I'd Rather Be 13-1

[mgteich]

IMHO, we would have a better chance at winning the SB if we were 13-1 at this point.

Does anyone believe that the same players would be playing in the next two weeks if we had a loss?

We have an opportunity to rest up players in preparation for the playoff run. There is NO REASON to play the starters much this week, EXCEPT that we are undefeated. This week we lost Kyle Brady. Next week we will again risk injury to our starters, and play players who need the rest.

We have an opportunity to rest this week and get reps for some of the backups thats we might need in the playoffs. If we were 13-1, we would take the opporuntity. Since we are 14-0, we most likely won't.

 

[tatepatsfan]

I disagree. I think that it has been clear over the past few years that BB wants to win and keep momentum going at the end of the regular season. Even if we were 13-1, 12-2, whatever, we'd still be playing our starters for a lot of the game.

 

[rsd]

I'm so very glad that no one on this board is the head coach of an NFL team.

 

[Grizzafted]

IMHO, we would have a better chance at winning the SB if we were 13-1 at this point.

Does anyone believe that the same players would be playing in the next two weeks if we had a loss?

We have an opportunity to rest up players in preparation for the playoff run. There is NO REASON to play the starters much this week, EXCEPT that we are undefeated. This week we lost Kyle Brady. Next week we will again risk injury to our starters, and play players who need the rest.

We have an opportunity to rest this week and get reps for some of the backups thats we might need in the playoffs. If we were 13-1, we would take the opporuntity. Since we are 14-0, we most likely won't.

In Week 17 of the 2004 NFL season, with the Patriots at 13-2 and locked into the #2 seed, they fielded their starters for 3 quarters against the 2-13 49ers.

If they stay focused, they'll be fine.

I anticipate people like Junior, Wilfork, and Maroney to be used sparingly the next two weeks, but I think the concept of resting a team for a whole month is way worse than the risk of injury that comes with staying in a playing mindset. See: Colts, Indianapolis (2005).

 

[bishbash]

In similar discussions, folks have pointed out how BB is not one to "rest" players and risk getting rusty, especially since the team has earned a bye week. Also, Indy has in the past (prior to SB year) rested players in last game or 2 and then lost.

At some point in the season I was thinking a loss might be "good" for the team, but I think Philly & Balt were good wake up calls/tests that proved the team could win close ones when they were'nt blowing teams out.

 

[lander]

A better chance at winning the Super Bowl at 13-1? That doesn't make any sense. It's great to rest players but momentum is important too.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

IMHO, we would have a better chance at winning the SB if we were 13-1 at this point.

Does anyone believe that the same players would be playing in the next two weeks if we had a loss?

We have an opportunity to rest up players in preparation for the playoff run. There is NO REASON to play the starters much this week, EXCEPT that we are undefeated. This week we lost Kyle Brady. Next week we will again risk injury to our starters, and play players who need the rest.

We have an opportunity to rest this week and get reps for some of the backups thats we might need in the playoffs. If we were 13-1, we would take the opporuntity. Since we are 14-0, we most likely won't.

There's a major hole in your argument: the Pats need(ed) 14 wins to guarantee HFA throughout the playoffs. In other words, if the Pats were 13-1 instead of 14-0 right now, they'd still have to play to win against the 'lphins.

 

[PatsSox363804]

In Week 17 of the 2004 NFL season, with the Patriots at 13-2 and locked into the #2 seed, they fielded their starters for 3 quarters against the 2-13 49ers.
.

Thank you, that's exactly what I was going to write. I'm really getting tired of this "we would be better off with a loss" stuff. It's defeatist, ignorant, crap. Have some faith in your damn team.

 

[Ochmed Jones]

Why do you think we will lose momentum by resting a few dinged up players. I think Vrabel will be much better in the palyoffs if he has a week or two to rest his leg bruise.

 

[ClevTrev]

With all due respect, I couldn't disagree more. If you look at Belichick's history, he goes for wins. Given the bye week and home field advantage, I don't see that happening regardless of the team's record. Belichick has also shown that if a player is injured, he will not rush him back or force him to play when he's not ready. I expect to see that continue, so Kyle Brady, Ben Watson, James Sanders, Stephen Neal, and others will be available based on their health. There's no reason the team can't win without them and has done so to date.

Not sure why, but we've seen a lot of these concerns being posted recently, and it's almost as if people expect bad things to happen due to the season being so successful up to now.

Remember, this organization has won Super Bowls despite having lost key people to injury and competing with good teams in the playoffs. There's no reason for that to change.

 

[mgteich]

Yes, if we were 13-1, we might use our starters for "a lot of the game". However, many players would be used sparingly. And as I recall, we did have a game where most of the starters didn't even dress.

