What if...

[PatsChamps6x]

IMO, Buffalo did what was expected, and focused on stopping the run. Brissett was limited in what he could do. A low scoring game was to be expected.

The only thing that surprised me was that Belichick & McDaniels essentially rolled out an offensive game plan similar to what they did vs Houston. While it caught Houston by surprise, I didn't think it would work against a team that was ready for it, (thus I wasn't expecting to see it used again in the same way).

The surprising thing (to me) is that they were still in the game until the fumble by Brissett.

In any case, while I'd prefer that they go 19-0, I'm pretty happy to be 3-1 without Brady. I think most Pats fans said they'd be happy with that before the season started.

I wonder if BB and JMD had fully expected Garoppolo to be ready to go on Sunday and had to backtrack to Brissett and the vanilla game plan when Garoppolo couldn't go.

 

[Jaric]

Huh? I was serious. Colts had no succession plan...oh, come on. Are you seriously telling me that your front office selected Painter to replace Manning? I know I called your team a bunch of bumblers earlier but even they couldn't have thought that Painter could continue the Colts winning ways.

Every team has bad days, as yesterday's Bills game attests, and a team could have a bad season, like the Steelers' 6-10 2004 effort, but since the realignment into the current divisions, the Colts averaged 11 wins per season, then won 2? By coincidence the year they had to replace Manning?
Yuh.

2002 10-6
2003 12-4
2004 12-4
2005 14-2
2006 12-4
2007 13-3
2008 12-4
2009 14-2
2010 10-6
2011 2-14

You almost got me to take the bait with this one you rascal you.

Edit: I can't find a better example of Brandolini's Principle* than the whole "colts tanked herp derp!" nonsense.


*- The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.

 

[Undertaker #59*]

I'll pop in there every now and again when you all get a little too silly, but it's been awhile.

A few more weeks like last week and I fully expect the torches and pitchforks to start organizing.

There are way too many roster issues (grigson) and performance issues (Pagano) for me to see this as anything other than an 8-8 team AT BEST. Pretty much the same issues we had in year one of the Grigson/Pagano era are still issues today. Our offensive line is still sketchy. Our defense is still terrible. We don't show up until the third quarter and we still can't run the ball for shit.

There is zero reason to believe any of these crippling issues will change under the current regime.

Do you still think the Colts will finish ahead of the Texans?

 

[O.Z.O.]

I wonder if BB and JMD had fully expected Garoppolo to be ready to go on Sunday and had to backtrack to Brissett and the vanilla game plan when Garoppolo couldn't go.

That would make sense to me and be entirely understandable.

 

[BostonTim]

"If ifs and butts were candy and nuts, every day would be Christmas"- BB

Tell that to Sanchez. :dbanana:


Cheers

 

[R+L=Negan]

I don't think anyone is saying Bill would "tank" on purpose. That would never happen. However there are many times the game plan wasn't the strongest and no adjustments were made.

Again it's the equivalent to Phil Jackson crossing his arms and legs while the players figure it out or dont.

Again and I know this sounds a little crazy but he can get more out of this L than he could with a 1 point W and players never "feeling" the heat. What's worse than losing to that bag of dumpster juice? :shrug_n: Nutkick

Bill gets to be "Bill" and tell them how much they suck and how not ready we are for the 2nd season etc.

And btw yesterday I think it was more a case of blown opportunities and laziness on defense. Everyone was over pursuing. Be aware of the opponent and wrap up. Enough with the rodeo and arm tackles. Shady and Taylor will make people miss every game but yesterday was just a poor showing in that aspect.

I said it as it happened, JB HAS to know the situation and circumstances there.

We left 17 on the board imo which gives a false sense of security. Yes we could have eek'd out a W but this team needs a Nutkick imo. Way too good and talented for that shit.

 

[Jaric]

Do you still think the Colts will finish ahead of the Texans?

It's possible. I mean, I wouldn't be betting anything I couldnt afford to lose on it

For the record, that's entirely based on general disdain for the Texans rather than any great faith the Colts pull their heads out of their asses.

 

[Big/Sky/Fly]

Remember that time the Colts went 2-14 when Manning sat out the year? I'm pretty sure it was at the close of that season that Luck was drafted, right? That was quite the coincidence.

"Suck For Luck"...I wonder if Irsay patented that phrase?

