Article stating why it makes more sense to be the #4 seed

[Ring 6]

Well, he's made that "dumb idea" now at least twice, and both times they didn't have the award of the bye.

Wait. You are trying to say BB lost on purpose twice?

If you are calling Belichick dumb that would surprise me. According to your thought process, Belichick's decision in the past (or in the future) to rest starters and not play for the win and the higher seed was a dumb idea....yet it somehow happened.

You said he played to lose because he would rather have the 4 seed. That is dumb.

Resting injured players shouldn't be considered a bad idea, especially if Belichick feels that there is a benefit.

Absolutely correct/.

As others have said---he's done it before, he'll do it again...The only real question is to whether or not he'll do it THIS year or not.

Only on a VERY limited basis, and he certainly didn't lose on purpose to get a lower seed.

You may not agree with the idea, and many don't--that's understandable. I'm not even sure if I agree with it or not. But let's not act like there isn't a debate, and that he won't consider it either.

There isn't a debate that losing on purpose to get the 4 seed instead of the 3 is anything but moronic.

 

[supafly]

My advice is not to try too hard to lose games based on what MIGHT happen.

Pittsburgh may not even make the playoffs. Cincy/Baltimore/Indy in some order... meh. Baltimore isn't the same team that beat us. Indy is very young and in the 'happy to be here' category. Same could apply to Cincy.

The #3 seed isn't that bad and #4 isn't appreciably better.

I think I prefer the #3 because if #4 can upset Houston, and that could definitely happen, you could end up with the AFC Championship game at home.

Can you imagine trying to lose to duck Pittsburgh and then having to travel to Baltimore for the AFC Championship instead of them coming to Foxboro?

That said, if they want to rest Vollmer or Dennard or Gronkowski or C. Jones or even Solder then why not? We should still be able to beat Jacksonville with the next man up.

I believe that this is likely why Belichick will play for the #3rd seed in this case, but he'll probably also rest some key players at the same time.

A perfect scenario would obviously be to build a big lead and then be able to play Mallett etc.

It isn't the worry THIS week vs JAX as your example states, it would be a decision that would be made next week vs MIA, although it's possible that is what you meant too.

It isn't so much about a worry regarding Pittsburgh as it is looking at the matchups in a string + having the benefit of resting starters for a longer playoff run.

I think what it comes down to is the slight odds that KC can somehow upset DEN combined with hoping that someone knocks off HOU in the 2nd round, so there seems to be a good case of playing for the #3rd seed this year.

 

[supafly]

Wait. You are trying to say BB lost on purpose twice?



You said he played to lose because he would rather have the 4 seed. That is dumb.


Absolutely correct/.


Only on a VERY limited basis, and he certainly didn't lose on purpose to get a lower seed.



There isn't a debate that losing on purpose to get the 4 seed instead of the 3 is anything but moronic.

He decided to throw the game in 2005, yes. There wasn't one thing that was remotely "subtle" about the decision in the least.

If that isn't the most clear cut case of "deciding to lose and retain the 4 seed" than you must be blind!!!

You keep acting as though it didn't happen, and that it's dumb, but it already DID happen.

 

[Ring 6]

They rested the starters after the first couple of series, (Brady was pulled after 3 series') I don't think you can honestly say that they didn't rest starters that year, or that they really even came close to giving it their all to win the game.

Playing Hoyer and a bunch of backups = resting starters in many people's eyes.

Brady played until 4 minutes left in the 4th quarter. Moss through the 3rd. Your memory is bad.

Hoyer played the last series of the game and the last series of the 1st half. THATS ALL HE PLAYED.

There also was nothing at stake.

So what else you got for 'proof'?

 

[supafly]

Brady played until 4 minutes left in the 4th quarter. Moss through the 3rd. Your memory is bad.

Hoyer played the last series of the game and the last series of the 1st half. THATS ALL HE PLAYED.

There also was nothing at stake.

So what else you got for 'proof'?

I'm not talking about that game.

