A different look at Pats' postseason.....

[Keegs]

Ok i know you guys know your stuff so please correct if i am wrong about any facts. I missed week 17 last year, but to the best of my knowledge we had our 2nd string playing against the dolphins in the 2nd half.
Now i might be wrong but if we lost, we would Play Jacksonville (obviously)
BUT if we won we would play Pittsburgh......

so based on what i heard from the game, we had the "we don't care" attitude about our last game. If we lost with out backups, its ok cuz we play the jags, but if our backups win we'll play pitt (the hot team)

Now i never thought of this before but has anyone ever got the feeling that all those bad things happened in the Broncos game b/c we took the "easy route"???

I think playing Pitt would have been much better for this team.

I'm not saying the ref's calls, but our own mistakes....... The fumbles, Brady's throw, that crappy blocking..........

could this have happened b/c we took the easy way, and played the crappy playoff team?

I thought the jags were weak last year and the absolute worst team in the playoffs.......

I realize that BB's preparation is second to none, but watching the nfl network i thought about it today and it bothered the **** outta me....

If you aren't at least a little superstitious, you are going to think this is stupid. Or if you've read some of my other threads, you might think it is stupid regardless... but either way lemme know what you think...

 

[SeanBruschi54]

They rested all their starting players because they already secured a playoff spot. Why risk getting any player hurt like Brady or Bruschi. Our team already had massive injuries why add more.


In short they didnt care who they played was the attidtude. They'll play whoever they face.

 

[Keegs]

They rested all their starting players because they already secured a playoff spot. Why risk getting any player hurt like Brady or Bruschi. Our team already had massive injuries why add more.


In short they didnt care who they played was the attidtude. They'll play whoever they face.

yeah that is the other side of it, it makes much more sense and was definitely the smart thing to do in my opinion.

I was just thinking crazy i guess.

 

[SeanBruschi54]

yeah that is the other side of it, it makes much more sense and was definitely the smart thing to do in my opinion.

I was just thinking crazy i guess.

I heard them say the same thing on the NFL network and thought it was a load of crap they even brought such a thing up.

 

[Keegs]

I heard them say the same thing on the NFL network and thought it was a load of crap they even brought such a thing up.

yeah it's not like i wanted to believe it... but it just irritated me thinking about it.

I think im just still disapointed in how it ended.

 

[LloydBraun]

When we win the next 2-3 Super Bowls, we will look back at the Denver fiasco costing us 5 or 6 in a row.

I am serious, this team will be deadly with Dillon and Maroney behind 12.

 

[SeanBruschi54]

yeah it's not like i wanted to believe it... but it just irritated me thinking about it.

I think im just still disapointed in how it ended.

Every news outlet just bashes the hell out of this team. the NFL network did an entire piece on the AFC East and said how the Patriots still will dominate the division. yet when it came time to pick the playoff teams they picked the Pats to lose the division to the Dolphins and miss the playoffs.

 

[Patjew]

yeah that is the other side of it, it makes much more sense and was definitely the smart thing to do in my opinion.

I was just thinking crazy i guess.

MANY people didn't think that was too crazy then. Let's not forget that very wide 2-point conversion pass.

I'm not at all a consipracy theorist, but I would not be shocked to someday read that the Pats did not exactly play to win that game.

Did that somehow result in them playing poorly against Denver. I don't think so.

OK, I'm going to get my head down now.

 

[spacecrime]

They rested all their starting players because they already secured a playoff spot. Why risk getting any player hurt like Brady or Bruschi. Our team already had massive injuries why add more.


In short they didnt care who they played was the attidtude. They'll play whoever they face.

That's what I recall, also. It is not uncommon for teams without a bye to rest regulars the last week of the season. And we damn near won the game, Cassel to Childress. That would have stopped all the "dolphins are on a roll from last year' blathering by the talking heads.

 

[pats1]

2nd half?

Cassel was in there by the 2nd quarter.

 

[Remix 6]

Jags were not a bad team at all in my mind. Taylor is a great back when healthy..Jones was a rookie who they loved..Smith was still ballin. Their D was amazing. I think they gave us a challenge till we got some momentum and then it was over. Our D played great..Watson couldnt get tackled and Faulk did great aswell

I truthfully think we could have won against Denver. Why? Our D was doing pretty good..the refs put out BS..that led to scores. If the refs didnt call the bad PI, we might not have been in the position that we need to score and the ball might not have been picked. I think Asante did nice work but the ref just blew the call. Versing Pitts would have been almost as hard honestly..their secondary isnt as good but they put a lot of pressure from LBs like us and Porter would have been hard to stop and they also had a better O in my opinion. I blame the refs, we could of won it. Wether i think we could of won SB or not doesnt matter because the refs took us out of the running. New season..each team is equal and will be fresh..hungry. 0-0 like BB says..1 week at a time now.