They could also patent their revised version: "We Still Suck With Luck"...

 

[Jaric]

"Suck For Luck"...I wonder if Irsay patented that phrase?

They could also patent their revised version: "We Still Suck With Luck"...

I think you mean "trademark."

Like how the Patriots tried to trademark 19-0...

 

[PatsFanLisa]

I'm sure you'll also recall how many Patriots fan yelled obscenities at us over the alleged "cheating."

I can only assume that for the sake of consistancy you all will be demanding the Patriots lose a first round pick over the alleged throwing of games and that the appropriate people within the Patriots organization be (figuratively) drawn and quartered by the league.

Personally I think the idea NFL teams are throwing games to be silly but I'm just a guest here so I don't make the rules.

Yeah, but it's so much fun to make fun of your team, coaches, GM, owner.

Come on, admit it. They are the epitome of dysfunction. The only sane one in a position of management on that entire team is Philbin.

 

[Big/Sky/Fly]

I think you mean "trademark."

Like how the Patriots tried to trademark 19-0...

That's what I meant...I'm fried from my new project.

 

[R+L=Negan]

I think you mean "trademark."

Like how the Patriots tried to trademark 19-0...

I bet Irsays jaw is killing him today. I bet he burned a hole through his septum in the 90's?

I have to say I love the idea of him all snapped up with a briefcase full of drugs and money picking up strange strange. Phoning in the pitch count on Luck. Multi tasker.

Irsays, Grigs and Chuck might be the worst owner, gm, coach combo in the league? Top 5 def.

 

[spacecrime]

I don't think anyone is saying Bill would "tank" on purpose. That would never happen. .

I think that was the OP's proposition:

BB actually called for this loss? I mean truly. Could he have directed his team take a humiliating loss?

 

[spacecrime]

You almost got me to take the bait with this one you rascal you.

Edit: I can't find a better example of Brandolini's Principle* than the whole "colts tanked herp derp!" nonsense.


*- The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.

No energy necessary when you have data. I simply listed the 8 or 9 seasons averaging 11 wins, and showed the next year when the Colts needed a QB: 2 wins. I suppose I could have mentioned that right after the tanked (allegedly) season, the Colts immediatley returned to 11-5 for the next couple seasons, but that was just frosting. No energy necessary when the basic facts do all the heavy lifting. It's when you are trying to refute something and all the data proves you are wrong, which unfortunately is the position you are in, that you needed to go to great lengths to try to spin and work around the actual facts.

I don't blame you for not trying. It's pretty hopeless. Your best rebuttal will come in a couple years when you go 2-14 WITH Luck. THen you can say you didn;t Suck for Luck, you sucked for no good reason at all.

 

[Jaric]

I bet Irsays jaw is killing him today. I bet he burned a hole through his septum in the 90's?

I have to say I love the idea of him all snapped up with a briefcase full of drugs and money picking up strange strange. Phoning in the pitch count on Luck. Multi tasker.

Irsays, Grigs and Chuck might be the worst owner, gm, coach combo in the league? Top 5 def.

I see you trolling.

 

[Jaric]

Yeah, but it's so much fun to make fun of your team, coaches, GM, owner.

Come on, admit it. They are the epitome of dysfunction. The only sane one in a position of management on that entire team is Philbin.

Well our offensive line still sucks so akaic he won't survive the purge.

 

[Jaric]

No energy necessary when you have data. I simply listed the 8 or 9 seasons averaging 11 wins, and showed the next year when the Colts needed a QB: 2 wins. I suppose I could have mentioned that right after the tanked (allegedly) season, the Colts immediatley returned to 11-5 for the next couple seasons, but that was just frosting. No energy necessary when the basic facts do all the heavy lifting. It's when you are trying to refute something and all the data proves you are wrong, which unfortunately is the position you are in, that you needed to go to great lengths to try to spin and work around the actual facts.

I don't blame you for not trying. It's pretty hopeless. Your best rebuttal will come in a couple years when you go 2-14 WITH Luck. THen you can say you didn;t Suck for Luck, you sucked for no good reason at all.

I've pointed out why all of this is borderline retarded on multiple occasions and all I got in response was more herp and more derp.

I'd have more luck convincing the Jets forums you boys and girls don't bend the rules occasionally than I would explaining to patriots fans why it's retarded to believe a bunch of NFL professionals were willing to get fired so the next regime could be in a position to draft Andrew Luck.

