots did. That's why they've won 2 Super Bowls.

There is nothing embarassing or bad about getting a win against a playoff caliber team.

tiptap
09-10-2004, 08:04 AM
Did they allow almost 200 yards rushing?

Forget about everything else, the pass defense, the offense, everything.

If you're run defense doesn't get SIGNIFICANTLY better (as in 200% better) you're in for a long season.

We may be seeing how this season may run. Offense rules with the new enforcement of the passing chucking. Teams win with great passing offenses (both teams last night) and the Pats were built to stop passing offenses. Their 3-4 look is meant to stop the passing game. And it came through on that last play sacking Manning. But . . .
You can have success against a 3-4 if you can run right at the defense. That is what Indy did last night. This team missed Washington last night in the middle. I gather Wolford will get better but like for the Chiefs, every team is going to try to run right at the defense and when they try to help out with the secondary than pass for big gains. Buffalo and New York will be much harder this year. Miami is too predictable. Luckily the cross division games are winnable.

Brock
09-10-2004, 08:06 AM
We may be seeing how this season may run. Offense rules with the new enforcement of the passing chucking.

There didn't appear to be any more penalties called last night than there have been in the past.

Amnorix
09-10-2004, 08:14 AM
You see the D is overrated. They cannot stop a good O

202 yards rushing? Against one of the top Ds in their OWN YARD? That is embarassing.

The "D" last year was terrific. Whether it can perform at that level again this year is another question.

Yes it is, but I'm pretty confident it will be fixed. By the end of the season last year, people weren't running it down our throats at all. We'll see if we can fix the problem. If not, we're in trouble.

Hoover
09-10-2004, 08:15 AM
First off let me say thats a huge win for the Pats. Talk about a hard game to open with....

A win is a win.

Pats Offense: Looked good, I thought Brady looked better than ever. I really think the addition of Dillon will help a lot. Its not the yards or TDs he gets, its the fact that he will make tom Brady even better.

Defense: You guys got ran over, and would have lost thatt game if it were not for the 2 turnovers in the first half by indy when they were driving for points. Your LBs are old, and are fine but I don't think they are going to play as well behind your rebuilt D line, they will miss Washington big time. That said, I think they will get better as the season continues.

Amnorix
09-10-2004, 08:16 AM
I appreciate Amno's attempt to stem the tide of 'your team didnt win as much as Indy lost that game'...

If it's not lucky, I guess I can say they're living a charmed life. There was a big ol' "L" lurking and fortunately for NE, Peyton and Edge managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

NE's defense totally unimpressive and so much for that Dillon signing...5 wide and 10 straight passes to start the game?

The 5 wide was because Indy has mediocre DBs and had injuries during preseason, so their DBs corps was very suspect.

We'll see if our defense can get better. I'm pretty confident it will.

I'm sorry, but honestly -- we beat the Colts 3x in the last year, once at their house and twice at ours. Last year they went in and smoked you guys in your own house, and beat up on just about everyone else in the league. Why am I supposed to feel bad that we didn't win by 30 or something? :shrug:

Amnorix
09-10-2004, 08:18 AM
Yet you still gave up 34 points against the Colts late in the season as well. And 26 to the Broncos without Plummer.

In the Titans game you gave up only 70 yards rushing NOT 202 yards. You did give up 372 passing though you gave up over 250 tonite. I think you looked worse tonite

26 to the Broncos, WHEN TED WASHINGTON AND RICHARD SEYMOUR WERE OUT, and a whole bunch of other guys were hobbled. Our starters lost 103 man-games to injuries, and three of our premier run-stuffers were out of that game (also Ted Johnson).

The Titans couldn't rush on us at all, but they threw the ball all over the yard and our DBs looked like bozos.

Not to mention that THIS defense is NOT the same as last year's defense.

At some point, is the Patriots 35-12 W-L record under Brady going to sink into your brain?

Amnorix
09-10-2004, 08:19 AM
Your D better tighten up or your done.

Missed FGs and Redzone turn overs aren't going let Pats win every week.

Brady did look good.

Indy and Pats look beatable.
How did Indy and the Chiefs look last year when they played each other?

