Keeping the facts straight on Pats and Colts
"The Patriots, as [Ron] Borges points out, have foot-dragged on too many key players. In a month, seven key players will become free agents. That's a troubling stat on a team that was already in semi-rebuilding.
But intimating that the Patriots have been tight with tie money is false. From 2005 to 2009, the Patriots spent $539.9 million on player compensation. The Colts spent $545.7 million. The Jets -- who went free-agent bananas in 2008 -- spent $542 million. And if the Patriots had reached accord with Vince Wilfork before last season began as they were trying to do, they'd have blown away the five-year spending totals of both the Colts and Jets.
No team had to deal with the unique dynamic of being a dynasty in a salary-capped NFL that the Patriots did. When guys become "Super Bowl champions," their price goes up. Whether it's Randall Gay or Damien Woody, David Givens or Deion Branch, Ty Law or Asante Samuel, Adam Vinatieri or Marc Edwards, champions are coveted by other teams when they hit free agency. The Patriots had three teams full of Super Bowl champions and they were raided appropriately both on the roster and on the coaching staff. They couldn't keep them all and they didn't try to. They picked their battles and tried to replace through the draft and free agency. They had hits. They had ugly misses.
They're currently facing the fallout of some of those misses -- whether it be Adalius Thomas, Laurence Maroney or Chad Jackson -- and it muddies their future.
But it doesn't change the past. Likening the success of the Colts since 2006 to the Patriots' decade of Lombardi-choked excellence is comparing hamburger to steak."
-- Tom E. Curran
about 2 years ago
Marima
5 comments
0 recs |
Comments
Props to AdrenalineJunkie for finding this article
Tom Curran writes that we all should hold off the Colts coronation, and I agree. In his Colts vs. Pats column earlier this week, Borges conveniently omits the regular-season wins vs. playoff & Super Bowl wins. Curran reminds us here, and adds this after comparing the post-season records of both teams:
[Borges writes] "The Colts have won more regular-season games this decade than the Patriots, won more consecutive games this decade than the Patriots, made the playoffs more often this decade than the Patriots (9-8), reached the playoffs more consecutive years than the Patriots (eight straight) and if they win Sunday will trail them by only one Super Bowl victory this decade. Their on-field similarities are unassailable . . . "
Unassailable except that the Patriots have won three times as many Super Bowls (that could change, I know) and were the measuring stick for NFL greatness for much of the decade while Indy has persistently failed to live up to its regular-season greatness with postseason success.
Keep the faith!
Thanks
I’m blushing just from seeing the props:)
by AdrenalineJunkie on Feb 7, 2010 1:54 PM EST up reply actions
Here is an even better one by Mike Reiss @ 9:50 PM, Feb 7, 2010!
Peyton Manning is a great quarterback, but what we learned tonight in Super Bowl XLIV is this: He’s no Tom Brady in the pressure moment on the game’s biggest stage.
Looking to lead the Colts back from a 24-17 fourth-quarter deficit against the Saints, Manning threw an interception that cornerback Tracy Porter returned for a touchdown, a key play in New Orleans’ 31-17 upset victory.
It was a costly mistake, the kind of miscue that Brady, in his four Super Bowl appearances, never made in the critical fourth-quarter situation.
Even in the Patriots’ Super Bowl loss to the Giants, Brady had led a fourth-quarter drive for a touchdown before the defense couldn’t hold.
For all the stories that were written over the last week about which quarterback was the best of the decade – Brady or Manning – one aspect was overlooked: How Manning would lead the Colts in Super Bowl XLIV.
If you measure a quarterback by how he responds in the pressure moments on the game’s biggest stage, the debate ended with authority tonight.
by AdrenalineJunkie on Feb 7, 2010 10:12 PM EST up reply actions
He did average.
He didn’t do well. Barely broke the top 30 (yeah, “RBC”, but Taylor and Morris were injured all season and Faulk ran the ball 1/3 the time Maroney did) in yardage, was in the top 3 of fumbles (4 fumbles lost, 2 in the red zone, 1 almost in OUR redzone), averaged for under 4 yards a carry (not in the top 32). His only plus was that he was in the top 15 for rushing TDs.
He’s average. He won’t be more than average, unless we pick someone up and allow Maroney to be what he really is- a #2 back.
by Richard Hill on Feb 7, 2010 10:32 PM EST up reply actions