And yes--you're right, after Brady left for a Hoyer substitution he returned, so that is where the "3 series" comment came from.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/gametracker/playbyplay/NFL_20100103_NE@HOU

I am however, referring to the very well known game in the 2005 season. You cannot deny that, there was nothing subtle about it. It has happened before, no one but you is disputing that fact.

 

[Ring 6]

He decided to throw the game in 2005, yes. There wasn't one thing that was remotely "subtle" about the decision in the least.

If that isn't the most clear cut case of "deciding to lose and retain the 4 seed" than you must be blind!!!

You keep acting as though it didn't happen, and that it's dumb, but it already DID happen.

So they drove 72 yards in 1:46 so they could miss a point conversion to throw the game?
Believe what you want, conspiracy theorists typically do.
There was also no guarantee of a 3 seed if they won, because the Bengals would have been 12-4 if they won, which also means the opponents were not known although you seem to want to pretend they were.

 

[supafly]

So they drove 72 yards in 1:46 so they could miss a point conversion to throw the game?
Believe what you want, conspiracy theorists typically do.
There was also no guarantee of a 3 seed if they won, because the Bengals would have been 12-4 if they won, which also means the opponents were not known although you seem to want to pretend they were.

I am not a conspiracy theorist.

It has been more than well documented in both these boards and in the media what happened. All you have to do is look through the threads and posts.

You have a difference of opinion and that is fine, but you are in the minority to what you believe happened.

The fact that they drove down the field was nothing more than practicing situational football. It also had a lot to do with Miami being up 8 points at the end of the game too.

 

[Ring 6]

I'm not talking about that game.

And yes--you're right, after Brady left for a Hoyer substitution he returned, so that is where the "3 series" comment came from.

If you aren't talking about that game, then why are you saying 3 series, and referencing Hoyer?
Of course you are talking about that game, and AGAIN they didn't rest the starters after 3 series they sat Brady down for the last drive of the half (more than just after 3 series) and the last drive of the game.
You really should admit you are wrong here.

NFL Football Play by Play - New England vs. Houston - Jan 03, 2010 - CBSSports.com

I am however, referring to the very well known game in the 2005 season.

No you aren't because Hoyer wasn't on the team then. You were specifically refering to the Houston game, go back and read your own post

You cannot deny that, there was nothing subtle about it. It has happened before, no one but you is disputing that fact.

The drove 72 yards in 1:46 and Cassell made a bad throw on the 2point conversion. That is not losing on purpose.

 

[Ring 6]

I am not a conspiracy theorist.

It has been more than well documented in both these boards and in the media what happened. All you have to do is look through the threads and posts.

I saw the game, I don't need to read posts to find what you consider to be documentatio,

You have a difference of opinion and that is fine, but you are in the minority to what you believe happened.

In the minority based on what? Like all great conspiracy theories, its made up. Please find one player on the team that has ever come out and said that. If the team purposely threw the game, it is not only distasteful, but illegal. Surely one of the 53 players would speak up at their disgust in tanking a play on purpose that would have tied the game. But, hey, message board posters think so:bricks:

The fact that they drove down the field was nothing more than practicing situational football. It also had a lot to do with Miami being up 8 points at the end of the game too.

Yeah, sure bud.

 

[supafly]

If you aren't talking about that game, then why are you saying 3 series, and referencing Hoyer?
Of course you are talking about that game, and AGAIN they didn't rest the starters after 3 series they sat Brady down for the last drive of the half (more than just after 3 series) and the last drive of the game.
You really should admit you are wrong here.


No you aren't because Hoyer wasn't on the team then. You were specifically refering to the Houston game, go back and read your own post


The drove 72 yards in 1:46 and Cassell made a bad throw on the 2point conversion. That is not losing on purpose.

No, I have no problem admitting that I am wrong. I actually thought I already did that by stating the words "yes, you are right about that."

The HOU game in 2009 was not THE clear cut case of reasoning that the 2005 game brought, and that's why I said that I wasn't talking about that one.

