12/03/24
January 10, 2010
Ravens start fast, finish strong in first-round win: After beating the most successful franchise of the 2000s (the Patriots won three titles), the Baltimore Ravens advance to play at the winningest team of the decade, the top-seeded Indianapolis Colts.
posted by tommytrump to football at 04:20 PM - 29 comments
The Colts are the winningest team of the decade not counting the playoffs correct?
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 05:23 PM on January 10, 2010
I know this sounds crazy, but I'm glad the Jets are playing the Bolts instead of the Colts. Didn't like the idea of them going back into the dome against a (too?) rested team looking to make a point.
Sanchez back in SoCal with the defense peaking at the right time. They have a shot, but the Bolts are gonna be tough to beat. No matter the outcome, it's always nice to see two old AFL teams battle in the playoffs. Wear the powder blues with the numbers on the helmets, Chargers! Do it for Sid Gilman and the mighty '63 team!
posted by afl-aba at 05:31 PM on January 10, 2010
the schadenfreude brigade will be out in force
Oh, you know that's gonna happen. I give it until 7 pm EST.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 05:59 PM on January 10, 2010
Reportedly, the Pats did not have a true offensive coordinator this year (did not replace McDaniels when he went to Denver), and have lost multiple defensive coordinators in recent years due to the lure of greener pastures. Some of the recent drafts have not been the greatest -- they could use a boost in the talent evaluation department as well, especially with Pioli gone.
Seems like the Pats need to restock some staff positions first and foremost. Before they start looking over their roster.
Meanwhile, the big happy reunion of ex-Pats keeps growing in KC.
By the way, that guy Schadenfreude did a pretty good job with the Jets' play calls yesterday. I was impressed.
posted by beaverboard at 06:32 PM on January 10, 2010
Congrats to the Ravens and their fans...
That said, the great strength of the Patriots during their prime was the depth of the bench. To some extent, they could lose a few key players and still keep playing well enough to beat you. This season, the stress has all been on those few key players. When they lost Walker, I didn't honestly think they had anyone who could replace him, for example.
Oh well, rebuilding decade.
posted by Joey Michaels at 08:31 PM on January 10, 2010
As a writer and lover of the English language, the word "winningest" really needs to be expunged from the language and anyone who uses it be shot.
posted by Drood at 12:29 AM on January 11, 2010
Reportedly, the Pats did not have a true offensive coordinator this year
Interesting. That fits with a lot of things.
Seems like the Pats need to restock some staff positions first and foremost. Before they start looking over their roster.
Ayup.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:08 AM on January 11, 2010
Seems like the Pats need to restock some staff positions first and foremost.
I don't know if that's accurate or not. It's definitely the received wisdom on local TV and radio and it's what I want to believe, but it's awfully hard for a defensive coordinator to look smart when he has a bunch of crappy players. I'm more inclined to hold the OC responsible for his side of the slate: while Brady was coming back from a big injury and then playing through a number of others, he's still 80% of Tom Brady, they have a decent offensive line, good running backs, two All Pro receivers and the best game plan they came up with was to force it to Welker and Moss every play.
They played with 0 quarterback pressure through the whole year. They're best pass rusher was Tully Banta-Cain, who'd been a good backup when he was with the Patriots, couldn't catch on with the 49ers and came back here. I'd hate to see Wilfork go, but they can probably replace him with a combination of Pryor and Brace (if he wakes up). They need to add outside linebackers who can get at the quarterback. If they had those, the secondary would be greatly improved.
Then again, with the Seymour trade and Brady's likely path progression back from a missed season, this always had a feeling of a rebuilding season. The Globe has a number of stories today about how we have to accept the "dynasty" is over. Entirely possible, but I'd wait until halfway through next season to start shoveling.
posted by yerfatma at 10:01 AM on January 11, 2010
Oh, you know that's gonna happen. I give it until 7 pm EST.
What day?
For me, the New England teams are awfully fun to root against but not to hate. I'm sure there is plenty of hate out there but they feel like the archvillains that you want to lose but at the same time kinda wish they were on your team.
posted by tron7 at 10:20 AM on January 11, 2010
DEFENSE - the Ravens showed the Pats just what the Giants showed them in the Superbowl. Their pass rush was intimidating, the hitting and pursuit was as good as it gets. The Patriots looked almost in shock.
