Postgame: New England 49, Miami 28

by tommasse on Oct 21, 2007 5:19 PM EDT in News

Lucky 7
Patriots Remain Undefeated

Look at all the pretty 7s. New England is 7-0. Miami is 0-7. The Patriots scored 49 points (7 touchdowns) and 49 is 7 squared (obviously). Tom Brady hit 7 different receivers. Willie Andrews returned a kickoff 77 yards (ultimately for 7 points). OK, starting to stretch this theme too thin.

If Brady was great today, Moss was mesmerizing. And that's besides the two phenomenal touchdown receptions, both in double coverage, both just standing there like he was in the eye of the storm. No, what was mesmerizing about Moss was the coverage he attracted, like he had his own gravitational field.

Defensive backs were drawn to him, making Brady's job easy. The league's best quarterback found receivers all over the field, so wide open they looked like they were filming remakes of The Sound of Music.

If anyone had an easier game, it was place kicker Stephen Gostkowski. Seven kickoffs ("Frankly, sir, I'm exhausted" -- 7 points if you know that one), seven extra points, no field goal attempts. By the way, 3 of the kickoffs were touchbacks.

The defense gave up one long drive in the first half, when it mattered. The final stats won't show it, because they allowed Miami to move the ball in the second half, just to kill the clock. Tedy Bruschi looked 5 years younger. He was all over the field, netting 10 solo tackles and 2 assists. Rodney Harrison, sans HGH, also looked good in his third game of the season, racking up 7 solo tackles, an assist, and a sack. Even Adalius Thomas, listed as questionable Friday, notched 7 solo tackles.

But what the rest of the world will be talking about is the offense.

New England scored at will in the first half. The Patriots scored on their first four possessions (not including a 0-play kickoff return for touchdown) before going 3-and-out with barely 5 minutes left in the half. In all, they scored on 5 of 6 first-half possessions.

Because the Patriots allowed Miami to "control the clock" in the second half, New England had just four possessions. The first was a mere attempt to move the ball and kill time. It ended with a punt. The second ended with Matt Cassel's interception, returned 36 yards for a touchdown by Jason Taylor. With the score "closing," Brady went back in. Bill Belichick wanted a score. Brady and company delivered -- with virtually no effort at all. Matt Gutierrez closed it out, but there was no controlled attempt to score.

Brady's 1st 'Perfect Game'

The records continued to fall. Brady extended his record of games to start a season with 3 or more touchdown passes to 7 (there it is again). He also broke his career best with 6 touchdown passes in a single game (previously, 5, last week). That is also a Patriots franchise record. The NFL record is 7 (most recently by Joe Kapp for the 1969 Vikings). It was his first career game with a perfect passer rating: 158.3

Moss, who now has 10 touchdowns, is the first Patriot with 10 or more touchdowns in a single season since Stanley Morgan did it in 1986.

New England's 42 points in the first half is a franchise record for points in a single half (either first or second).

I'm sure we'll hear of more once the statisticians run the numbers.

Patriots scored 48 last week. They scored one more this week. The Patriots allowed 27 points next week. They allowed one more this week. Not a record, just interesting.

I leave you with this question:

How many teams nonchalantly allow 21 points in the fourth quarter and still win by 21?

Poll

Who was the Week 7 player of the game @ Miami?

0 recs | Comment 20 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

I'm just counting the days...

...until we see the first "If Peyton Manning had receivers like the Patriots have, he'd put up those ridiculous numbers too" comment.

by RSNexile on Oct 21, 2007 10:44 PM EDT 0 recs

you may very

well see that comment...after wayne, harrison, and clark either retire or no long play for the colts.

by biosBSOD on Oct 22, 2007 12:21 PM EDT up 0 recs

Woosh!

That's the sound of the point flying over your head.

by RSNexile on Oct 22, 2007 6:28 PM EDT up 0 recs

Heck yeah

RSNexile has made me laugh pretty hard with that last comment. I always knew Brady was better than Manning, anyone who knows football and has a lick of commone sense could tell that. Manning has always had good receivers and Brady has always had mediocre to downright bad ones. Deion Branch looked stellar when Tom was throwing him the football but the minute he left it became very apparent who was getting the better deal in that relationship.

Finally we have given Tom something to work with. He's the best quarterback in football today, and high in the running for best quarterback all time.

