Do you believe...

[PatsFanSince74]

Tragic pre-season death of a teamate? Check.
Star QB's ex-girlfriend giving birth to his child during the pre-season games? Check.
Team leader Safety suspended for HGH? Check.
Weeks without two of our most important defensive players? Check.
A seemingly declining WR with a questionable history in his first season with a new team? Check.
Biggest fine in NFL history / Whole legacy questioned during Week 2 of the season? Check.
Overcoming seemingly impossible odds in hostile Indy/Baltimore environments? Check.
Hall of Fame coach requesting asterisk be included with our season? Check.
Putting together a 21-0 run to obtain the first 16-0 season in NFL history? Check.
Achieving historic QB/WR TD records with that 16-0 season on the line still? Check.

If there’s any team in – not just the NFL – but sports in general that can handle pressure it’s the New England Patriots.

We successfully handled the pressure for 18 games and 59 minutes.

I doubt “pressure” was the reason our defense collapsed on the final drive, it was just a case of great execution and ridiculous luck by the Giants. Just as we were ridiculously somehow able to come out of Baltimore with a win.

the interesting thing about your list is that it can make both arguments. You conclude that your list demonstrates they could handle the pressure. Someone else looks at the same list and concludes, the pressure built up and finally became too much.

i simply don't buy that the fact that the best team in the NFL in many years and arguably the best team in its history (which I still believe the 2007 Patriots were) had as many breakdowns across the board as the Patriots did last Sunday can simply be explained by "great execution" and "luck" on the part of our opponent. This doesn't say that they didn't play a tough, physical game and consistenty beat us at the point of attack, as others have amply documented out here. This just argues that there were other things going on as well.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

I doubt “pressure” was the reason our defense collapsed on the final drive, it was just a case of great execution and ridiculous luck by the Giants.

I don't think that the final drive was a result of the 19-0 pressure, rather the fact that they were in a position in which they had to get a stop at the end of the game in order to hold an opponent to 10 lousy points is partly the result of pressure.

They handled it all year, but the last week the "biggest game ever" attitude made them (players AND coaches) just a little tight. It's not their fault, it's human nature.

Leading up to the Super Bowl, John Elway was interviewed and was amazed how up to that point the undeafeted season had seemingly not weighed on the Patriots. Elway related that when his team was 13-0 they were so tired of the perfection talk and wound up so tight that it was actually somewhat of a relief to lose. Then they even lost again, got mad, and rolled to a championship. He thought that losing a game and being forced to refocus were critical to the Bronchos having been able to win the Super Bowl that year.

If the Ravens or Eagles had won in the regular season games against the Patriots, then the "biggest game ever" and "game for the ages" mindset never takes hold and it's just the same old "do your job, one play, one series, one game at a time" mentality that has always worked well for the Patriots in big games.

 

[upstater1]

How so? Players didn't fumble the ball, Brady didn't throw interceptions, WRs didn't drop passes. The D played their 2nd best game since Buffalo. Nothing in the Pats play suggests that the pressure got to them. Well, maybe the false starts but that's seems to be the norm for Matt Light these days.

The pressure I'm talking about is the season long grinding and sapping of energy from spygate. This was an incredibly long season with more sniping then ever before in sports history. This was the most controversial sports team EVER. And in the Super Bowl, they were not able to ratchet up their intensity. They were sapped. Multiple players have come out and said so. I'm inclined to believe them.

 

[NEPatriot]

I don't know. One possitive is that we wouldn't have had all of the "if we go 19-0 are we the greatest team ever" threads. Every year some folks get so wrapped up in our place in the history of the game that they don't enjoy the journey. I have never really cared what other people think of the Pats and I certerainly don't care now. I just enjoy watching them as they're my team.

 

[Spiral]

I believe that if the Patriots had lost to the Giants on the last weekend of the regular season, the Patriots would have beaten them in the SB by something like 38-10.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I believe that if the Patriots had lost to the Giants on the last weekend of the regular season, the Patriots would have beaten them in the SB by something like 38-10.

I think if the Patriots had lost before the Giants game in week 17, Coughlin and Belichick would not have played that game the way they did and in effect righted the Giants ship on the eve of the playoffs. As it was, the Giants came away from a game which they believed mattered enough to the Patriots believing the could beat us, and they did.

 

[Bierman9]

I think if the Patriots had lost before the Giants game in week 17, Coughlin and Belichick would not have played that game the way they did and in effect righted the Giants ship on the eve of the playoffs. As it was, the Giants came away from a game which they believed mattered enough to the Patriots believing the could beat us, and they did.

