19-0 in 2009 ?????

[JSn]

Oh, I'm sorry, did you guys not experience the Super Bowl in February of 2008? Was that not one of the most soul-crushing experiences of your lives?

16-0 was miserable. Who cares if they lose during the regular season? Do we want to hear from the Miami crowd again? do we want to subsidize those idiots' TV appearances?

Do we want mediocre teams to play their best games against the Pats every week just to prove to themselves that they're not mediocre? I hated 2007. If they'd won, maybe I'd be glossing over the near-ulcers and general stress of that season, but it was not fun. Not fun at all.

Just beat Buffalo on Monday night and go from there. Health and happiness go a long way toward overall glory. Scroo 19-0. Anyone who assumes the Pats can go out and steamroll the rest of the league doesn't understand the difference between last year's schedule and 2009.

All I want is a Super Bowl win. First, I want one win in Week One.

Yep, I agree. It's bad enough worrying about whether they'll win a game. Worrying about them winning a game because they haven't lost one yet?
Instead of beer or soda you end up chugging antacids.

That said, 19-0 would be fine to look back at.

 

[MetalBleachers]

Yep, I agree. It's bad enough worrying about whether they'll win a game. Worrying about them winning a game because they haven't lost one yet?
Instead of beer or soda you end up chugging antacids.

That said, 19-0 would be fine to look back at.

No argument. I just wonder if the trip would make that worthwhile.

 

[makoute]

Was anyone here talking or thinking 19-0 before the 2007 season. I wasn't until I heard analysts saying they thought it could happen. Even then, I just laughed like "Are you kidding me?" Now, come people seem to expect it to happen. I'm not saying it's wrong, just interesting.

I thought it could happen, I thought the same thing, that season when Corey came to the Pats also.

 

[Pat_the_Patriot]

I don't care.... I just want them to win Game 19 or Game 20 (depending upon whether or not they have a bye in the first round of the playoffs). I DO care if they get the bye, so I will be hoping that they can win game 19, post bye.

14-2 for the regular season (which would be UNREAL) and then 3-0 for the playoffs would be one of our best seasons ever (in fact, it would be tied with the best one ever)....

first things first, though... let's win the AFC East again before even throwing out the bye week situation.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

Colts: Manning scares me, end of story. People forget how close they were to beating us in 2007, as well.

Ravens: Who cares if they don't have Rex Ryan? The defense was awesome long before he got there (better, actually, than it was while he was there), and it's not going to fall of a cliff because he's gone. They still have Ngata, Lewis, Suggs, and Reed, just for starters. I don't see that D taking a major step back this year, which means that they are likely to be a challenge.

Saints: How sure of that are you? All I'm saying is that our secondary had better have gelled by then, because if it hasn't, they'll be able to match us score for score.

Broncos: Not even close, in terms of talent, but McDaniels knows the Pats system inside and out. I trust Belichick to outsmart him, but the consensus across the organization is that McDaniels is pretty damn smart in his own right. If Belichick isn't on top of his game, McD could definitely expose some weaknesses.

In any one of these games, I'll expect the Pats to win. I just wouldn't be totally surprised if they lost any of those games either.

I'll be surprised when they lose one game. Seriously, the addition of Moss and Welker has taken Brady from a great QB to almost an unstoppable QB. They have only lost 1 game since playing together. And to help this offense out, they have retooled the secondary and seemed to have drafted well. However, if this defense turns out to be really bad, then your right, the Pats may drop 3-4 games this season.

Colts - The reason why they were in that game in '07 was because they were controlling the clock with their ground game. Addai was killing the Pats on the ground and in the passing game. In particular, that pass he caught and broke a few tackles to take it to the house right before the half. The following year, the Colts couldn't run the ball all year long. Manning is at his best when he has the defense worried about the ground game. So for next year, if the Colts can't run the ball against the Pats, expect the Pats to blow them out.

Ravens - They have some good players on defense but they still don't scare me. They will have to pull a Giants pass rush to disrupt the Pats offense because the Ravens corners are very average.