I am no Patriot hater but I do believe Tom and Bills big run is coming to an end. They just don't play like they used to and their unbelievable lucky streak has come to an end. I am not saying they won by luck in the past but things always seemed to go their way for years. Then when the perfect season was lost, Brady's knee injury, the famous fourth and two conversion against the Colts, and now this playoff game, it appears the tide of fortune has turned.
posted by Atheist at 11:09 AM on January 11, 2010
Then again, with the Seymour trade and Brady's likely path progression back from a missed season
No one can plan for injuries whether it's Brady or Welker or whoever else. But the Seymour trade was a self inflicted injury. Shouldn't Belichick have known that the defense was undermanned this year and not traded away their best (?) defensive player.
the famous fourth and two conversion against the Colts
Hindsight is always 20/20 but this play seems to be beginning of the end for the Pats this season.
posted by cjets at 11:44 AM on January 11, 2010
I am not saying they won by luck in the past but things always seemed to go their way for years.
Seems to me that teams and/or players that execute consistently have better breaks, especially in "games of inches". As Ben Hogan once said, "The harder I practice, the luckier I seem to get".
I would not write off the Patriots at this point.
posted by mjkredliner at 12:14 PM on January 11, 2010
Totally agreed, mjkredliner. Cept Gary Player said that.
posted by MW12 at 12:26 PM on January 11, 2010
Hindsight is always 20/20 but this play seems to be beginning of the end for the Pats this season.
In what way? That makes no sense to me at all. Of course you can mangle any incident you want into being symbolic of all kinds of things, but mere symbolism is not what I'm talking about, and it's not what you seemed to be talking about either.
(I got 0 points in the pick 'em this weekend. Zeeee-ro. Goose egg. Bagel. Bupkis. How the hell do you manage to not get a single solitary pick right??? lil brown costanza, that's me)
posted by lil_brown_bat at 12:31 PM on January 11, 2010
Brady had said before the season that he wants to play 10 more years. So let's call it eight or nine now.
Where the Pats are now kind of reminds me of where the Broncos were in the latter portion of Elway's career. Kind of decent but not going back to the SB. Then the Broncs woke up and won titles just before Elway retired.
One good reason for that: Terrell Davis. The Pats could use a real stud at RB. They did great with Dillon but for the most part they have been a top team with an assortment of good but not great backs. Starting with Antowain Smith, who they picked up as used goods from Buffalo. Faulk has been in the league forever (and he did run well at times yesterday). Morris and Taylor are solid additions but not game changers.
But none of them are major every down backs. And Maroney has just never truly fit in. It still looks strange watching him operate in a Belichick offense. His style and skill set just seem foreign to the scheme as a whole.
The Pats do not seem to have a ton of confidence in Maroney. They sit him for extended periods during games. Especially when he gives up the football. I'm sure they were hoping for a good transition from Dillon to Maroney as the feature back and it never clicked in.
If the Pats had a big time go-to RB, it would help Brady a lot. And it would help the O line too - nothing builds confidence and character like firing out and run blocking for a guy who is picking up yardage in chunks instead of pass protecting 35-50 times a game for Brady.
posted by beaverboard at 12:50 PM on January 11, 2010
Well, it got mentioned in any number of post-mortems this week, that the Pats would have been 7-2 had they beat the Colts, then managed to go 4-4 after that, so you could say it broke the back of a very delicate team.
But the Seymour trade was a self inflicted injury. Shouldn't Belichick have known that the defense was undermanned this year
While I agree it hurt the team in the short-term, it's a steal of a deal (though the pick is in 2011 when there will be a new labor agreement and the slots will likely have caps) and Seymour looked done. I didn't see much of him on the Raiders, but have read (from other Pats fans) that he's not even being double-teamed anymore. They sold incredibly high on a player who hasn't been a Pro Bowler in a long time. It was like getting list price for a used car with a lot of miles on it.
If they're mediocre in 2010 and 2011, fair enough to all the people burying them today.
posted by yerfatma at 12:52 PM on January 11, 2010
But the Seymour trade was a self inflicted injury. Shouldn't Belichick have known that the defense was undermanned this year and not traded away their best (?) defensive player.
I think that was a mistake. Maybe in 2011 it will seem like a good idea. That's a long time away. They lost so many defensive players, I don't know how the Pats thought that they could afford to lose another one for a payoff a couple of years away. Bad idea. The result was pretty terrible.
So if you lose a player like Welker, he cannot be replaced. Hopefully, you have someone with a little more experience than what the Pats had. They don't seem to have much depth. The Pats were famous for their depth.
posted by bperk at 01:06 PM on January 11, 2010
They sold incredibly high on a player who hasn't been a Pro Bowler in a long time. It was like getting list price for a used car with a lot of miles on it.
And, then not having a car at all and having to walk to work.
posted by bperk at 01:08 PM on January 11, 2010
In what way?
