Members t3ch Posted December 4, 2007 Members Share Posted December 4, 2007 I don't think the Pats are going to win out. I think the last couple of Pats games have shown just how difficult it is for teams to go undefeated. They've come through in the end, but they haven't been dominant. I think it's probable that they'll lose at least one of these last 4. If they win the next 2, they'll clinch home field throughout. Then what? They continue to play all starters to ensure a 16-0 season? Yep; wouldn't you? Besides, with them playing so well, they have plenty of time to rest up before the playoffs, unlike the teams battling for wild card spots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mrmatt64 Posted December 4, 2007 Members Share Posted December 4, 2007 they'll clinch home field throughout. Then what? They continue to play all starters to ensure a 16-0 season? Nah, all you'll see is a Fathead cutout of Tom Brady on the sidelines after they clinch home field advantage. Mr. Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members WillPlay4food Posted December 4, 2007 Members Share Posted December 4, 2007 I'd think the starters would still need to keep in shape. People talk about player rust when coming back from an injury. What kind of rust would be on the Patriots if they let their starters sit out for 4-6 weeks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members King Kashue Posted December 4, 2007 Members Share Posted December 4, 2007 It is tough. Denver went through this in 1998. They were 13-0 going up against the Giants (who weren't THAT great of a team) and lost. It's extremely difficult to go undefeated. They still went on to win the superbowl and were definitely the best team that year (the Vikings fricking choked), but going undefeated is really really tough even for a great team, which the Pats are. And remember, the only undefeated team in NFL history played the easiest schedule of any Super Bowl Champion ever, and only played two games against teams with winning records (the Pats have already played twice that, and will play two more)...If the Pats do it, playing three times the number of winning teams, a harder schedule, and two more games, there should be no doubts about which is the greater team... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Emprov Posted December 4, 2007 Members Share Posted December 4, 2007 Nah, all you'll see is a Fathead cutout of Tom Brady on the sidelines after they clinch home field advantage. Mr. Matt I doubt it, Belichick has shown that he's way too aggressive. I think that he'll keep the heat on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members King Kashue Posted December 4, 2007 Members Share Posted December 4, 2007 I'd think the starters would still need to keep in shape. People talk about player rust when coming back from an injury. What kind of rust would be on the Patriots if they let their starters sit out for 4-6 weeks? It would be three weeks. The last two weeks and then the playoff bye week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted December 4, 2007 Members Share Posted December 4, 2007 And remember, the only undefeated team in NFL history played the easiest schedule of any Super Bowl Champion ever, and only played two games against teams with winning records (the Pats have already played twice that, and will play two more)...If the Pats do it, playing three times the number of winning teams, a harder schedule, and two more games, there should be no doubts about which is the greater team... Very true. It's gonna be tough for them though, the pressure only builds every week and having a couple close games before going against a good 9-3 team is going to give the Steelers the feeling they really have a shot at this game. Which means they will have a real shot at this game unless the Pats take them out of it early. Definitely the game of the week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bbl Posted December 4, 2007 Members Share Posted December 4, 2007 Yep; wouldn't you? Besides, with them playing so well, they have plenty of time to rest up before the playoffs, unlike the teams battling for wild card spots.No, I wouldn't. I wouldn't risk an injury and potential playoffs loss to go 16-0 during the regular season.I also wouldn't completely bench all starters for all quarters, either. But if the Pats win the next two, do you think that Brady and other starters will be on the field during the 4th quarter of games 15 and 16?If they are, I'd say Bellychick has lost his priorities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members frunobulax Posted December 4, 2007 Members Share Posted December 4, 2007 No, I wouldn't. I wouldn't risk an injury and potential playoffs loss to go 16-0 during the regular season. I also wouldn't completely bench all starters for all quarters, either. But if the Pats win the next two, do you think that Brady and other starters will be on the field during the 4th quarter of games 15 and 16? If they are, I'd say Bellychick has lost his priorities. if they've clinched homefield all the way through, i would think you wouldn't see Brady in teh second half.the stated goal is a Championship.hell they've already won 22 in a row. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members King Kashue Posted December 4, 2007 Members Share Posted December 4, 2007 hell they've already won 22 in a row. Um...how do you figure? They started this season on a one-game losing streak, having lost to Indy in the AFC Championship and they lost in week 14 last season to the Dolphins... Over their last 22 games they're 20-2... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members frunobulax Posted December 4, 2007 Members Share Posted December 4, 2007 Um...how do you figure? They started this season on a one-game losing streak, having lost to Indy in the AFC Championship and they lost in week 14 last season to the Dolphins...Over their last 22 games they're 20-2... it overlapped a couple of seasons a few years back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members King Kashue Posted December 4, 2007 Members Share Posted December 4, 2007 it overlapped a couple of seasons a few years back. Oh, you mean "they already, at a previous point, have won 22, which is like an undefeated season"...Gotcha. I read it as meaning their current 12-0 + the last ten of last year... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members frunobulax Posted December 4, 2007 Members Share Posted December 4, 2007 my mistake - 21 games NFL's Longest Winning Streaks On October 5, 2003, the New England Patriots defeated the Tennessee Titans, 38-30. That win began a record streak of victories by the Patriots that spanned more than a calendar year. The record run of winning came to a halt during Week 8 of the 2004 NFL season when the Pittsburgh Steelers stopped the Patriots.The Patriots record winning streak reached 21 games and included wins in both the regular season and post-season highlighted by a victory in Super Bowl XXXVIII. New England also entered the record book when the team strung together 18 straight wins in the regular season which surpassed the mark held by the Chicago Bears in 1933-34.21 Games New EnglandPatriots 2003-2004 Win Date Opponent, Score 1 Oct. 5 Tennessee Titans, 38-30 2 Oct. 12 New York Giants, 17-6 3 Oct. 19 at Miami Dolphins, 19-13 (OT) 4 Oct. 26 Cleveland Browns, 9-3 5 Nov. 3 at Denver Broncos, 30-26 6 Nov. 16 Dallas Cowboys, 12-0 7 Nov. 23 at Houston Texans, 23-20 (OT) 8 Nov. 30 at Indianapolis Colts, 38-34 9 Dec. 7 Miami Dolphins, 12-0 10 Dec. 14 Jacksonville Jaguars, 27-13 11 Dec. 20 at New York Jets, 21-16 12 Dec. 27 Buffalo Bills, 31-0 13 Jan. 10 * Tennessee Titans, 17-14 14 Jan. 18 * Indianapolis Colts, 24-14 15 Feb. 1 ** Carolina Panthers, 32-29 16 Sept. 9 Indianapolis Colts, 27-24 17 Sept. 19 at Arizona Cardinals, 23-12 18 Oct. 3 at Buffalo, 31-17 19 Oct. 10 Miami Dolphins, 24-10 20 Oct. 17 Seattle Seahawks, 30-20 21 Oct. 24 New York Jets, 13-7 Streak Ended Oct. 31 at Pittsburgh Steelers, 20-34 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted December 4, 2007 Moderators Share Posted December 4, 2007 This talk of NE's win streak is like discussing Tiger Woods' Non-Grand Slam Grand Slam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members t3ch Posted December 4, 2007 Members Share Posted December 4, 2007 OK let me clarify. If NE has a lead like they've had (since the teams left are awful), I would expect brady to sit a bit. If it's like last night, I'd anticipate brady staying in; needing rest or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bluescout Posted December 4, 2007 Members Share Posted December 4, 2007 The Ravens dominated that game well last night but the Pats have a talent for staying in things even when it's going bad. Then Tom Teriffic takes over under 2 minutes to go. It takes a lack of sportsmanship for players to blame a loss on the officiating. And with all the crap players give officials, Ravens players get angry when they get a little back? "Just play the game, boy" is THAT offensive? Who are you REALLY angry with, the officials or yourselves? And yes, T.B.