So, like I said before, I see you trolling.

 

[O_P_T]

I get that but as good as the Pats have been for so long, then to see them so bad over night is odd. When I saw the Pats, down by 3 or something like that, backed up deep in there own endzone snap a punt out of the enzdzone, to take a safety for field position, then stop the Broncos and get the ball back and win. You never know.

Actually, they were down by 1 at that point, so the safety put them down by 3.

If they had punted from the back of the end zone, then Denver would have gotten the ball at the 50 +/- 10 yards or so.

Instead they get a free kick from the 20.

Of course all of this would have been a "WTF!!!" move by BB if the defense hadn't forced a 3 and out, giving the ball back to the Pats with decent field position, compared to where they punted from.

Regarding the OP, here's what I think.

If you want to propose a conspiracy theory, it was that BB was simply p*ssed off at all the j-holes who concluded that TFB+'s "legacy" was diminished because BB had won with all these other QB's.

He decided to show those Mo-f*ckers just how important TFB+ was by laying an egg against Rexy.

In reality, I think that the game plan and practice all week was based on assuming Jimmy G would be QB. When he couldn't go on Sunday morning, they were in a bit of a bind on how to adjust.

For the Texan's game They know that Jimmy G wasn't going to play and so had game planned appropriately.

On defense, Pat's Pulpit has a good article explaining how the secondary got scorched in the first half and made adjustments in the second.

 

[yackittysacks]

Let me jump in here. I am not saying that I necessarily believe that the coach would tank the game on purpose. What I'm saying or asking really is, do you guys think that could have been the case? IMO, I could see him doing something like this. I'm not saying that's what happened, rather that I could see it happening, or just not be surprised if it did happen. I find it hard to believe that the Pats couldn't get at least a FG in the game. Hell, they have one of the best kickers in the NFL. It just seemed odd to see them shut out. So I started thinking. The Pats were not gonna go 16-0 this season. If they win all 4 games with out TB, that would mean that the team's 1st loss would be with TB as the QB. You all know how the media is. They will make a story out of nothing, thus your coach defused any potential QB controversy in the near future by getting the 1st loss out of the way. I know, no way he throws a divisional game, but really, are the Bills even gonna be in the mix at the end? Not likely. In fact the likely hood of the JETS or Fins being in the mix in December is a stretch. This is the kind of "strategy" that is common by your coach. I use the snap out of the endzone in Denver as an example. That was a ballsy call that worked out for them.

 

[spacecrime]

Let me jump in here. I am not saying that I necessarily believe that the coach would tank the game on purpose. What I'm saying or asking really is, do you guys think that could have been the case? IMO, I could see him doing something like this. I'm not saying that's what happened, rather that I could see it happening, or just not be surprised if it did happen. I find it hard to believe that the Pats couldn't get at least a FG in the game. Hell, they have one of the best kickers in the NFL. It just seemed odd to see them shut out. So I started thinking. The Pats were not gonna go 16-0 this season. If they win all 4 games with out TB, that would mean that the team's 1st loss would be with TB as the QB. You all know how the media is. They will make a story out of nothing, thus your coach defused any potential QB controversy in the near future by getting the 1st loss out of the way. I know, no way he throws a divisional game, but really, are the Bills even gonna be in the mix at the end? Not likely. In fact the likely hood of the JETS or Fins being in the mix in December is a stretch. This is the kind of "strategy" that is common by your coach. I use the snap out of the endzone in Denver as an example. That was a ballsy call that worked out for them.

I think you're onto something here. Bill is very aware of what the media writes and it affects him. Two weeks ago in response to a question about the next days' storyline, he said, "Nothing concerns me more than tomorrow's storyline."

You can look one that up. He said it, and it fits with what you're saying.

Probably JimmyG was healthy enough to start, but what if he did and played even better than games 1 and 2? Now we DO have a full-blown QB controversy. JG or TB? the questions will never end, and BB, realizing that, started BRissett. THe only problem is that Brissett played well in Houston, and the Bills, as you noted, suck. If Brissett put up a 50 burger, not out of the realm of possibility, then BB would be dealing with a 3-way QB controversy.

By not starting JG and keeping him from getting more momentum, and tamping down the Brissett excitement by playing to lose to the Bills, BB deftly avoided a QB controversy.

The man is a genius.