They're up six points on the best team in football. They win, they're in the mix for best record in the AFC as well as a serious super bowl contender. And it would have done wonders for their confidence.
But Belichick's controversial call doesn't work. The Colts easily score a TD and people everywhere are talking about Belichick's hubris, his lack of confidence in his defense, etc. I think it has to have an effect on the team and team chemistry, particularly the defense.
While I agree it hurt the team in the short-term, it's a steal of a deal (though the pick is in 2011 when there will be a new labor agreement and the slots will likely have caps) and Seymour looked done.
I'd agree that it is a good deal. But, as you said, it hurt them in the short term (the short term being the 2009 season).
By the way, I'm not one of the people burying them. I think they'll come back next year with their hair on fire, probably win the division and definitely make the playoffs again.
posted by cjets at 02:57 PM on January 11, 2010
I think the problems with the Patriots started during the 2006 season. Bill Belichick and the front office recognized that they were aging rapidly, especially on defense, and began to plot moves to avoid this. The 2007 season was somewhat of an aberration, since acquiring a top receiver, having a top quarterback, and the changing rules making it easier to pass led to the near-perfect season. It wasn't until late in that season that teams began to recognize ways to beat NE, and the Giants had enough to do so.
After not making the playoffs last year and having solid veterans Bruschi and Harrison retire, the need to rebuild became urgent. Toward this end, BB made a number of trades pointed toward the future that ultimately doomed this season. Vrabel and Seymour were stalwarts on defense. Those trades left some holes, not only on the field but also in the locker room. I believe that BB felt that his offense would be able to cover for a lot of the defensive deficiencies, but when Brady got hurt again (finger & ribs - sounds like menu items somehow), and Moss was not up to his former level of performance, that plan fell apart.
I'm preparing for another 2 or 3 years of relative mediocrity while the rebuilding continues. I say relative because I don't believe the team will go below .500 in any season, and they will be in the playoff picture late in the season. There are some NFL teams who would kill for such mediocrity.
In what I have read today there were a couple of interesting things. Tully Banta-Cain, who had played in NE before going to the 49ers for a time and had returned this year, said the contrast in the locker room leadership between the 2 eras was stark. He said it was likely due to the lack of veterans who had been with the team to be comfortable enough in their roles to be able to provide leadership. The other tidbit was from Ben Watson who, when pressed, said that all of the offensive plays were called by quarterbacks coach Bill O'Brien. From these 2 comments, it is obvious that the changes in player personnel, coaching staff (McDaniels to Denver) and front office staff (Pioli to KC) have had a serious effect on NE's fortunes.
It was pretty obvious yesterday that Baltimore was the better team and wanted the game more than NE. Congratulations to the Ravens. Now go give Mr. MVP the deer-in-the-headlights look.
posted by Howard_T at 03:06 PM on January 11, 2010
And, then not having a car at all and having to walk to work.
Nothing wrong with that. It builds character.
posted by tommybiden at 03:43 PM on January 11, 2010
They're up six points on the best team in football. They win, they're in the mix for best record in the AFC as well as a serious super bowl contender.
See, I don't agree with this at all. It's purely emotional, and it just defies logic. It was one close game. It had no influence on whether they made it to the playoffs or not; all they had to do for that was win their division, and the Colts are not in their division. "Best record in the AFC" meant nothing either. If they had gotten a bye, so what? It's still the same team. If the team isn't fundamentally a good team, what good does dodging the wildcard round bullet do? It stands to reason (and agrees with your own reasoning, above) that the wildcard teams aren't the ones you have to worry about.
That one play in that one game may have signaled the beginning of the end of some fans' and some sportswriters' confidence in the team's ability to be a playoff contender. If you want to argue that it signaled anything concrete, however, anything more than pure vaporous opinion, you'll have to do more to convince me.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 05:12 PM on January 11, 2010
If they had gotten a bye, so what? It's still the same team.
Well, for one, it gives them homefield advantage throughout the playoffs. It's also one less game to play. And if they finished #1, they also play, in theory, the weakest team to advance.
They were 8-0 at home this year. And until Sunday, they were unbeaten at home in the playoffs for 30(?) years. It also gives them an extra week to heal their wounds (Brady's in particular). And maybe (this may be a bit far fetched), they don't play Welker in the final game and he doesn't get injured.
If you want to argue that it signaled anything concrete, however, anything more than pure vaporous opinion,
Unfortunately, most of what I've said and will say is not quantifiable and probably won't convince you. But I'll try anyway.