How did the two best teams in the NFL -- Pats/Cats, look in the SB when they played each other.

Welcome to parity.

Welcome to reality where good teams can make other good teams look pretty damn average...

Agreed that our defense needs to get better. DEFINITELY agree with that.

KCTitus
09-10-2004, 08:26 AM
I'm sorry, but honestly -- we beat the Colts 3x in the last year, once at their house and twice at ours. Last year they went in and smoked you guys in your own house, and beat up on just about everyone else in the league. Why am I supposed to feel bad that we didn't win by 30 or something? :shrug:

I didnt say you had to feel bad, but this thread cries out: "hey dont call the pats lucky even though they pulled one out of their arse"...

Maybe it's just my reading of the seed post.

Im not sure I follow the logic about what Indy did to KC as if that has some bearing on this game from last night...

We could play that game ad naseum if you wanted, and I could retort with how KC played against Buffalo on Sunday night and how badly Buffalo thrashed the Pats on week 1 last year...but I'm not going to because it really is meaningless.

vckcchiefs04
09-10-2004, 08:29 AM
Great game..... Indy has it won if James could hold on to the ball..... Pats will be fine I think..... just have to fix a couple of defensive hole that poped up...... also, seems like the Pats have a few injuries that could hang around this year.

Mr. Kotter
09-10-2004, 08:30 AM
Congrats on a nice victory.... :thumb:

Enjoy your next four weeks of "byes".... :banghead:

KingPriest2
09-10-2004, 08:40 AM
26 to the Broncos, WHEN TED WASHINGTON AND RICHARD SEYMOUR WERE OUT, and a whole bunch of other guys were hobbled. Our starters lost 103 man-games to injuries, and three of our premier run-stuffers were out of that game (also Ted Johnson).

The Titans couldn't rush on us at all, but they threw the ball all over the yard and our DBs looked like bozos.

Not to mention that THIS defense is NOT the same as last year's defense.

At some point, is the Patriots 35-12 W-L record under Brady going to sink into your brain?


Imjuries are part of the game. The Broncos, Colts and Titans had injuries as well so don't bring up that excuse. You even played the Browns they had 3 starting offensive lineman out and starting QB hurt. So don't bring up the injury bug it won't work.

The thing is the Pats feel they have a great D but they Don't I am not agruing there record all I am saying is the D is not as great as you think.

KingPriest2
09-10-2004, 08:43 AM
STFU, moron. Brady already has 2 super bowls, and I doubt he'll stop there.


And yet there were other players on the team that were more deserving of the MVP and yet they still gave it to Brady.


Mike Vrabel
M. Vrabel 4-2 2.0 0 1
M. Vrabel 1 1 1 1

He had 2 sacks, a INT, and a TD

and Vinatieri

No questions there.

Matt Helm
09-10-2004, 08:53 AM
I guess I have trouble with a Pat's fan spending an inordinate amount of time on Chiefs Planet (same goes for TJ).

You would think they would be at their home board singing their own praises.

It's not important, but when I post on sites (other than the NFL Forum) I feel "dirty" from having been in their house.

I guess that CP has the cleanest house in the league. Seems as if there are quite a few of the "opposing" teams kids on the playground here!!

el borracho
09-10-2004, 09:07 AM
I guess I have trouble with a Pat's fan spending an inordinate amount of time on Chiefs Planet (same goes for TJ).

You would think they would be at their home board singing their own praises.

It's not important, but when I post on sites (other than the NFL Forum) I feel "dirty" from having been in their house.

I guess that CP has the cleanest house in the league. Seems as if there are quite a few of the "opposing" teams kids on the playground here!!
Seriously, you have a problem with Amnorix? I have never seen him be anything other than courteous.

Maybe you should just put him on ignore if you don't like his posts.

Lord Bestyle
09-10-2004, 09:10 AM
The Colts had an avarage of 4.8 yards per carry! Oh, man, I can't wait for Nov. 22. Not facing the Pats last year ranks as one of 2003's disappointments in my books. Win or loss, I like seeing the Chiefs get tested against good teams.

