I didn't get to see the whole game, but given the difference was less than a touchdown, I think it's difficult to say one team is clearly better than the other.
I think these teams will meet again in the AFC championship. And the winner of that game will likely destroy Dallas or Green Bay in the Super Bowl.
2007-11-04 12:30:40 · 16 answers · asked by Justin H 7 in Sports ➔ Football (American)
I don't really think this game will settle it. Like you said, these two teams will meet again in the playoffs to see who gets the rights to destroy whoever the NFC sends.
2007-11-04 12:34:55 · answer #1 · answered by 2nd AD/ 4th ID 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not having Marvin Harrison in the game was a huge loss, as I stated before. The Pats did not look all that great tonight. It's a sin and a shame the Colts lost that game after the defense played so well. Coupled with the fact that they didn't convert in the red zone twice. If those 2 field goals were touchdowns, Pats would have gotten smashed.
2007-11-04 13:06:51 · answer #2 · answered by keewesti 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
i know everyone will say pats (and i am a pats fan) but no this does not settle it....it proves that both teams are very evenly matched and i agree with you..the score difference was too small.....although i will say the fact that my patriots had so many freakin penalties (not all deserved) and that they were down early on...well i think it does say something that they came back and won......i also agree that one of these two teams will destroy NFC in super bowl....but a lot can change between now and then....i mean wasnt san diego suppose to win it all last year and they didnt. one game at a time!
2007-11-04 12:43:24 · answer #3 · answered by TheBostonBuckeye 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I still think the Colts are the better team regardless of what just happened. Colts have played harder competition, and they don't try to score 50+ points a game. Therefore the margin of winning should be less. The Patriots, at least in my opinion, are overrated, but still very good.
All the Patriots do is pass pass pass, whereas the Colts has a balance, even without Harrison at WR and Ugoh at OL. If you look at the game, most sacks of Manning came from attacking the backup OL where Ugoh would have been.
2007-11-04 12:35:19 · answer #4 · answered by Pat 3 · 2⤊ 3⤋
no because the colts were missing 4 starters and only lost by 4 points and the refs made a few bad calls against the pats so its still hard to tell which one is truly better.
2007-11-04 12:41:56 · answer #5 · answered by nicco 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The game was close and both teams made some glaring errors. Neither was doing all that well. And the officials were making some bad calls, especially around pass interference calls.
2007-11-04 12:40:40 · answer #6 · answered by DiggyK 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't think it made a difference, clearly both are very strong teams. its going to be a fight to the finish. I definitely agree with you on the super bowl thing.
2007-11-04 12:41:15 · answer #7 · answered by Panda 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the Pats got lucky that they won. They made a important plays when they needed too. Moss and Aadai were good but both QBs were sacked and weren't as sharp as they normally are. However, both teams are still way above all the other teams in the league!
2007-11-04 12:35:20 · answer #8 · answered by cats 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
What are you people talking about, the Pats beat the Colts and the refs. On the road too!!! They're awesome.
2007-11-04 12:39:01 · answer #9 · answered by Jeseth 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Naw it does,t neither team was a hundred percent, injuries on both sides, when they do play late,r if they do meet hopefully both will be as close to a hundred percent as it can be, then that would truly be the real game to see.
2007-11-04 12:35:54 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