Beating the best team in the league would give them momentum and confidence. Teams in the NFL can get hot. Like the Cardinals did last year in the playoffs. Teams can build on success and improve.
On the other hand, a bad loss can demoralize a team. And in a sport where explicit trust in one's coach and teammates and split second timing is crucial to the team's success, a coach's perceived lack of confidence in your squad or your lack of confidence in the coach can throw off that timing.
When you see a team allow an 83 yard TD run on the first play from scrimmage, you have to think that they aren't in sync. I think it's due, in large part, to the controversial loss to the Colts.
posted by cjets at 06:27 PM on January 11, 2010
Well, for one, it gives them homefield advantage throughout the playoffs.
It doesn't. It gives them a bye, and a home game in the next round. At the conference championships, they may be on the road.
It's also one less game to play.
Yes, but again, in this case -- so what? Clearly that didn't make any difference here.
And if they finished #1, they also play, in theory, the weakest team to advance.
In theory, but remember, getting a bye and finishing number 1 are two different things.
They were 8-0 at home this year. And until Sunday, they were unbeaten at home in the playoffs for 30(?) years.
I just took a penny and flipped ten straight tails. What is my next flip going to be?
It also gives them an extra week to heal their wounds (Brady's in particular). And maybe (this may be a bit far fetched), they don't play Welker in the final game and he doesn't get injured.
Well, the latter, I think, is more than just a "maybe" and the odds. Field conditions were hard on the knees in Houston that day...but field conditions didn't factor into your reasoning.
Beating the best team in the league would give them momentum and confidence. Teams in the NFL can get hot. Like the Cardinals did last year in the playoffs. Teams can build on success and improve.
Sure, but my counterargument is that it's never too late to pull up your damn socks, and that if you're really a good team, you don't let a loss -- one loss, to a very good team -- keep you down. And if it does keep you down, well...you weren't that good to begin with.
(On the flip side, if you dumb-luck it by the "best team in the league", I think you know it, and I don't think it inspires a lot of confidence. But my arguments are as impossible to quantify as yours.)
When you see a team allow an 83 yard TD run on the first play from scrimmage, you have to think that they aren't in sync. I think it's due, in large part, to the controversial loss to the Colts.
Again, if they couldn't shake off that one play and that one loss in the intervening weeks, they were never that good to start with.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:18 PM on January 11, 2010
if you dumb-luck it by the "best team in the league", I think you know it, and I don't think it inspires a lot of confidence.
Tell that to the Jets.
And otherwise, we'll have to agree to disagree.
posted by cjets at 09:53 PM on January 11, 2010
Tell that to the Jets.
Tell that to the Jets in regard to beating whom?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:13 PM on January 11, 2010
The Colts, after they pulled starters.
posted by Goyoucolts at 02:18 AM on January 12, 2010
Oh, I see, so the Jets are burgeoning with confidence after having managed to get past the Colts' bench players, and that propelled them to a convincing victory over the Bengals, running on pure gutsy underdog scrappiness and all sorts of other intangibles. Got it. I can see the rings on their fingers already.
(sounds a lot like a made-for-tv movie and not quite enough like reality to convince me, though)
posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:14 AM on January 12, 2010
Yeah, that was disappointingly lopsided, but in tune with the season where they were so inconsistent (and injured). It seems like the whole team has been off since that Giants victory in the Superbowl two years ago, with the lost Brady season and inexplicable 11-win non-playoff appearance, or this season where they were worse than useless away from Foxborough (only to lose handily in the wild card game at home). Just didn't feel like they were going to do much this year, although I still had hope they'd some how tune it up for the playoffs, losing Welker and Brady's rib issues were too much of a sign of their minimal chances.
It's been my great fear that after so much success, all the Boston teams would start crapping the bed at the same time, either missing the playoffs or just getting knocked out quickly. And sure enough, after the Patriots were 50 seconds from perfect season, they've been ill-fated since then: losing Brady last year and missing the playoffs as an 11-win team, to a quick exit this year. The Sox looked like they were going to repeat their October magic against the Rays two years ago, and then sputtered out in Game 7, followed by a quick first-round exist last year against an Angels team they've dominated, to the Celtics having an injured Garnett in trying to repeat, etc.
I'm worried that this decade will be the return to earth decade, and the schadenfreude brigade will be out in force. I can't really complain: I've seen an improbable 3 Superbowl wins, 2 World Series wins, and an NBA title in the span of 6 years; by Simmons' metric, Boston can't complain about not going deep into the playoffs for a good 10 years. And lord knows that when pitchers and catchers report, the Sox have a pretty amazing lineup... I guess hope really does spring eternal.