I'm sorry to be such a jerk, but the original post brings to light some of the most annoying tendencies of fans (and the sports analysts who brainwash fans).
A must-win game is a game that you must win to make the playoffs. This is not a must-win game. Even if the Patriots lose they still win the division and make the playoffs if 1) they win their last game, or 2) the Jets lose either of their last two games. And even if they lose both remaining games and the Jets win both the Pats still have a chance at a wild-card.
Calling this a must-win is spoiled and stupid. A must-win game means that if you lose you stand no chance at the playoffs. I know it is often hard to keep this in mind when the morons at ESPN are referring to week 6 games as must-win, but please try to rise above their level.
Oh I read the crap about how this is a must-win for momentum blah blah blah. Momentum is one of those wonderful little sports stupidities. When a team has been winning and (big surprise) continues winning then it is momentum. When a team backs into the playoffs and starts winning they get credited with having the ability to "flip the switch on." When a team wins some and loses some on the way to the playoffs, well, no one notices because it isn't out of the ordinary.
I'll believe that a coin always flips heads if I only recall the times it comes up heads.
How do all of you believers in momentum explain the Detroit Tigers? They backed into the playoffs and had lost all momentum. They were left for dead. They go ahead and win two playoff series, winning 7 games in a row, and have crazy momentum going. Then they go out and lay a big stinky turd against a 82-win team (in a crappy National League), a team which would have finished at best 4th in Detroit's own division. They are a perfect case study in just how ******ed the notion of momentum really is.
The simple truth of momentum is this: team's on win streaks tend to be good teams. Good teams tend to win. Therefore, teams with momentum tend to continue winning.
The other thing that bugs me about the original post was the crap about this year's Pats team lacking the heart of past teams. Heart is another one of those stupid things which magically shows up when you win and suddenly disappears when you lose.
Why did the '01 Patriots win the super bowl? Was it heart? Or was it a combination of a great coaching, great defense, a really good QB, a great kicker, other teams sucking (Raiders not being able to put snow game away, Rams refusing the deviate from a gameplan which wasn't working) and all kinds of luck?
Why did last year's team lose in Denver? Did they lack heart? Or did they just fail to execute enough while the luck went the other way (refs screwing up two big calls = bad luck, just like refs getting the tuck rule correct was good luck)?
Go back and watch the '01 team. There were plenty of times they failed to execute. They failed to convert 3rd downs and missed tackles. They won the games though so it's all forgotten.
If this year's team doesn't win it isn't for lack of heart. It'll be due to lack of execution, lesser coaching (compared to when they had Weis), and maybe either the luck going the other way or the other team stepping up to win the game.
But the mediots will point to a lack of heart and the dumb sheep will nod their head in agreement.
Again, sorry to be such a longwinded raging jerk here. It isn't really aimed at any individual as a personal attack, though I am attacking some people's words so feel free to tell me where to shove it. This stuff just pisses me off sometimes.