> E.E. Tom is greater than all Electrical Engineers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members King Kashue Posted December 4, 2007 Members Share Posted December 4, 2007 This talk of NE's win streak is like discussing Tiger Woods' Non-Grand Slam Grand SlamNot at all...If He was saying "They should be considered as having an undefeated season, since they already went 21-0 over 21 games", that would be the same.He's just saying "They've got the longest win streak in NFL history at 21 games"...Another hitch: you're implying it would need to happen all in one season to count (which is part of the definition of the grand slam)...only one problem...You can't have a 21 game winning streak in just one season, the most games you can possibly play is 20 (and if you went 16-0 during the season it would almost certainly max you at 19) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted December 4, 2007 Moderators Share Posted December 4, 2007 Another hitch: you're implying it would need to happen all in one season to count (which is part of the definition of the grand slam).Um. His non-grand slam was winning all four grand slam events in a row. They just didn't happen in the same season. From wiki - "The following season, Woods continued dominating. His 2001 Masters win marked the only time within the era of the modern "grand slam" that any player has been the holder of all four major championship titles at the same time, a feat now known as the "Tiger Slam". It is not viewed as a true Grand Slam, however, because it was not achieved in a calendar year." Hence my term non-grand slam grand slam. I'm kind of concerned how you don't consider carrying victories over to the following season in golf the same as you do football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members frunobulax Posted December 4, 2007 Members Share Posted December 4, 2007 the Pats won 21 games without losing. Tiger Woods held all 4 trophies at once. i buy that as a Grand Slam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members King Kashue Posted December 4, 2007 Members Share Posted December 4, 2007 Um. His non-grand slam was winning all four grand slam events in a row. They just didn't happen in the same season. From wiki - "The following season, Woods continued dominating. His 2001 Masters win marked the only time within the era of the modern "grand slam" that any player has been the holder of all four major championship titles at the same time, a feat now known as the "Tiger Slam". It is not viewed as a true Grand Slam, however, because it was not achieved in a calendar year." Hence my term non-grand slam grand slam. I'm kind of concerned how you don't consider carrying victories over to the following season in golf the same as you do football. lrn3read (I know what Tiger's "slam" was, and I know what the golf "grand slam" is...I correctly described them both in my post) A "winning streak" is defined as "consecutive wins"...a "grand slam" is defined as "winning all four majors in a single year". One explicitly includes the single season in it's definition, one doesn't. That's why your analogy is invalid. Tiger did not achieve the Grand Slam as his sport has always defined it. The Pats did achieve a 21 game win streak, as their sport has always defined it. Considering every one of the other "longest winning streaks" listed by the Pro Football Hall of Fame span multiple seasons, I don't think you've got even a toe to stand on, much less a leg... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bbl Posted December 4, 2007 Members Share Posted December 4, 2007 OK let me clarify. If NE has a lead like they've had (since the teams left are awful), I would expect brady to sit a bit. If it's like last night, I'd anticipate brady staying in; needing rest or not.The Steelers and the Giants aren't awful.Regardless, what if the Pats have a big lead at the half against the Giants in Week 16, sit Brady, then lose their big lead? You think they'll put Brady back in? If so, I'll look just like this --> . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bbl Posted December 4, 2007 Members Share Posted December 4, 2007 ...and if you went 16-0 during the season it would almost certainly max you at 19) KK is so precise... he recognizes the possibility that 3 teams in one conference could go 16-0.Wait, is that possible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted December 4, 2007 Moderators Share Posted December 4, 2007 Considering every one of the other "longest winning streaks" listed by the Pro Football Hall of Fame span multiple seasons, I don't think you've got even a toe to stand on, much less a leg... How dare you compare me to Heather Mills? Speaking of the Patriots' win streak that occurred a few years ago is kind of like suggesting that Nebraska football is currently an elite college program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members King Kashue Posted December 4, 2007 Members Share Posted December 4, 2007 KK is so precise... he recognizes the possibility that 3 teams in one conference could go 16-0. Thanks for noticing Wait, is that possible? No, it's actually not, so my implied caveat was unecessary.It's only possibly for two teams to go defeated in a given Conference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted December 4, 2007 Members Share Posted December 4, 2007 How dare you compare me to Heather Mills? Speaking of the Patriots' win streak that occurred a few years ago is kind of like suggesting that Nebraska football is currently an elite college program. :Doh...wait...I killed that thread....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.