NFL: Pats vs. Colts fallout

Things have been hectic here in blog-land, so let's catch up with a recap of what's been going on in sports lately:

The Patriots defeated common sense playcalling and lost to the Colts, Tiger Woods started his own golf course design firm, Larry Brown settled with the Knicks on a $18.5 million pay day, and Terrell Owens proved that he's not only a narcoleptic, but that he's also a loudmouth a****** who can't catch the football.

That is certainly a very link heavy paragraph, I will give you time to sort through it before I publicly thank Ian for drafting my NBA fantasy team for me. Aside from a few missteps (READ: Nick Collison) he did a pretty good job building a fantasy team with no three point shooters or true point guards.


Yes, things certainly have been hectic, what with me covering the election and Saj pretending to have a social life. Let's wrap up loose ends before returning to Football Friday tomorrow.

I'm trying to figure out Belichick last weekend. I know there was some sort of reason for the crap he pulled. Like last year, when the Pats lost to Miami on the last week of the season. He had Flutie experiment with that drop kick, and on the last play I'm fairly certain he told Matt Cassel to not complete a pass. Cassel seemed to be "acting" disappointed when he didn't tie the game going for 2. Anyway, the purpose of this was clear. If the Pats won, they had to host the hot and physical Steelers in the first round. (That's right, I said hot and physical.) If they lost, they got to host Jacksonville in cooooold Foxboro. Which would you rather do? I would even go as far to say Belichick knew Pitt would upend Cincinatti, thereby going to Indianapolis the following week and either defeating top seeded Indy or at least beating them up before the AFC championship.

The point? Like me on the chess board, Belichick is usually four steps ahead of everyone else. So why didn't he do something as simple as run the ball against a run-defense more porous than Spongebob Squarepants? I began to consider reasons why he'd want to lose, like the Miami game next year. I wondered if it was better that we didn't show the Colts too much in the regular season. I wondered if Belichick and Brady wanted to get the reveivers' confidence up. I wondered if Belichick decided to drop acid while watching the Sunday afternoon games. But in the end, I decided there could be no reason that outweighs what a win would have accomplished.

Defeating the Colts would have put New England in the driver's seat for homefield advantage in the AFC. The Pats would be tied with the Colts but have the tiebreaker, as well as remain a game up on the Broncos. Now? The Pats are third behind those two squads, with teams like the Chargers and Ravens right there with two losses. It's a shame. Does anyone doubt New England would have had success running the ball? Travis Henry looked like the second coming of Emmit Smith, imagine what what Dillon and Maroney would have looked like.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but Belichick got outcoached. Let's hope it doesn't happen again.

How about them Bears? If given the option of Bears, Giants, and Panthers or the field for the NFC Championship, which side do you take?

(One more thing...you fantasy team will be just fine. Just stay patient. And hold onto Collison for a while.)

Just dropped Nick Collison for Luke Walton. He's averaging more fouls per game than points. And you're right Belicheck was outcoached last Sunday. BY HIMSELF. The Colts did what they supposed to do (THEY WERE WHO WE THOUGHT THEY WERE), they scored points. By not sending Maroney or Dillon up the gut on every first down play the Patriots were not exploiting their weakness.

Out of the NFC I'm going to take the field, I really am. You still have St. Louis, Atlanta, New Orleans, Philadelphia, Dallas, Seattle floating around out there. If you asked me which single team has the best chance to win the conference, I'd say the Giants.

Tony Romo: discuss.


I find Tony Romo as one of the more overrated players in the NFL. Leaving my partisan ship towards Drew Bledsoe out of this, let's take a look at Romo. He has three games worth of NFL experience. He has one NFL win under his belt. He threw three interceptions in his first half of football. He lost to a Washington Redskins team that his team handily defeated earlier in the year with the quarterback he replaced. And people are talking savior? To me, until he proves otherwise, he's just like JP Losman or Andrew Walter. I can't even say he's as good as Tampa Bay's Grostowksiskwksoiwki, because that kid is winning with a LOT less talent around him. Romo has Owens, Glenn, Witten, Jones, Parcells, and a top defense and couldn't beat Washington. That worries me.

So why is Tony Romo hailed a savior who is so loved by Cowboys fans? I've said this before. His name is Tony Romo. It's a great name.

Now I can tie in both of your points: Giants and Romo. I was eating dinner with some friends last night; one of them was a Giants fan and knowledgeable football fan. (But he wasn't the dreaded Giants-Yankees combo). He told me the exact moment he knew they were making the playoffs and, depending on Philly, winning the NFC East. It was when Parcells succumbed to the pressure and put in Romo, probably for the year. Until that point, he said, he was afraid of a dangerous Cowboys team, mostly because it was Parcells in his 3rd year. He said when they brought in the kid with no experience, it had him jumping for joy. (He also claimed to have predicted Romo getting picked off in his first throw.) This Giants fan said, and I'm paraphrasing: "Right there, I knew we would win that game, meaning we're in first place in the division over the Cowboys, and we would pull away because they just benched a 10+ year veteran for a kid with no experience outside of preseason and practice."

Okay, we should save the rest of football for Football Friday tomorrow.