One last thing, how sweet was it to hear even Shannon Sharpe, Boomer Esiason, Bill Cowher and Dan Marino agree that the only way New England doesn't go 16-0 this year is if they lock up all possible advantages and stop playing until the playoffs? Finally we are getting the recognition we deserve... it's only taken us over half a decade of being the best franchise in football for someone to realize it.

by PaulRevere on Oct 22, 2007 3:11 AM EDT 0 recs

Re: Branch

He doesn't exactly have Kyle Boller throwing to him these days. Matt Hasselbeck is one of the better QBs in the NFC. Brady is just that much better.

by RSNexile on Oct 22, 2007 6:16 PM EDT up 0 recs

I dont agree

that brady is better than manning. The only reason that brady has these huge stats is because all they do is run up scores. for instance, why the hell put brady back in just to throw for another td? whatever, if you all are that worried about numbers. im sure the pats are pissing off everyone because of what the media played them out to be. but at this point, nobody can disagree that brady is padding his stats BIG TIME. but hey, if every team is too dumb to defend the pass and say "screw their run game" then you all deserve to blow everyone out. i just think that brady isnt as good as manning...my personal opinion.

by biosBSOD on Oct 22, 2007 9:14 AM EDT 0 recs

It was just a matter of time

Before a Colts fan came here and made another excuse.

When Manning pads his stats, that's different, right? All we heard when I was writing my "Brady vs. Manning" is that Manning was better because his stats were better. Now Brady's stats aren't only better, they're historical. Now the numbers don't matter!

So since I proved Brady was better pretty much beyond the shadow of a doubt in every other form of comparison, and now that he has better stats, on what basis do you form your opinion that Manning is better? You have nothing.

And you guys call other people hypocrites! What a joke.

Have something to say? Create a free account and step up to the Pulpit! (Please: No vulgarity. Thanks.)

by tommasse on Oct 22, 2007 9:42 AM EDT up 0 recs

it's funny...

given Belichick's statment about Brady going back into the game, it seemed more like he was giving extra respect to the Dolphins rather than 'dissing' them.

think about it, He actually thought it was possible for the 'phins to score 42 or more points in a quarter. Don't know about anyone else, but I'd call that respect. as it was, they did score 21...

btw, when manning had his record year, does anyone have a record of the margins of victory, and when the last indy touchdown was scored?

by circusboy on Oct 22, 2007 12:05 PM EDT up 0 recs

this is the one season

that brady "statistically" is doing better than manning. every year until last year, you all said, stats dont matter, its the rings. but now that manning has one and the patriots are blowing out subpar teams and scoring when unnecessary, you want to use the stat argument? so it seems this is just a big merry-go-round argument. but of course, if i dont have hard evidence, my opinions are called a joke. i dont have to have hard evidence for stat comparisons in past years to know that manning was better than brady. and also, i dont remember manning coming back in a game in 04 just to toss and extra touchdown to pad his stats and insult the opponent.

by biosBSOD on Oct 22, 2007 12:19 PM EDT up 0 recs

If you remember correctly

Which I'm sure you don't, because some people seemed to have a difficult time carrying a consistent thought through a single thread, much less a multi-month conversation, I said that statistics told only part of the story (hence the 4-part series). I never, ever once said that statistics don't matter.

What was said was that Manning had better statistics because he had better supporting skill players and because he played most of his games in domes, among other factors. I remember specifically one Colts fans saying that "if Brady doesn't throw for 50 touchdowns this year, he never wanted to hear the Brady-Manning argument again."

And, now that Brady has supporting skill players, and the Patriots are destroying teams, Colts fan(s) are just lining up more excuses that contradict their previous excuses. That's why your opinions are called a joke.

You can make all the "padding his stats" insinuations you want. Because (as you failed to address) when Manning did it, it was OK. Not only was it OK, it was the greatest thing that ever happened to Indianapolis.

Have something to say? Create a free account and step up to the Pulpit! (Please: No vulgarity. Thanks.)

by tommasse on Oct 22, 2007 1:10 PM EDT up 0 recs

Totally Agree

Of course, saying that something is the greatest thing that ever happened to Indianapolis isn't saying much.

by PPP on Oct 22, 2007 4:12 PM EDT up 0 recs

Was it me that said that?

Might have been, but I don't think so.

First these points:

It's not just his receivers. Brady himself is much better this year than I thought he would be, so props to Brady. Others have sucked throwing to Moss.
I don't think Pats are running up the scores, nor do I care if they do. If you get it in the NFL, you deserve it.

Now this point:
It is hard to keep a multi-month thread going, but if you go back you may recall that I said it wasn't stats that separate Brady and Manning. They are different types of QBs, and I still think so. I think the Colts will beat the Patriots this year because Manning is going to wear down their old linebackers. Manning calls plays at the line, and he can call any play in the playbook from about 6 seconds after the last play ends to the last second on the play clock. It takes the Colts about 4 seconds to change formations, so the defense is not even safe in that regard until about 5 seconds left on the play clock. Brady cannot operate an offense like Manning does even if he throws 100 TDs to Moss-Welker this season.