That was the game where they brought Hoyer in and then brought him back out for a Brady switch again, and you are right--I did need my memory refreshed. That is why I posted a link to the gamecenter play by play chart. It shows Brady being taken out after the 3rd series. I was mistaken due to the fact that is where I assumed it ended.

The 2005 game was the one that has been well documented. You don't agree with it and that is fine. You are certainly in the minority there.

I will defer the last word to you since the last thing I want to do is get into a pissing match, but the fact remains:

Belichick has done it before, he will likely do it again at some point. The only question that remains is "when."

You may believe that pulling our most important players does not equate to "giving up," and you'd have a point there, but it certainly and obviously drastically lessens the chances of winning, and Belichick is quite aware of that.

There is indeed a debate to whether it would make more sense to play IND/HOU rather than PIT/DEN + rest starters. You may not agree with it, hell I am not even sure that I agree with it--and I have stated that over and over and over now....but the fact remains that it is indeed a hot topic of conversation and it will continue to be into next weekend. You are shooting the messenger due to the fact that you simply don't agree with it.

 

[supafly]

I saw the game, I don't need to read posts to find what you consider to be documentatio,


In the minority based on what? Like all great conspiracy theories, its made up. Please find one player on the team that has ever come out and said that. If the team purposely threw the game, it is not only distasteful, but illegal. Surely one of the 53 players would speak up at their disgust in tanking a play on purpose that would have tied the game. But, hey, message board posters think so:bricks:



Yeah, sure bud.

I don't know why you keep going on and on. I am trying to be reasonable.

The 2005 game had nothing to do with conspiracy theories. It wasn't subtle, it was more than obvious to most who saw it.

As far as the last drive with under 1:45 remaining, it was situational football like we've seen many times. If you are attempting to tell me that Miami wasn't in a prevent defense of sorts on some level when they were up 8 in a meaningless game with under 2 minutes to play, that would be ridiculous...

 

[supafly]

Stating that it isn't a debate is just short-sighted, no matter what your opinion is.

It is a hot topic, and will remain so.

Here is the latest ESPN Boston article by Rodak:

Big Decision: Rest up or play to win? - New England Patriots Blog - ESPN Boston

With the following quote:

"Publicly, coach Bill Belichick will make it clear his approach: Players will play, injuries can happen at any time, and the goal is always to win.

But internally, Belichick has proven to be pragmatic. In the final game of the 2005 season, quarterback Tom Brady played just one quarter in a loss to the Miami Dolphins. The Patriots hardly lamented the defeat, as they knew it meant a lower seed and a first-round matchup with the Jacksonville Jaguars instead of the Pittsburgh Steelers, who became the eventual Super Bowl champions."

If you are stating that this is all "made up" then I don't know where else to go, you are entitled to your opinion and aren't going to see things from any other point.

 

[Ring 6]

Stating that it isn't a debate is just short-sighted, no matter what your opinion is.

It is a hot topic, and will remain so.

Here is the latest ESPN Boston article by Rodak:

Big Decision: Rest up or play to win? - New England Patriots Blog - ESPN Boston

With the following quote:

"Publicly, coach Bill Belichick will make it clear his approach: Players will play, injuries can happen at any time, and the goal is always to win.

But internally, Belichick has proven to be pragmatic. In the final game of the 2005 season, quarterback Tom Brady played just one quarter in a loss to the Miami Dolphins. The Patriots hardly lamented the defeat, as they knew it meant a lower seed and a first-round matchup with the Jacksonville Jaguars instead of the Pittsburgh Steelers, who became the eventual Super Bowl champions."

If you are stating that this is all "made up" then I don't know where else to go, you are entitled to your opinion and aren't going to see things from any other point.