PastorMikH
09-10-2004, 09:14 AM
Gotta say Amnorix, I thought your guys looked really good out there last night. Dillon is a big addition to a team that was already pretty good. Looks like you could have an enjoyable season. (Just don't get too upset when we ruin your playoffs;))

Rain Man
09-10-2004, 09:18 AM
I had to go to a business dinner last night and didn't get to see the game. I hate that.

Hoover
09-10-2004, 09:38 AM
I had to go to a business dinner last night and didn't get to see the game. I hate that.
Yeah, I had an fundraiser. So I had them start the program at 5:30 and people were saying "Hoov whats the rush?" Then when people left, I stayed in the room and watched the game on a kick ass flat screen and had some friends pop on by and we drank up the rest of the drinks and food from the event.

Soupnazi
09-10-2004, 09:52 AM
7. Rodney Harrison is a cheapshotting scumbag, and if he is on the receiving end of a crippling injury caused by a late hit someday it will be a great justice for all mankind.

Amen to that. He's a mutha ****a. I hate the bastard. He's single-handedly made me dislike the patriots. He's always border-line late to a play inserting a knee or a helmet into someone's back.

I saw last night he intentionally went down after Mannings knees from the side when he could've just shoved him out of bounds. I hope that he is carted off the field as a result of his spearing one day.

David.
09-10-2004, 10:16 AM
I think the Patriots are definitely beatable...but who in the nfl isn't? The chiefs had one of the worst D's ever last year and they went 13-3. I think teams like the Colts or the Chiefs or the Vikings are going to make a defense like NE look suspect, but that's true for all defenses. I hope the chiefs are "lucky" enough to beat the Colts by 3.

KingPriest2
09-10-2004, 10:20 AM
7. Rodney Harrison is a cheapshotting scumbag, and if he is on the receiving end of a crippling injury caused by a late hit someday it will be a great justice for all mankind.

I met one of his old coaches last night and he said he is a jerk to his old school. This guy said that Harrison had has college paid by him and others and never returned and gave back to the high school or college.

He told us some funny stories of him. One was they were in pratice and there was a 215 pound WR I think 2 years older then Harrison he was running his route and he was taken out at the knees by Harrison. Well this is a white guy He got up and raised up Harrison's helmet and started pounding the guy and calling him the black name He was getting his ass kicked. They got separated and Harrison told the guy Man I was taking him I could have kicked his ass. Yeah right.

He also said this guy was a bad ass as well. # 56 Edgerton Hartwell Of the Ravens.

ChiefsCountry
09-10-2004, 10:31 AM
Patriots seem to be a team that breaks fall there way. Like fumbles, and WTF Vanderjagt missing a field goal. Brady to Montana comparsions get old real quick. Brady is good, but not that good. Also the Chiefs will kill the Pats on Monday Night at Arrowhead.

ChiefsCountry
09-10-2004, 10:32 AM
I met one of his old coaches last night and he said he is a jerk to his old school. This guy said that Harrison had has college paid by him and others and never returned and gave back to the high school or college.

He told us some funny stories of him. One was they were in pratice and there was a 215 pound WR I think 2 years older then Harrison he was running his route and he was taken out at the knees by Harrison. Well this is a white guy He got up and raised up Harrison's helmet and started pounding the guy and calling him the black name He was getting his ass kicked. They got separated and Harrison told the guy Man I was taking him I could have kicked his ass. Yeah right.

He also said this guy was a bad ass as well. # 56 Edgerton Hartwell Of the Ravens.

Is this guy a Western Illinois homer?

Amnorix
09-10-2004, 10:35 AM
Imjuries are part of the game. The Broncos, Colts and Titans had injuries as well so don't bring up that excuse. You even played the Browns they had 3 starting offensive lineman out and starting QB hurt. So don't bring up the injury bug it won't work.

The thing is the Pats feel they have a great D but they Don't I am not agruing there record all I am saying is the D is not as great as you think.

EXCUSE ME -- YOU were the one that brought up us beating Denver because Plummer was hurt. I answered pointing out that MANY of our BEST defensive players were also hurt, and you answer that "injuries are part of the game . . . so don't bring up that excuse"?!?! :spock: WTF?!

If you want me to say that the 2001-2004 Patriots are not the '85 Bears or even the '00 Ravens, I'll agree with that.