Saints - I'm pretty sure the Pats will walk up and down the field with ease on that Saints defense. Like I said before, the Saints will probably score a lot of points, but the Pats will probably score more.

Broncos - They don't have the talent yet to give the Pats trouble. You saw what happened last season, the Broncos have a long way to go. Maybe the Broncos give the Pats trouble in 2-3 years, but not next year.

Much respect to you, but I don't know if I agree with any of this, especially your scoff at the Broncos. They are the only team that BB does not have a winning record against in his tenure. I know the argument might be that it was during the Shanahan regime, and that may be valid. But seriously, I wouldn't dismiss any of these teams. In the NFL, it's any given Sunday and all it takes are a few bad bounces, a blown call, an injury, or the other team simply executing their game plan to perfection to beat our favorite team.

OH, and to all of those who are writing the Colts off, don't be surprised if they're better than you think they will be. As long as Manning is under center and they have that ridiculous pass rush off the edge, I think they'll be tough to beat. I'm not saying unbeatable, just tough.

Those are excellent points about how games can change and decide whether a team wins or loses. However, like I responded above, the Broncos will need a few years to rebuild until they can execute McDaniels game plans effectively. The Monday night game will be hyped up, but I see the Pats blowing them out like last year.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

Here is Belichick's goal which should also be all of ours as well .....


1) Win the AFC East division regardless of how many games it takes to win it

2) Win the AFCCG regardless of a 1 point victory or 40

3) Win the Super Bowl regardless of a 1 point victory or 40


Why else should we be any different than to expect what BB wants?

Only greedy bastards want more

 

[NEPatriot]

an EXPECTATION from fans for a GREAT team.

 

[Deus Irae]

Here is Belichick's goal which should also be all of ours as well .....


1) Win the AFC East division regardless of how many games it takes to win it

2) Win the AFCCG regardless of a 1 point victory or 40

3) Win the Super Bowl regardless of a 1 point victory or 40


Why else should we be any different than to expect what BB wants?

Only greedy bastards want more

That must be why the Patriots, in 2007, rested all of their starters in week 17 against the Giants.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

That must be why the Patriots, in 2007, rested all of their starters in week 17 against the Giants.

I think BB felt that if suddenly the starters were to sit that they might lose the momentum that the previous 15 games had,I am not so sure it was ONLY because of the 16-0 record,I think his decision was for a few different reasons - you don't ever stop momentum regardless whether its a potential historic game or not and the risk of injury to a starter is a chance you take.

 

[VJCPatriot]

I think BB felt that if suddenly the starters were to sit that they might lose the momentum that the previous 15 games had,I am not so sure it was ONLY because of the 16-0 record,I think his decision was for a few different reasons - you don't ever stop momentum regardless whether its a potential historic game or not and the risk of injury to a starter is a chance you take.

That game also seemed to propel the Giants in their playoff push. Although the Pats won the game, the Giants got a lot of confidence out of it. They met the Pats again in the Bowl and we all know what happened after.

It's hard to say what would have happened had the Pats OL been completely healthy, but I think Brady would have had more time and the Pats could have eked out the win, but who knows. Heck if one of our CB holds onto the football during the final drive we'd be talking about if the 19-0 team was the greatest ever.

In 2009 I expect the Pats offense to be awesome again, especially with Moss+Welker more experienced in the system and the addition of Fred Taylor and Joey Galloway.

 

[Deus Irae]

I think BB felt that if suddenly the starters were to sit that they might lose the momentum that the previous 15 games had,I am not so sure it was ONLY because of the 16-0 record,I think his decision was for a few different reasons - you don't ever stop momentum regardless whether its a potential historic game or not and the risk of injury to a starter is a chance you take.

This might have validity if he hadn't chosen to rest starters in other seasons. However, since he has done it in other seasons, this simply doesn't hold water.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

This might have validity if he hadn't chosen to rest starters in other seasons. However, since he has done it in other seasons, this simply doesn't hold water.

Well the closest comparison to the 2007 season and the final regular season game would be the 2003 season where the Pats won 15 consecutive games in the regular season - Do you know or remember BB resting starters in the 16th game that 2003 season?