2005 was a brutal season for the Patriots. They were worn out, and that was well known.
Resting players was clearly in BBs plans, and was very needed. Losing to determine opponent is simply a conspiracy theory.
Did BB value giving his team much needed rest (especially after having byes the previous 2 years) more than the 3 seed over the 4? Yes, of course. Did he lose on purpose because he was afraid to play the Steelers. No, of course not.
First, its ludicrous to me that BB would tell his team they have to lose because they fear a potential opponent. Second, if they threw the game as you suggest, someone would have come out and said it by now.

The fact that they valued rest that season over seeding is real, the thought they lost on purpose is what is all made up.

 

[Ring 6]

I don't know why you keep going on and on. I am trying to be reasonable.

The 2005 game had nothing to do with conspiracy theories. It wasn't subtle, it was more than obvious to most who saw it.

As far as the last drive with under 1:45 remaining, it was situational football like we've seen many times. If you are attempting to tell me that Miami wasn't in a prevent defense of sorts on some level when they were up 8 in a meaningless game with under 2 minutes to play, that would be ridiculous...

What I consider ridiculous is suggesting that the team would drive 72 yards in 1:46 then cheat to lose by purposely tanking the conversion. You are just wrong on that, even though there are many conspiracy theorist who have revised history by saying it happened that way over and over again, particularly on this board.

 

[Rob0729]

A few things:

• If the Bengals win out and the Ravens lose out and the Pats are the #3 seed, the Ravens will come into Foxboro on Wild Card weekend. The Ravens are the easiest match up in the playoffs especially in this scenario they would have lost five of their last 6 games. Might be the best first round match up to be had.
• I don't get why so many people are afraid to go into Denver. I think the Pats match up very well vs. Denver no matter where they play and I am still not convinced that Denver can beat a top team in this league.
• The 2005 comparisons are overrated. This team is arguably one of the best teams in the league and still a favorite to go to the Super Bowl. That 2005 team had some major holes and were mostly in the playoffs because of Belichick's magic and Brady. Most people outside of New England felt they were one and done no matter who they played. During the season, the Pats lost to virtually every playoff team they faced (Indy, Carolina, KC, and Denver). The only playoff team they beat in the regular season was he Steelers and that game went down to the wire and was won on a Vinatieri field goal.

 

[RobertWeathers]

A few things:

• If the Bengals win out and the Ravens lose out and the Pats are the #3 seed, the Ravens will come into Foxboro on Wild Card weekend. The Ravens are the easiest match up in the playoffs especially in this scenario they would have lost five of their last 6 games. Might be the best first round match up to be had.

• 
  
  With the way BAL is playing I agree. CIN has a better D and Indy is dangerously streaky...
  
  

  [*]I don't get why so many people are afraid to go into Denver. I think the Pats match up very well vs. Denver no matter where they play and I am still not convinced that Denver can beat a top team in this league. .

  
  Agreed. The Pats have played their share of sub-standard teams but so has DEN. Still though, going to Mile High with that nutty crowd only helps that pass rush.
  
  
  

  [*]The 2005 comparisons are overrated. This team is arguably one of the best teams in the league and still a favorite to go to the Super Bowl. That 2005 team had some major holes and were mostly in the playoffs because of Belichick's magic and Brady. Most people outside of New England felt they were one and done no matter who they played. During the season, the Pats lost to virtually every playoff team they faced (Indy, Carolina, KC, and Denver). The only playoff team they beat in the regular season was he Steelers and that game went down to the wire and was won on a Vinatieri field goal.

Yep- The 2005 Pats had a good front 7 but the secondary and offense were at best erratic and not championship-caliber.

If the Patriots are truly the best team in the conference, they will win at home, on the road, in rain, snow, sleet or wind.

 

[Patsrock]

Hoping that the Pats winning and Houston losing ended this talk. And Pittsburgh losing too

 

[supafly]

Hoping that the Pats winning and Houston losing ended this talk. And Pittsburgh losing too

I don't know if the talk was ended at all, to be honest with you. It SHOULD be ended, but I am sure it will be a hot topic until the Miami game.

Keep in mind that there are some reports that Brady has hurt his shoulder now too, so there will probably continue to be talk about resting some/many of the starters.