I'll be back to take my beatings if the Patriots beat the Colts, but the only way I see it happening are if they stab the Colts too deep early that they can't come back. The Patriots defense is going to collapse about 1/2 way through the third quarter and they will have to ride out the storm.

by SteveW on Oct 25, 2007 6:25 PM EDT up 0 recs

Brady's better BECAUSE the receivers are better

I think they go hand in hand. Brady has always been about the same. He doesn't play much differently than he did in 2002. In his pseudo-rookie season of 2001, he played a lot like Bledsoe and other NFL receivers, throwing mostly to Troy Brown and a couple other old-reliables, having yet to hone his skill of going through progressions.

He's really more like 2001 this year because he has "go-to" receivers. But, when any of those receivers are covered, he has no problem finding the open receivers.

I also wonder about the conventional wisdom about wearing down New England's "old linebackers." I've seen no evidence yet to support that theory. However, it's still relatively early in the season, and a lot can change in a few weeks.

Otherwise, I'll give you credit, SteveW. Good post.

Have something to say? Create a free account and step up to the Pulpit! (Please: No vulgarity. Thanks.)

by tommasse on Oct 25, 2007 6:53 PM EDT up 0 recs

Oh, you mean...

...like when Peyton Manning was setting the TD record in 2004, when his lines for weeks 10-13 looked like this:

Week 10: 18-27, 320 yards, 5 TD, Colts win 49-14
Week 11: 17-28, 211 yards, 4 TD, Colts win 41-10
Week 12: 23-28, 236 yards, 6 TD, Colts win 41-9
Week 13: 25-33, 425 yards, 5 TD, Colts win 51-24

No, the Colts never ran up scores to inflate Peyton Manning's numbers, that never happened.

And who was the Colts' RB that year? Was it Edgerrin James, who ran for 1548 yards, fourth in the league? And who is the Pats' RB this year? Lawrence Maroney? Who missed three games with an injury that is probably going to affect him all year? Whose backup is going to miss a month with an injury? Who the Pats might therefore want to protect from injury?

by RSNexile on Oct 22, 2007 6:27 PM EDT up 0 recs

Opinions are not unassailable

Thanks, RSNexile. That saved me from compiling those quick stats.

Some people believe humans have never landed on the moon. Some people believe Manning is the best quarterback in the league. A rational person who considers the evidence opines otherwise.

You see, some people believe that because they have "an opinion" that they are not required to justify it -- that it doesn't need to be valid or logical because it's "an opinion" -- even when there are mountains of evidence that make their positions indefensible. That's usually followed by some lame excuse and a subject change.

Have something to say? Create a free account and step up to the Pulpit! (Please: No vulgarity. Thanks.)

by tommasse on Oct 22, 2007 6:55 PM EDT up 0 recs

I cant damn well defend the stomping of the lions

or even the texans that much (defense sacked qb 5 times, 3 ff, 3 interceptions. lots of turnovers, lots of points, but still thumpin). in the chicago game, edge rushed for over 200 yards, so either way, it was gonna be a blowout. they couldnt stop the run OR the pass. we cant just kneel the whole game! and the titans had a BIG 1st quarter (scoring 24 points and leading), so i dont blame us for putting it more than 24 points outta reach for the fourth quarter. so yeah...manning has ran up a couple of games when unnecessary

by biosBSOD on Oct 23, 2007 7:11 PM EDT up 0 recs

and some of us remember 46-10

though thankfully some other teams have run it up further in superbowls since then and it is no longer the historical laugher that it was at the time.

sigh... I'm too old... you'd think I could let it go.

as a side note, I noted somewhere that the pats only scored the one touchdown in the second half, the dolphins scored 21 in the 4th. and did you see the titans-texans game this week? 21 points in the last 9 minutes.

by circusboy on Oct 24, 2007 12:27 PM EDT up 0 recs

receivers

Yes, Brady now has good receivers but Manning has ALWAYS had good receivers and that's the ONLY reason his stats have been better. Now Brady has good receivers for the first time and he's showing just how unbelievable he is. 3 Super Bowls, probably going to be 4. Brady isn't just the best quarterback now, he's in the running for best ever. Do you know anyone else who won a Super Bowl in their rookie year?

by PaulRevere on Oct 23, 2007 1:36 AM EDT up 0 recs

No, not the only reason

There's also the fact that Manning played most of the games in his career indoors and some other things. Just wanted to be clear that it's not simply a personnel issue.

Have something to say? Create a free account and step up to the Pulpit! (Please: No vulgarity. Thanks.)

by tommasse on Oct 23, 2007 8:49 AM EDT up 0 recs

additionally

I hadn't read to the end of the thread when I posted my last comment.

Blowing out subpar teams, man? San Diego and Dallas are subpar teams? If I'm not mistaken, Dallas was undefeated until we leveled them. We'll be blowing out a subpar team on November 4th. A team that is below the par of the verbal fellatio they have received. Prepare to die, Ponies.

Apologies, I have a hard time being kind to people who disrespect my beloved Patriots.

by PaulRevere on Oct 23, 2007 1:41 AM EDT 0 recs