Amnorix
09-10-2004, 10:38 AM
Seriously, you have a problem with Amnorix? I have never seen him be anything other than courteous.

Maybe you should just put him on ignore if you don't like his posts.

It's personal with him. He hates my politics, and therefore he hates me. I've also been contemptuous of his lack of intelligence, and (obviously) not afraid to say so.

I could care less about anyone's politics, but when people post stupid drivel, I'm compelled to point it out, and it drives him nutzoid...

KingPriest2
09-10-2004, 10:50 AM
EXCUSE ME -- YOU were the one that brought up us beating Denver because Plummer was hurt. I answered pointing out that MANY of our BEST defensive players were also hurt, and you answer that "injuries are part of the game . . . so don't bring up that excuse"?!?! :spock: WTF?!

If you want me to say that the 2001-2004 Patriots are not the '85 Bears or even the '00 Ravens, I'll agree with that.


Hold on the reason why I brought it up is you always brought it up last year.

Amnorix
09-10-2004, 10:56 AM
Hold on the reason why I brought it up is you always brought it up last year.

:doh!::doh!::doh!::doh!:

svuba
09-10-2004, 11:04 AM
Amnorix
Stop being so fair & reasonable
Your almost making it hard for me to hate the Media Darling Pats.......ALMOST!

Demonpenz
09-10-2004, 11:23 AM
I remember when montana won his second superbowl, people were saying, he is no Johnny U, i am sure people will be compared to brady long down the road

HolmeZz
09-10-2004, 12:04 PM
I like the "we were play a great offense" excuse the Patriots use when their D looks awful.

If you're really a great defense you should be able to shut down even the best offenses.

KingPriest2
09-10-2004, 12:14 PM
I like the "we were play a great offense" excuse the Patriots use when their D looks awful.

If you're really a great defense you should be able to shut down even the best offenses.


I know. WHenever they play great offenses they cannot stop them and they mostly played lower teir offenses last year.

Amnorix
09-10-2004, 12:38 PM
I like the "we were play a great offense" excuse the Patriots use when their D looks awful.

If you're really a great defense you should be able to shut down even the best offenses.

How 'bout this -- we're a great team.

Or do you think that 16 wins in a row (stretching back to last season and including playoffs) is mediocre?

Amnorix
09-10-2004, 12:41 PM
I know. WHenever they play great offenses they cannot stop them and they mostly played lower teir offenses last year.

"last year" -- that was the year we went 10-0 against teams with 10+ wins, right? First time in NFL history any team did that, right?

Just checking.

BTW -- NFL QBs with a lifetime winning % of at least .700: Montana, Staubach, Warner and Brady.

KingPriest2
09-10-2004, 12:55 PM
How 'bout this -- we're a great team.

Or do you think that 16 wins in a row (stretching back to last season and including playoffs) is mediocre?


ALl I am saying is the D is overrated.

I forgot to realize that you are too blind to see that.

ENDelt260
09-10-2004, 12:56 PM
6. Indy goes to Tennessee next week. They could easily start the season 0-2.

Works for me.

F*ck the Colts.

ENDelt260
09-10-2004, 12:59 PM
You're retarded.

Don't even mention him in the same sentence with Montana until he gets 4 SB wins

2 in 3 years sounds like a pretty good start.

HolmeZz
09-10-2004, 01:00 PM
How 'bout this -- we're a great team.

Or do you think that 16 wins in a row (stretching back to last season and including playoffs) is mediocre?

The only thing great about your team was your defense, and if your defense is no longer great, you're no longer a 'great' team.

You can talk about 16 wins in a row all you want, but this is a new year. You can act like you guys overmatched Indy last night, when in reality you needed 3 red zone turnovers and a missed field goal just to win by 3 points in your own stadium.

Amnorix
09-10-2004, 01:01 PM
ALl I am saying is the D is overrated.

I forgot to realize that you are too blind to see that.

:shrug: Okay. We'll see how this season plays out.

I've already stated that the Patriots '03 defense was not an all-time great defense like the '85 Bears or '00 Ravens or anything.