The issue is whether Belichick and the team will treat these games as if they have any meaning or not. If it weren't for the unbeaten streak, these last two games would be the preseason for the playoffs.

I expect (BECAUSE WE ARE UNDEFEATED) for all of the starters to play almost all the next two games.

 

[mgteich]

These two games are preseason games for the playoffs. Belichick does NOT always play to win. Look at his strategy in various pre-season games. If we win, great. If not, great. The important thing about these games is to be MOST ready for the playoffs.

With all due respect, I couldn't disagree more. If you look at Belichick's history, he goes for wins. Given the bye week and home field advantage, I don't see that happening regardless of the team's record. Belichick has also shown that if a player is injured, he will not rush him back or force him to play when he's not ready. I expect to see that continue, so Kyle Brady, Ben Watson, James Sanders, Stephen Neal, and others will be available based on their health. There's no reason the team can't win without them and has done so to date.

Not sure why, but we've seen a lot of these concerns being posted recently, and it's almost as if people expect bad things to happen due to the season being so successful up to now.

Remember, this organization has won Super Bowls despite having lost key people to injury and competing with good teams in the playoffs. There's no reason for that to change.

 

[PonyExpress]

I guess you think choking against the Ravens or Eagles, blowing a game against the Colts, or embarrassing themselves yesterday vs the Jets would have set the Pats up for postseason success.

This is the best team ever. Enough with the handwringing.

 

[Snake]

IMHO, we would have a better chance at winning the SB if we were 13-1 at this point.

Does anyone believe that the same players would be playing in the next two weeks if we had a loss?

We have an opportunity to rest up players in preparation for the playoff run. There is NO REASON to play the starters much this week, EXCEPT that we are undefeated. This week we lost Kyle Brady. Next week we will again risk injury to our starters, and play players who need the rest.

We have an opportunity to rest this week and get reps for some of the backups thats we might need in the playoffs. If we were 13-1, we would take the opporuntity. Since we are 14-0, we most likely won't.

Scared men are losers. It takes an extra effort to win the extra goodies. This team has the extra....it may not come round again for a very long time.

Go for it. Go for the whole shooting match...19-0.

GO PATRIOTS!!!!

 

[WelkerFan_83]

Good point ClevTrev

 

[Fixit]

Why do you think we will lose momentum by resting a few dinged up players. I think Vrabel will be much better in the palyoffs if he has a week or two to rest his leg bruise...

...which he'll have because the Pats just secured a bye.

Maybe BB should just rest the starters for a month and a half and save them for the Superbowl.

 

[Grizzafted]

These two games are preseason games for the playoffs. Belichick does NOT always play to win. Look at his strategy in various pre-season games. If we win, great. If not, great. The important thing about these games is to be MOST ready for the playoffs.

Edit: sorry, misunderstood you.

I think the starters will play 3 quarters the next two weeks, and guys who need a rest will get one.

 

[ClevTrev]

These two games are preseason games for the playoffs. Belichick does NOT always play to win. Look at his strategy in various pre-season games. If we win, great. If not, great. The important thing about these games is to be MOST ready for the playoffs.

I beg to differ, and maybe we could find one or two games at the end of past seasons where the team didn't play its best players in all 4 quarters. Those games were situations where the team didn't have a bye week and HFA heading into the playoffs. With a dinged veteran crew and the playoff seedings set in those circumstances, Belichick got certain people ready for the playoff game the following week. However, those he rested for a quarter might not have played at all if it were a regular season game with no immediately-looming post season. This season is different, in that he's got a bye. Belichick always wants the wins, and he'll not treat these games as pre-season matchups.

 

[Lansdowne]

"This is what's great about sports. This is what the greatest thing about sports is. You play to win the game. Hello? You play to win the game. You don't play it to just play it. That's the great thing about sports: you play to win, and I don't care if you don't have any wins. You go play to win. When you start tellin' me it doesn't matter, then retire. Get out! 'Cause it matters."

 

[Rob0729]

There's a major hole in your argument: the Pats need(ed) 14 wins to guarantee HFA throughout the playoffs. In other words, if the Pats were 13-1 instead of 14-0 right now, they'd still have to play to win against the 'lphins.

You beat me to this argument. The only affect 13-1 would have over 14-0 is one game - the Giants game.

Besides, if you look at some of the teams that have let off the throttle in recent history, they struggled to turn it back on. Teams that usually win the Super Bowl are playing the best football at the end of the season.

Pittsburgh went 15-1 while resting starters in the final game in 2004 and got killed by the Pats in the playoffs. The next year they finished the season strong as a Wild Card team and won the Super Bowl.