SNF: Indy v. NE

[mldardy]

Pats are scary again - the team to beat, IMO.

Ah yes add another team to the list of 'scary' and 'the team to beat'. How many are we up to now in mid-November?

 

[mldardy]

Indy should be winning this game. But its still a good game. Top 2 out of 3 of the best afc teams going at it.

How do you figure they should be winning this game. They've been pretty much dominated throughout and have never led and the Pats have ran and pass all over them.

 

[StarBoyz83]

How do you figure they should be winning this game. They've been pretty much dominated throughout and have never led and the Pats have ran and pass all over them.

Before the last 2 tds by the pats the colts shouldve been winning. But they failed and got 2 field goals Instead of what shouldve been touchdowns. But this games not really that important both teams are making the playoffs

 

[mldardy]

Before the last 2 tds by the pats the colts shouldve been winning. But they failed and got 2 field goals Instead of what shouldve been field goals. But this games not really that important both teams are making the playoffs

Yeah I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. The Colts have been behind the entire game and haven't stopped the Pats.

 

[Doomsay]

Ah yes add another team to the list of 'scary' and 'the team to beat'. How many are we up to now in mid-November?

Only one by my count.

 

[mldardy]

Only one by my count.

They aren't the one either. No team is the one in mid November.

 

[Doomsay]

They aren't the one either. No team is the one in mid November.

History would prove you wrong, many times over.

 

[mldardy]

History would prove you wrong, many times over.

Not really. and definitely not recent history.

 

[Doomsay]

Not really. and definitely not recent history.

Get in your time machine and travel all the way back to 2013.

 

[mldardy]

Get in your time machine and travel all the way back to 2013.

Yeah I'm sure people had Seattle as the team to beat in mid November last year. And I said recent history which doesn't include 2013 ONLY. Nice job of trying to narrow it down to one year. Get in YOUR time machine and go back to about the last 10 years. You'll see more times than not the teams playing well in November didn't end up as Super Bowl champs.

 

[Doomsay]

Yeah I'm sure people had Seattle as the team to beat in mid November last year. And I said recent history which doesn't include 2013 ONLY. Nice job of trying to narrow it down to one year. Get in YOUR time machine and go back to about the last 10 years. You'll see more times than not the teams playing well in November didn't end up as Super Bowl champs.

You asked for recent evidence of teams that were playing well through mid November that ended up doing well in the post season - presumably that would mean getting to the Super Bowl right?

I gave you last year .... both recent and evidence of 2 teams near the top of their respective conferences that were playing well - not just in, but through November. Now you don't like the example because it blows up your premise.


The majority of the teams that made it into the Super Bowl over the past decade were among the conference leaders by mid November. To suggest that a team that has been playing really well up to and past the middle of the season couldn't be considered a front runner in their conference isn't even logical.

 

[mldardy]

You asked for recent evidence of teams that were playing well through mid November that ended up doing well in the post season - presumably that would mean getting to the Super Bowl right?

I gave you last year .... both recent and evidence of 2 teams near the top of their respective conferences that were playing well - not just in, but through November. Now you don't like the example because it blows up your premise.


The majority of the teams that made it into the Super Bowl over the past decade were among the conference leaders by mid November. To suggest that a team that has been playing really well up to and past the middle of the season couldn't be considered a front runner in their conference isn't even logical.

Well first I didn't ask for anything. Second I said recent history which isn't just last season and third you didn't give me any evidence. I know you are trying as hard as you can to shape this debate how you want it but it doesn't work that way. Teams that have went on to win the Super Bowl in the last 10 years normally don't peak in mid November.

 

[Doomsay]

Well first I didn't ask for anything.

you did, and you continue to do so, look at your next sentence. Are you confused?

Second I said recent history which isn't just last season and third you didn't give me any evidence.

The vast majority of teams that got into the Super Bowl over the past decade and a half were playing really well up through week 11. That is the evidence, it's basically the population of all recent Super Bowl participants except for a handful of teams that went on late season hot streaks.

I know you are trying as hard as you can to shape this debate how you want it but it doesn't work that way. Teams that have went on to win the Super Bowl in the last 10 years normally don't peak in mid November.

Who said anything about PEAKING in November? Oh yeah, you did. If a team is going to peak in November that kind of implies that they are going to decline in December and January. Why would anybody say that they thought that a certain team was the team to beat i.e. Win their conference if they thought that team had peaked? Makes no sense.

After watching the Pats every week up here in NE, and watching them destroy 2 out of the 3 best teams in their conference, I think that they are the team to beat and have the best chance of representing the AFC in the Super Bowl. I don't know why that's so far fetched to say that in week 11.