 

[captain stone]

Jags were not a bad team at all in my mind. Taylor is a great back when healthy..Jones was a rookie who they loved..Smith was still ballin. Their D was amazing. I think they gave us a challenge till we got some momentum and then it was over. Our D played great..Watson couldnt get tackled and Faulk did great aswell

I truthfully think we could have won against Denver. Why? Our D was doing pretty good..the refs put out BS..that led to scores. If the refs didnt call the bad PI, we might not have been in the position that we need to score and the ball might not have been picked. I think Asante did nice work but the ref just blew the call. Versing Pitts would have been almost as hard honestly..their secondary isnt as good but they put a lot of pressure from LBs like us and Porter would have been hard to stop and they also had a better O in my opinion. I blame the refs, we could of won it. Wether i think we could of won SB or not doesnt matter because the refs took us out of the running. New season..each team is equal and will be fresh..hungry. 0-0 like BB says..1 week at a time now.

I don't want to beat a dead horse (excuse the pun), but- I've said it at the time, and i'll say it again- if the pats don't turn over the ball, not only do they beat the donkeys, they possibly shut them out. So many chances were wasted, that it would take more time than I care to use to list all of them.
As for Pats vs. Steelers, at the Razor, that would have been one helluva war. Possible Instant Classic. Not accounting for turnovers, I believe the Pats would have won a close, low-scoring game.
SB XL vs. Seattle? Is there even a single doubt?
Pity...

 

[BradfordPatsFan]

I don't want to beat a dead horse (excuse the pun), but- I've said it at the time, and i'll say it again- if the pats don't turn over the ball, not only do they beat the donkeys, they possibly shut them out. So many chances were wasted, that it would take more time than I care to use to list all of them.

I agree with that. I guess since I am an official (not football) I do not like the "the refs blew it" excuse. I do think there were bad calls but it was the turnovers that put the Pats in a precarious situation. Just so much went wrong on that January night that it all snowballed into an avalanche of frustration for us and the team.

Things that the Pats just do not do happened that night. Brady throws two INT's. He had 3 total INT's in 10 previous playoff games, and none since the SB 38. Three fumbles, two of which were by playoff veterans (Faulk and Brown), one of which is as sure handed as they come (Brown). Vinatieri's missed fg. So many things that the Patriots did not do in the previous three playoff runs happened that night. This, accompanied by two bad calls, allowed three scoring drives for the Broncos of a total of five plays. 21 points on five plays.

The offense and special teams played poorly and the Pats lost. I think the team has that in mind as they approach this season. It was clear by their drafting that the pats feel that the offense and special teams needs to be better to avoid that fate this year. I think they will reap the fruits of their labor come February. Looking back upon last January with regret and remorse will not get us anywhere but sick. Instead, lets look to a week from Friday when this team will again take the field and give us some football to look forward to.

 

[onegameatatime]

I assumed the Pats did not really try to win that last ganme, but I have a theory I have not heard before. I thought it was not because they were a-scared of the Steelers, but because they assumed going into week 17 they would play JAX, and therefore had been preparing mainly for JAX. The Pats did not want to throw away the prep work.

 

[njpatsfan]

Every news outlet just bashes the hell out of this team. the NFL network did an entire piece on the AFC East and said how the Patriots still will dominate the division. yet when it came time to pick the playoff teams they picked the Pats to lose the division to the Dolphins and miss the playoffs.

How true. The Colts have rested their starters the last 1-2 games the last four years in a row. How come no one ever blames their perenial choking on *them* being "soft" ?

R

 

[richpats]

Ok i know you guys know your stuff so please correct if i am wrong about any facts. I missed week 17 last year, but to the best of my knowledge we had our 2nd string playing against the dolphins in the 2nd half.
Now i might be wrong but if we lost, we would Play Jacksonville (obviously)
BUT if we won we would play Pittsburgh......

so based on what i heard from the game, we had the "we don't care" attitude about our last game. If we lost with out backups, its ok cuz we play the jags, but if our backups win we'll play pitt (the hot team)

Now i never thought of this before but has anyone ever got the feeling that all those bad things happened in the Broncos game b/c we took the "easy route"???

I think playing Pitt would have been much better for this team.

I'm not saying the ref's calls, but our own mistakes....... The fumbles, Brady's throw, that crappy blocking..........

could this have happened b/c we took the easy way, and played the crappy playoff team?

I thought the jags were weak last year and the absolute worst team in the playoffs.......

I realize that BB's preparation is second to none, but watching the nfl network i thought about it today and it bothered the **** outta me....