Amnorix
09-10-2004, 01:04 PM
The only thing great about your team was your defense, and if your defense is no longer great, you're no longer a 'great' team.

You can talk about 16 wins in a row all you want, but this is a new year. You can act like you guys overmatched Indy last night, when in reality you needed 3 red zone turnovers and a missed field goal just to win by 3 points in your own stadium.

I see. And how many points did YOUR great offense beat Indy by in your house last year again? Oh right -- they didn't.

I'll agree that this is a new year and it has yet to be determined how good or great we'll be THIS year, but it seems to me that beating one of the best teams last year -- one that kept all of it's star players and is considered by many a SB favorite, is a pretty good start to not sucking this year.

I'll point out that BOTH teams played sloppy. The Patriots ALSO had turnovers. The Patriots, as usual, however, overcame their mistakes, and when push came to shove, Indy CHOKED THE BIT once again.

The Patriots overcome problems. Their opponents do not.

Demonpenz
09-10-2004, 01:06 PM
I am fully convinced that dominant wins between two good teams are a thing from the past. Games are always going to be close with two top teams. It gets alittle old when the same people that say "Oh it took a miss by vanderjet to win" are the same ones say CHIEFS 13-3 when in fact about 7 of those wins were weak, like having to call on mort anderson for a gw field goal to the raiders at home

Mark M
09-10-2004, 01:07 PM
People have talked about how "lucky" the Pats are, but I'm a firm believer that teams make their own luck.

The Pats are a helluva TEAM -- they may not have what most pundits and fans consider "super stars," but most of the time they play sound, fundamental football and find a way to win. I have to give Billchek (sp? I know I spelled his name wrong) the credit for that. He just may go down as one of the best coaches in history if NE keeps it going.

Quite frankly, until someone else wins the Super Bowl, or until the Pats stumble to a losing record, they're the team to beat. Doesn't make me happy (I really don't the Pats that much -- never have), but that's just the sad fact of the matter.

However, it will be interesting to see how the Chiefs handle what appeared to be a suspect run defense. If the Pats don't get that fixed, they aren't going anywhere. I think every Chiefs fan can attest to that.

MM
~~:sulk: :arrow:

cdcox
09-10-2004, 01:09 PM
Another thing that is not like the '85 Bears or the '00 Ravens is that the Pats are QBed by a fellow named Brady, not some chump like McMahon or Dilfer. They are not a one-dimensional team, so they don't exactly have to have the best defense in the league to be very tough. I still consider them to be the team to beat in the AFC, until somebody proves otherwise on the field. Hopefully that will be KC in January.

ENDelt260
09-10-2004, 01:10 PM
WTF Vanderjagt missing a field goal.

A 48 yard field goal.

Amnorix
09-10-2004, 01:10 PM
Thank you Demonpenz and Mark M for your intelligent observations.

edit: and CDCox and ENDelt.

Demonpenz
09-10-2004, 01:11 PM
Dillon is going to be a decent pickup for the pats

Mark M
09-10-2004, 01:12 PM
Thank you Demonpenz and Mark M for your intelligent observations.

I bet you won't be posting that when Priest hangs 170 and 3TDs on that sorry assed run defense.

MM
~~:p

Demonpenz
09-10-2004, 01:14 PM
i hate the pats and i hate tom brady, but everytime i throws off his back foot across the field to find an open man, or bring his team back for a win, your going to be hearing about him all the time, so I just got used to it and accept the fact that he probably has another 2 or 3 good years in him and if he just keeps making smart throws, 10 years from now we will probably be ranking him in the 10 best qb's of all time

HolmeZz
09-10-2004, 01:15 PM
BUT IT'LL IMPROVE.

Demonpenz
09-10-2004, 01:15 PM
BUT IT'LL IMPROVE.

I have no doubt your posts will improve, hell they can't get any worse

ENDelt260
09-10-2004, 01:16 PM
I have no doubt your posts will improve, hell they can't get any worse
Nice.

Amnorix
09-10-2004, 01:18 PM
Dillon is going to be a decent pickup for the pats

I definitely think so. The Patriots will always be more pass oriented than run oriented, but we had the 12th most carries in the NFL last year (i.e. we stayed committed to running even though our run production was lousy).

