SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic - Best rivalry in the NFL this Sunday

Posted: Nov 12 2009 02:26 am

So these two teams have been the best teams in the NFL for a long time. They actually have identical regular season records over the last six or seven seasons. They are conveniently scheduled to play EVERY season in early November. The Pats dominated for a while but the Colts have beaten the Pats consistently for a few years, hold 2007.

I feel that both Brady and Manning will play a well executed game, but in the end, the Patriots will win by a score of 31-21. The Pats Defense has been growing more cohesive and getting healthier and I think they will be able to limit the Colts by playing strong against the pass. On the other side, the Colts are banged up on Defense and are playing a couple rookies at corner. This coupled with the Pats playing much better on offense will give them the edge and the victory.

Joined: Oct 01 2009 Posts: 5316

I won't count the Pats out, but the Colts have been having a great year. If the Colts do lose one game in the regular season, it would be this game.

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Nov 12 2009 11:00 am

I think some people in California have something to say about this "best rivalry in the NFL" nonsense.

Or in Texas and Pennsylvania.

Or in Illinois and Wisconsin.

Or in...yeah.

Posted: Nov 12 2009 11:15 am

Yeah, yeah, yeah...I'm talking non-division rivalry. And it IS the best rivalry of this decade regardless, especially on a national level. Also, both of these teams are always on top of the league so it is interesting every single year, the 4-4 packers vs. the 4-4 bears doesn't really have the same appeal.

Joined: Oct 01 2009 Posts: 5316

I was more intrigued by the Vikings and the Packers this year...absolutely hilarious

Posted: Nov 12 2009 11:19 am

That was a product of Brett Favre and is douchebaggery. It was hyped to death and was intriguing, but once it happened I was kinda meh, whatever.

Joined: Oct 01 2009 Posts: 5316

I live in an area of the US that is split in terms of fans, you have your Vikings, Bears, Packers, and to a smaller extent Rams and Chiefs...so I know a lot of Packers fans. To say it was salt in a wound is an understatement.

Posted: Nov 12 2009 12:09 pm

UsaSatsui wrote:

I think some people in California have something to say about this "best rivalry in the NFL" nonsense.

Or in Texas and Pennsylvania.

Or in Illinois and Wisconsin.

Or in...yeah.

Or Pennsylvania in general, Pittsburgh and Philly fans are enemies too.

Joined: Dec 06 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 11244

Brady is going to have the game of his life. I have absolutely no reasoning behind this, but I think it will happen.

2011 SNES Champ Joined: Dec 04 2006 Posts: 1929

I remember some sports commentators saying the Patriots were very overrated this year. I forgot why.

But I'm always rooting for the Colts anyway, so even if all their players get injured I'll pick them anyway.

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Nov 12 2009 05:43 pm

Well, the TV ads are hyping this up as the "best rivalry in the NFL" too. And it's bullshit. It's not even really a rivalry, just two teams who almost always seem to be in the hunt with very good quarterbacks., and for a long time Indy was just plain the only fucking team that could even compete with the Pats. Hell, I'd say Pats/Jets is more of a thing, and that's mostly residual from Red Sox/Yankees.

When you get a bunch of media hype, that's just a bunch of media hype. When they're renaming streets and traveling hundreds of miles to take over another team's stadium, that is a rivalry.

Posted: Nov 12 2009 05:57 pm

Playing each other a lot helps establish a rivalry. Division teams always play each other twice a season and then maybe in the playoffs so those are easily established. Do I think Pats - Colts is the most historical/biggest rivalry in the NFL? No. But it is the best right now. Both teams are always great, they have the best QBs in the NFL, both have one their share in series and they ALWAYS play. If the NFL didn't have them play every single season, and if they hadn't met in the playoffs 3-4 times over this decade, it wouldn't come close to a rivalry.

Media hype is what you get when two great teams go head to head during one season. This has been going on since 2003.

And lava, I haven't really heard anyone say the pats are overrated. They really don't have any huge glaring holes, they play solid on both sides. Right now I would rank them somewhere in the top ten in the league, maybe fifth or sixth best team right now. Their two losses have been by only 3 and 7 points and they have won most of their games comfortably.

Posted: Nov 12 2009 07:31 pm

Living in New England, I have to go with the Patriots on this one...even though I really do think they will win. They have been getting better as the season has gone on, and I see them winning by 10-14. I think the Colts being undefeated helps The Patriots actually because being undefeated and wanting to remain undefeated has to be on their minds, and you know The Patriots want to end that undefeated streak. I've been looking forward to this game all year, as I always look forward to their match up against The Colts. Only thing I hate about it is the fact that it is in Indianapolis...for the third straight year!

Posted: Nov 12 2009 07:36 pm

Sexton Hardcastle wrote:

Only thing I hate about it is the fact that it is in Indianapolis...for the third straight year!