If you aren't at least a little superstitious, you are going to think this is stupid. Or if you've read some of my other threads, you might think it is stupid regardless... but either way lemme know what you think...

I'm in complete agreement with you. Take a look at Week 17 in 2004 against San Francisco, a TRUELY meaningless game since we were locked into the #2 spot going in. We had our starters in for 3 quarters against the worst team in football, and only that long because we needed to get our crap together after a slow start. Belchick was more concerned with keeping our momentum going than resting our starters. This paid off obviously.

Fast-forward to 2005, the Denver Broncos had a similar game at San Diego in Week 17. They were locked into the #2 spot but still played to win, and went out with an impressive defensive effort against the Chargers (Brees or no Brees).

The Pats did take the 'easy route' last year, and I think this was a latent cause of our demise. Belichick did try to have things his way- we weren't fearless going into the postseason. Come on, we could have stomped the Fins and gone into the playoffs on a 5-game win streak. It would have been a hell of a tough game, but we could have beaten the Steelers at home. We elect not to play Pittsburgh and they go on to become SB champs.

As for our mistakes against Denver, anybody watching the Jags playoff game closely should not have been surprised. Brady did play sluggish for a good bit of that game too. We had FOUR fumbles against Jax, all recovered though. The next week we lose 3 fumbles. Consider Brady playing with a sports hernia and most of the team basically playing injured/coming off of injury. We looked edgy as hell against Denver too. It does catch up eventually.

There's nothing for the Pats to be ashamed of though- considering our early schedule, the rash of injuries, inconsistent play, terrible midseason D, they still won the division and a playoff game. There is a lot of hope for 2006, and don't worry, we will crush the Fins and take the division once again.

GO PATS!!!

 

[BradfordPatsFan]

I'm in complete agreement with you. Take a look at Week 17 in 2004 against San Francisco, a TRUELY meaningless game since we were locked into the #2 spot going in. We had our starters in for 3 quarters against the worst team in football, and only that long because we needed to get our crap together after a slow start. Belchick was more concerned with keeping our momentum going than resting our starters. This paid off obviously.

Fast-forward to 2005, the Denver Broncos had a similar game at San Diego in Week 17. They were locked into the #2 spot but still played to win, and went out with an impressive defensive effort against the Chargers (Brees or no Brees).

The Pats did take the 'easy route' last year, and I think this was a latent cause of our demise. Belichick did try to have things his way- we weren't fearless going into the postseason. Come on, we could have stomped the Fins and gone into the playoffs on a 5-game win streak. It would have been a hell of a tough game, but we could have beaten the Steelers at home. We elect not to play Pittsburgh and they go on to become SB champs.

One difference between resting in 2005 and not resting the players in 2004, the Pats already had the bye week to look forward to after the 49ers game in 04 so they could afford to play the starters a bit longer. This past year, there was no bye week so they rested the starters and used it as a defacto bye week.

 

[AFPatsFan12]

I'm not sure if folks are implying that Karma or some other intangible was in play because of the Patriots' effort against the Dolphins in week 17, but resting their starters in the final week was absolutely the right thing to do. Lest we forget that had New England won in week 17, they would have locked up the 3 seed (Cincinatti lost to KC), and played Pittsburgh in the WC round, followed by Denver in the divisional. Being the 3 seed locks up a second round trip to Denver. Is anyone here saying that playing Pittsburgh THEN Denver would have been a suitable alternative to playing Jacksonville then Denver? Clearly not...so what's wrong with creating a pseudo-bye week to get everyone healthy (healthier)?

The Patriots "rust" showed in the first half of the Jacksonville game, a game which they should have been up at least 17-3, and very easily could have been behind had the Jags played better themselves. Week 17 had absolutely no effect on the Divisional Round in Denver. The best comparison to be made is that the Denver game was exactly like the Halloween game in Pittsburgh in 2004. We have been so spoiled by the air of invincibility this team exuded for so long, we failed to remember that yes, indeed, the New England Patriots CAN make mistakes, CAN fail to execute, and CAN look like crap. Sure, it's a rare occurance under BB, but it's not impossible. Simply put, the Patriots played like crap, got no breaks, and lost a terrible game in the playoffs to a riled up team who generally has had the Patriots number over the years, it's as simple as that...

 

[richpats]

Is anyone here saying that playing Pittsburgh THEN Denver would have been a suitable alternative to playing Jacksonville then Denver? Clearly not...so what's wrong with creating a pseudo-bye week to get everyone healthy (healthier)?

It's all about momentum and playing without fear. Sure, playing Jacksonville then Indy/Denver sounds like it would be an easier route to the SB, but in doing that the Pats convinced themselves that they didn't want to play the Steelers - that kind of hesitant attitude is not the stuff of champions.