Dillon will make Brady's play action passing much more effective as the defense needs to respect his ability to break one.

Frankly, I"m surprised/disappointed we didn't use Dillon more in the 4th quarter, especially once we were up by 10 points. Weis will say we're trying to do what was NOT expected. IMHO, he's outsmarting himself when he does that. It's fine to say that Brady got us the lead and that we trust him to keep the opposing offense off the field, but I'd rather have rammed Dillon down the mediocre Indy run-defense's throat...

HolmeZz
09-10-2004, 01:18 PM
I have no doubt your posts will improve, hell they can't get any worse

I was responding to Mark's post about the New England defense.

Amnorix
09-10-2004, 01:20 PM
I bet you won't be posting that when Priest hangs 170 and 3TDs on that sorry assed run defense.

MM
~~:p

If Priest hangs that on our defense, then we won't deserve to win, or to defend our title successfully.

We saw this scenario play out in '02, when KC exposed our run defense as terrible. We beat you guys, but then went into a 4 game slump that killed our season.

Hopefully, we can fix our run D problems that Indy showed. Having 10 days before playing Arizona and then being in the bye week will help us make whatever adjustments we need.

cdcox
09-10-2004, 01:25 PM
I definitely think so. The Patriots will always be more pass oriented than run oriented, but we had the 12th most carries in the NFL last year (i.e. we stayed committed to running even though our run production was lousy).

Dillon will make Brady's play action passing much more effective as the defense needs to respect his ability to break one.

Frankly, I"m surprised/disappointed we didn't use Dillon more in the 4th quarter, especially once we were up by 10 points. Weis will say we're trying to do what was NOT expected. IMHO, he's outsmarting himself when he does that. It's fine to say that Brady got us the lead and that we trust him to keep the opposing offense off the field, but I'd rather have rammed Dillon down the mediocre Indy run-defense's throat...

I figured that they didn't load up Dillon too much becasue there was no real backup with Faulk inactive. I suspect you will run Dillion more in the future.

morphius
09-10-2004, 01:25 PM
People have talked about how "lucky" the Pats are, but I'm a firm believer that teams make their own luck.

There is a bit of luck involved, I only brought up the luck aspect because he posted a thread a couple weeks back that the Chiefs were just lucky last year, which was a pretty BS thing to say and then not call this lucky was pretty hypocritical.

It is a given that the Pats are a good team, there is nobody who can really say otherwise now. Sure they had some major flaws last night, but it was just the first game, and against another good team.

Mark M
09-10-2004, 01:26 PM
If Priest hangs that on our defense, then we won't deserve to win, or to defend our title successfully.

We saw this scenario play out in '02, when KC exposed our run defense as terrible. We beat you guys, but then went into a 4 game slump that killed our season.

Hopefully, we can fix our run D problems that Indy showed. Having 10 days before playing Arizona and then being in the bye week will help us make whatever adjustments we need.

They'll get it fixed by then, but IMHO the loss of Washington was more than anyone thought. KC has shown they can run against some of the best defenses, and only time will tell if that trend will continue.

IMHO, the fact that it'll be Monday night, the crowd will be losing their freaking minds (myself included), and Priest has an extra burst missing last year could spell trouble for the Pats.

Of course, that all assumes that KC's defense has their shit together. Otherwise, Dillon and Brady will have a freaking field day.

MM
~~:arrow:

Amnorix
09-10-2004, 01:26 PM
I figured that they didn't load up Dillon too much becasue there was no real backup with Faulk inactive. I suspect you will run Dillion more in the future.

I think both that and the fact that Indy's DB's are weak, especially their 4th and 5th DBs, who were forced into the game when we went 4-5 wide...

Amnorix
09-10-2004, 01:29 PM
There is a bit of luck involved, I only brought up the luck aspect because he posted a thread a couple weeks back that the Chiefs were just lucky last year, which was a pretty BS thing to say and then not call this lucky was pretty hypocritical.

It is a given that the Pats are a good team, there is nobody who can really say otherwise now. Sure they had some major flaws last night, but it was just the first game, and against another good team.

There's always some luck involved in everything, that I will agree with.