 

[Deus Irae]

Well the closest comparison to the 2007 season and the final regular season game would be the 2003 season where the Pats won 15 consecutive games in the regular season - Do you know or remember BB resting starters in the 16th game that 2003 season?

Resting players during the last game in any season risks losing momentum.

 

[VJCPatriot]

If you had it to do all over again, would you throw away the chance at 16-0 to rest the starters in the final game of 2007? Would that have made a big enough difference that they'd end up doing better in the playoffs? I think that's doubtful, because who can predict sickness/injury to the OL unit?

 

[AzPatsFan]

For all the comments about a tough schedule, please look at it in detail. and their AFCE opponents schedules. Virtually all the plalyoff teams are played at Foxboro, giving the Pats another small advantage. Plus there are no tough games on six days rest.

The only road exception is Indy at Indy. But I expect Indy to struggle this year. They have also lost their coachig staff, and are wearing down, IMHO. Plus for the first time, their division looks to be tougher from top top bottom.

Denver at Denver has been a perpetual thorn, but Denver is only organizing under a new Coach so that should be a better outcome than normal.

The other advantage is their own division. It is possible for all their division opponents to get off to 0-5, or 1-4 starts, while the Pats could be 4-1 or 5-0 after the first handful of games, making a farce of the division race.

This all adds to a tremendous season, that is possible.:snob:

 

[stcjones]

I want to see a 19-0 in 09 so bad because i can't find a reason to refuse it.:singing:

Do you want the same thing???

Let's make it to the playoffs first before you start dreaming...............

 

[NEPatriot]

I have a dream and it's NE's record 19-0 in 09. How cool is it to have it in a 'capped' year?

We started it and we have to finish it BEFORE the 'uncapped' year starts.

19-0 in a 'capped' year and 19-0 in a 'uncapped' year. It's sick to think about it.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

This might have validity if he hadn't chosen to rest starters in other seasons. However, since he has done it in other seasons, this simply doesn't hold water.

I believe he has only rested players in game 16 when the team had made the playoffs, their spot was guaranteed, no other teams would be affected with respect to playoffs, AND WHEN THE PATRIOTS WERE GOING TO HAVE TO PLAY ON WILDCARD WEEKEND (i.e. no bye).

 

[Deus Irae]

I believe he has only rested players in game 16 when the team had made the playoffs, their spot was guaranteed, no other teams would be affected with respect to playoffs, AND WHEN THE PATRIOTS WERE GOING TO HAVE TO PLAY ON WILDCARD WEEKEND (i.e. no bye).

He's rested the players in other years. That's the relevant point.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

I believe he has only rested players in game 16 when the team had made the playoffs, their spot was guaranteed, no other teams would be affected with respect to playoffs, AND WHEN THE PATRIOTS WERE GOING TO HAVE TO PLAY ON WILDCARD WEEKEND (i.e. no bye).

Here's a link to back that up:

Sports - Pancake Blocks: Don't expect Patriots to rest starters

Here are the three times before 2007 in which a Bill Belichick Patriots team had nothing to play for in Week 17.


* In 2004, with a bye in hand but no chance at home-field advantage, the Patriots played their starters into the fourth quarter and won at home against San Francisco. They wound up winning the Super Bowl.

* In 2005, without a bye and nothing to play for, the Patriots rested their starters after the first quarter and lost by two points at home to Miami. Matt Cassell overthrew Bam Childress on the game's final play - a two-point conversion attempt. The Patriots wound up losing in the Divisional Round to Denver.

* In 2006, without a bye and nothing to play for, the Patriots played their starters until the start of the fourth quarter, and beat a red-hot Tennessee team, 40-23.

So...The only time (ONE YEAR, not "YEARS") they rested people was when they didn't have a bye week, and the Patriots went on to have their ugliest playoff loss of the Belichick era. In 2004, they had a bye in hand, and still played their starters long enough to secure the win. After the 2005 Denver game, perhaps he regrets making that ONE exception.