That's the league telling you who they want to win.

Posted: Nov 14 2009 06:14 pm

I agree with some others here that overall hatred makes for a better rivalry than simply being good and competitive with each other.

The Bears/Packers rivalry has been going on for decades. And as someone from Philly, I can tell you that we hate everyone, but none more than the Cowboys.

2011 SNES Champ Joined: Dec 04 2006 Posts: 1929

...Wow. I honestly didn't think they would do it. That was fucking awesome.

Posted: Nov 16 2009 12:47 am

It was quite the game.....I can't talk about it yet though....the pain......

2011 SNES Champ Joined: Dec 04 2006 Posts: 1929

Honestly, I think they got the 1st down during that 4th & 2 play, but as the Pats wasted their last timeout for no fucking reason on the last play, they couldn't challenge.

And I find it funny how commentators said they should have let them score the touchdown instead of tackling the player at the 1-yard-line.
Makes sense, as the Pats only had 13 seconds for their last possession instead of about 1:10.

Posted: Nov 16 2009 12:59 am

Yeah, I like the fourth down call at the end if you have even ONE timeout.

The Jets actually tried to let Mojo Drew score at the end and he took a knee at the one, it would have been wise.

They didn't give him the first down at the end because he was bobbling the ball, so the spot is wherever he ends up landing, not his forward progress.

I feel like the pats taking a big early lead fucking killed them, they packed in the offense and just tried to run out the clock, you can do that against most teams, but not Peyton.

Posted: Nov 16 2009 01:23 am

I'm heartbroken, but looking at it, even though it didn't work out, I don't mind the call to go for it on 4th down. It's what Belicheck does. He takes risk, and I love it. If Faulk wouldn't have bobbled it, it would have been a first down and the game was over. Even with that, I don't blame Faulk at all, the person I blame is Maroney. The guy flat out sucks and was a waste of a draft pick. Faulk will run and gain a consistent 3 or 4 yards on every play, and Maroney will come in and get stuffed at the line. Now that everybody is going to constantly be debating the call to go for it on 4th, the play that is going to be forgotten is Maroney fumbling it in the end zone, and THAT is the play that lost The Patriots the game in my honest opinion.

Joined: Aug 24 2005 Location: Mount Holly, NJ Posts: 1062

I won't rehash everything that's already been said since we can all watch the highlights and question BB til we're blue in the face. That said... as a hardcore Indy fan.

Fuck.
Yes.
Colts.

Joined: Aug 24 2005 Location: Mount Holly, NJ Posts: 1062

Sexton Hardcastle wrote:

I'm heartbroken, but looking at it, even though it didn't work out, I don't mind the call to go for it on 4th down. It's what Belicheck does. He takes risk, and I love it. If Faulk wouldn't have bobbled it, it would have been a first down and the game was over. Even with that, I don't blame Faulk at all, the person I blame is Maroney. The guy flat out sucks and was a waste of a draft pick. Faulk will run and gain a consistent 3 or 4 yards on every play, and Maroney will come in and get stuffed at the line. Now that everybody is going to constantly be debating the call to go for it on 4th, the play that is going to be forgotten is Maroney fumbling it in the end zone, and THAT is the play that lost The Patriots the game in my honest opinion.

Agree 100%. If Maroney doesn't drop the ball at the 1-foot line, the last 3 minutes of the game is completely moot anyway.

2011 SNES Champ Joined: Dec 04 2006 Posts: 1929

Belicheck went for 4th down, because the defense failed to do anything against the Colts for their last 2 possessions (few teams manage to contain them anyway).
I think there was a MUCH higher chance for the attack to gain 2 yards, then for the defense to prevent a touchdown.
And if they're to give up a touchdown, it's better for the Colts to start close to the goal line, as the time they take to score a touchdown should be lower, giving more time for the Pats to score again.

I totally didn't steal this from some commentators Very Happy

Anyway, I'm happy with the result.

Joined: Aug 24 2005 Location: Mount Holly, NJ Posts: 1062

lavalarva wrote:

And if they're to give up a touchdown, it's better for the Colts to start close to the goal line, as the time they take to score a touchdown should be lower, giving more time for the Pats to score again.

Not with no timeouts left. I understand what you're saying, and I partially agree... BB thought that gaining 2 yards was more likely than stopping Indy from going 70. But you can't take that gamble in that spot. If NE had some timeouts... MAYBE you can make that call and get the ball back with some time. But with no timeouts, NE essentially gave Indianapolis the ball, the clock, and a chance to go for the throat of a defense that was winded AND on a short field. You have to punt and give your defense some breathing room there... the risk (as shown by what happened) is too high.

Joined: Oct 01 2009 Posts: 5316

I guess this would be the wrong time to come out as a Colts fan?