The Colts are locked into the #5 seed, from what everyone says due to Baltimore and Cincy winning today, so they may not even have too much to play for and may rest their starters too, we will have to see. If that is the case then they certainly aren't going to beat Houston next week. There are arguments to them playing for "Chuck" and there are arguments that they may rest Luck, etc.

The concern wasn't really for Pittsburgh. It was the fact that IND/HOU would have been an easier path then PIT/CIN and then going to DEN. Not only that, but there was a good case for resting starters, and that will only continue moving forward, especially if Brady is indeed hurt on any level.

In Belichick we trust, and that's all it comes down to.

 

[supafly]

With the way BAL is playing I agree. CIN has a better D and Indy is dangerously streaky...



Agreed. The Pats have played their share of sub-standard teams but so has DEN. Still though, going to Mile High with that nutty crowd only helps that pass rush.




Yep- The 2005 Pats had a good front 7 but the secondary and offense were at best erratic and not championship-caliber.

If the Patriots are truly the best team in the conference, they will win at home, on the road, in rain, snow, sleet or wind.

A few things:

• If the Bengals win out and the Ravens lose out and the Pats are the #3 seed, the Ravens will come into Foxboro on Wild Card weekend. The Ravens are the easiest match up in the playoffs especially in this scenario they would have lost five of their last 6 games. Might be the best first round match up to be had.
• I don't get why so many people are afraid to go into Denver. I think the Pats match up very well vs. Denver no matter where they play and I am still not convinced that Denver can beat a top team in this league.
• The 2005 comparisons are overrated. This team is arguably one of the best teams in the league and still a favorite to go to the Super Bowl. That 2005 team had some major holes and were mostly in the playoffs because of Belichick's magic and Brady. Most people outside of New England felt they were one and done no matter who they played. During the season, the Pats lost to virtually every playoff team they faced (Indy, Carolina, KC, and Denver). The only playoff team they beat in the regular season was he Steelers and that game went down to the wire and was won on a Vinatieri field goal.

2005 was a brutal season for the Patriots. They were worn out, and that was well known.

Kudos for those who pointed out the differences between the 2005 season (and possibly even the 2009 season, depending upon how you see it) and this one, as they are obviously different in many ways and that is a great point.

I would certainly assume that each individual season will be weighed out depending upon many circumstances and variables. I will also agree that MOST of those variables will have nothing to do with seeding or better matchups, but the possibility exists for resting players---always.

All we can do is trust the coach's decision and hope the team is prepared + proper injury management.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

Well SupaFly, your point of discussion is about to be put to the test. I don't believe there is a reasonable expectation that Denver loses to KC (KC is just too inept on offense). So if BB is scoreboard watching and sees the Texans handily beating the Colts (likely as Indy has nothing to play for), the 4th seed is within the Patriots' power to choose by putting in Mallett and other subs (if the OL plays like it did today and Miami brings its A game, the decision might be made for us). So do we get:

3rd seed: home VS Cincy, at Denver, 50/50 of at Houston or home VS Ravens

4th Seed: Home VS Indy, at Houston, 70"% at Denver or 25% at Baltimore (extremely unlikely scenario of at home VS Cincy).

For me, provided the OL plays the way it should (I think they will), Gronk comes back (I think he will), and we get healthy on the D side of the ball (totally unknown), this is still a no brainer to me. The 3rd seed has a real shot at hosting the AFCCG. IMHO it's well worth getting the tough assignment of beating Denver in Denver in the divisional round.
On the other hand, if the Patriots' health stays bad and the OL continues to play sub par, delaying a trip to what appears to be the toughest playoff task of beating Denver in Denver, might be the better scenario.

A fairly healthy Patriot team, IMHO, has a solid chance of beating anyone. A Patriot team with Gronk, Talib, Dennard and Spikes ailing is a team that will struggle to beat Denver in Denver (and to a lesser extent, Balt in Balt).