I think the Chiefs "luck" last year was in getting to 13-3 partly on the strength of a relatively weak schedule. But a team can only play the schedule that it's given, and no one can take 13-3 away from you. If you'd had a more average schedule in terms of opposing team strength of schedule, I think you would've ended up AT WORST like 11-5. I'm not at all saying that your team wasn't very good. Hell, your offense would frighten anybody.

Mark M
09-10-2004, 01:30 PM
There is a bit of luck involved, I only brought up the luck aspect because he posted a thread a couple weeks back that the Chiefs were just lucky last year, which was a pretty BS thing to say and then not call this lucky was pretty hypocritical.

It is a given that the Pats are a good team, there is nobody who can really say otherwise now. Sure they had some major flaws last night, but it was just the first game, and against another good team.

I missed that thread.

But luck plays a part in damned near every game, doesn't it? Lucky that the wind was blowing a particular way, or that the refs didn't call pass interference, or that a tipped ball just happened to bounce into a defender's hands, etc. etc. etc.

However, other than the wind, the rest is a by-product of playing just within the rules, or being in the right spot to tip the ball and to catch that tipped pass, etc. etc. etc.

I could start bringing in chaos theory as well, but I don't smoke pot anymore and it'll make my head hurt ...

MM
~~:D

Demonpenz
09-10-2004, 01:30 PM
ahh even when it's talking about teams i hate, atleast it's football season ahhhh

Amnorix
09-10-2004, 01:31 PM
ahh even when it's talking about teams i hate, atleast it's football season ahhhh

I think we can all agree on that. HALLELUJAH!!!

Mark M
09-10-2004, 01:32 PM
ahh even when it's talking about teams i hate, atleast it's football season ahhhh
NO SHIT!!! :D :D :D

Well, I gotta run. Have a great weekend everyone, and ...

GO CHIEFS!!!

Soupnazi
09-10-2004, 01:46 PM
I think both that and the fact that Indy's DB's are weak, especially their 4th and 5th DBs, who were forced into the game when we went 4-5 wide...

A few thoughts from the game last night: 1. I've said it before, but the Pats have the most dominating unit of receivers in the league. There's simply not enough depth at DB for any team to consistently combat that formation. 2. Indy's D sucks worse that I remember. 3. I think Dillon's addition will end up being a wash. He doesn't look any better to me than your options last year, especially given the fact that you guys don't run often enough to allow him to get into a rhythm. 4. Your team definitely deserves some credit for getting done what they have over the last year, but god are they lucky. I mean between FG misses, interceptions, fumbles, muffed exchanges, the Pats run the luck equivalent of 50 straight reds on the roulette table. It's unreal to me. 5. I hate Rodney Harrison. 6. Brady's damn good. 7. Looking forward to the Chiefs beating the Pats later on this season. Personally, I'd rather deal with you all than the Colts in postseason.

Amnorix
09-10-2004, 01:51 PM
A few thoughts from the game last night: 1. I've said it before, but the Pats have the most dominating unit of receivers in the league. There's simply not enough depth at DB for any team to consistently combat that formation. 2. Indy's D sucks worse that I remember. 3. I think Dillon's addition will end up being a wash. He doesn't look any better to me than your options last year, especially given the fact that you guys don't run often enough to allow him to get into a rhythm. 4. Your team definitely deserves some credit for getting done what they have over the last year, but god are they lucky. I mean between FG misses, interceptions, fumbles, muffed exchanges, the Pats run the luck equivalent of 50 straight reds on the roulette table. It's unreal to me. 5. I hate Rodney Harrison. 6. Brady's damn good. 7. Looking forward to the Chiefs beating the Pats later on this season. Personally, I'd rather deal with you all than the Colts in postseason.
1. Yes. And rep to you for being the first to recognize that fact. We have the best group of no-name receivers in history, I think.

2. Nah, 'bout the same as last year. We rang their bell last year at about the same clip.

3. That 38 yard run Dillon had was completely beyond Antowain Smith's means. But I think his impact will be bigger in the pay action area than in actually running the ball. I do see your point, however, but I think he is an upgrade, even if it's only because of the THREAT he poses.

4. Why are 48 yard FG misses "lucky". Even for Vanderjagt that's hardly an easy kick. Why are interceptions and fumbles caused by a good, ball-hawking defense "lucky" when the Pats practice so hard to cause them?

5. I probably would too if he played for a rival.

6. Yep, damn straight.

7. Good luck with that, you'll need it. ;)

And the Chiefs may very well match up better against the Pats than Indy, I dunno.

Soupnazi
09-10-2004, 02:00 PM
4. Why are 48 yard FG misses "lucky". Even for Vanderjagt that's hardly an easy kick. Why are interceptions and fumbles caused by a good, ball-hawking defense "lucky" when the Pats practice so hard to cause them?


Don't get me wrong, not trying to tear your boys down. It reminds me a lot of the '97 Chiefs that went 13-3, almost always winning by a FG or a INT returned for a touch, or a block punt, a fumble at opportune times. They won a load of games where they didn't necessarily dominate. The difference is that the Pats won the SB, where the '97 Chiefs didn't.

Clearly, your D has created turnovers and does at times dominate an offense. I could point to last year's turnovers numbers generated by the Chiefs D, but you'd have a hard time arguing that it's cause they were an exceptionally good defense.

And Vanderjagt missing isn't the whole of my point. I think the Texans/Pats game last year summed it up best for me.

HolmeZz
09-10-2004, 02:03 PM
The INT was a brilliant play by Bruschi, but the fumbles were James' fault. You can't let go of the football twice like that, inside the red zone.

David.
09-10-2004, 02:06 PM
Don't get me wrong, not trying to tear your boys down. It reminds me a lot of the '97 Chiefs that went 13-3, almost always winning by a FG or a INT returned for a touch, or a block punt, a fumble at opportune times. They won a load of games where they didn't necessarily dominate. The difference is that the Pats won the SB, where the '97 Chiefs didn't.

Clearly, your D has created turnovers and does at times dominate an offense. I could point to last year's turnovers numbers generated by the Chiefs D, but you'd have a hard time arguing that it's cause they were an exceptionally good defense.

And Vanderjagt missing isn't the whole of my point. I think the Texans/Pats game last year summed it up best for me.

What happened?

Soupnazi
09-10-2004, 02:15 PM
What happened?
Oh god, it'd take forever to summarize. The game had more folds than an accordion, and it was just best characterized by back and forth great plays that ended up with strange outcomes. Seemed like the Texans did everything to win the game, but just couldn't finish. They INT'd Brady, ran it back to the 11 of NE, then fumbled when all they needed was a FG to win. Picked up a Brady fumble after a sack and ran it back, only to have the kicker miss a chip-shot. Just one of those games.
A net search will give you a better discussion than I can.

philfree
09-10-2004, 03:45 PM
I was not impressed at all by the Pats D. They gave up well over 400 yards of offense to the Colts. The Colts pretty much handed them the win. But I hate the Colts so it's all good :thumb:


PhilFree :arrow:

RedandGold
09-10-2004, 04:28 PM
I was not impressed at all by the Pats D. They gave up well over 400 yards of offense to the Colts. The Colts pretty much handed them the win. But I hate the Colts so it's all good :thumb:


PhilFree :arrow:


I was definitely expecting the Pats run D to be better than it was, but at least they were able to get Edge to cough up the ball when it counted.

My favorite play of that whole game was the McGinest sack at the end. Not only was it great to watch Manning get the shit knocked out of him, knocking him back for a 12-yard loss set the stage for the Vanderjagt miss.

I'm glad I stayed up to watch it!

:thumb:

Calcountry
09-10-2004, 05:44 PM
Like we did any better last time we played the Colts. Matter of fact, I think we managed to do a lot worse. No way can we talk this smack against the SB champs who have twice held this team to far fewer points than we allowed last time we played them. Unbelievable.
Best post on this thread. :thumb:

philfree
09-10-2004, 05:58 PM
That's not smack just the facts. The Pats are one of my least hated teams. I respect them but 436 yards or whatever it was is not good D.


PhilFree :arrow:

Count Zarth
09-10-2004, 06:24 PM
People need to give the Pats some friggin respect. They've more than earned it.