I said this to a friend of mine right after the last regular-season game, too. Having the Pats at 15-0 going in was the best thing to happen to the Giants. They played their regulars and played to derail history, and it snowballed for them from there until the end. They gained loads of confidence. If the Pats were a 1-loss team going into that game, I feel that the SB would have turned out far differently, with a NE win, and perhaps not even having NY in it.

Oh well.....

 

[godef]

That if the Pats had gone into the playoffs with 1 loss already under the belt, that they would have had a better chance to win the Super Bowl?
In other words do you believe that the pressure, and mystique, of having to finish off the perfect season affected the Pats performance in the final game?

Honestly, I'm not sure. I kind of think that it's superstitious to believe that a Pats team that had finished the regular season 15-1 would have been any better off in the Super Bowl. But psychologically speaking, it's hard to measure how much of a difference it would have made to be 17-1 vs 18-0 going into the Superbowl against the Giants.

Your HONEST answer? If the Pats go into the SB as 17-1, do they have a better chance to win?

ONLY in the sense that, had that 1 loss not occurred to the Giants in week 17, then the G-men might have blown that game off and played 2nd stringers, and would not have had that moral compass that ultimately guided them to their championship. But then again, the Pats might have lost to whoever else (the Packers?) might have made it there instead.

I think the blueprint talk that started after the Philly and Baltimore games was dead on; it was too simple minded for us to counter with "What blueprint? We didn't lose!" The Pats blew teams out in the first half of the season because no none knew what to make of Bradywelkermoss. From then on, with the exception of the Steelers and the Dolphins, all the Patriots games were competitive, because teams had begun to form a consensus on how to defend against them. An eventual loss was inevitable, it was only a question if the Pats could hold on long enough, or else re-invent themselves in time to go 19-0. They couldn't.

After the Pats beat the Rams in SB 36, I use to blow off Raider fans who claim they should have been the legit Super Bowl champs after the tuck rule affair, claiming that there presumption that they could have beaten the Rams was off base, but now I'm not so sure anymore. Could be the league was also building a similar how-to-beat-the-Rams consensus, but that there weren't any other teams in the NFC good enough to pull it off. Perhaps the raiders and the Steelers also could have done it. I'm find myself uncertain that we would have beaten a healthy Chargers team in the championship this past year.

 

[PromisedLand]

Yes. I don't know if the pressure got to them, but I do think overconfidence got to them.

 

[chunkypony]

Man o man...this thread is depressing but so true....

 

[BradyFTW!]

Pressure may have gotten to the offensive line, but everyone else played fine. The SB just showed how important those guys really are, because when they sucked the entire offense went to crap in a hurry.

 

[VJ11]

I believe that if the Patriots had lost to the Giants on the last weekend of the regular season, the Patriots would have beaten them in the SB by something like 38-10.

I believe that if the Patriots had beaten the Giants 38-10 or something like that, the Giants wouldn't have survived the wild-card round vs Tampa Bay, and the Patriots would have played Dallas in the SuperBowl, beating them 24-20 for the 4th SB title in seven years. The Giants would have been in "let's just try and make the best of it" mode in stead of "WE CAN HANG WITH ANYBODY. LET'S GO GET THEM" mode.

 

[Disco Volante]

And to think I rooted for the Giants to upset the Cowboys and Packers...

 

[DropKick Flutie]

And to think I rooted for the Giants to upset the Cowboys and Packers...

You would rather have Romo beat you than Eli? I don't know about that. Romo and that stupid chubby faced grin would be much worse than Eli.

 

[LasVegasPatsFan]

It made no difference that we played them in week 17. Had Crayton caught that slant we would not be talking about the Giants. Sometimes it takes luck to be in the Superbowl. We just picked a wrong game to lay and egg. If we were to play the Giants again, it would be a different story. The Pats just didn't seem themselves that day. "Any given Sunday". Were we the better team in 01 when we defeated the Rams? I say "no way". It happens and that part of life. I do believe we will go undefeated next year and win the SB but that is my take.

 

[PatriotsReign]

That if the Pats had gone into the playoffs with 1 loss already under the belt, that they would have had a better chance to win the Super Bowl?
In other words do you believe that the pressure, and mystique, of having to finish off the perfect season affected the Pats performance in the final game?

Honestly, I'm not sure. I kind of think that it's superstitious to believe that a Pats team that had finished the regular season 15-1 would have been any better off in the Super Bowl. But psychologically speaking, it's hard to measure how much of a difference it would have made to be 17-1 vs 18-0 going into the Superbowl against the Giants.

Your HONEST answer? If the Pats go into the SB as 17-1, do they have a better chance to win?

Yes, if they lost that one game to the Giants in week 17. Absolutely I believe they would have won the SB. But it's just another "what if?"

 

[jp03]

It made no difference that we played them in week 17. Had Crayton caught that slant we would not be talking about the Giants. Sometimes it takes luck to be in the Superbowl. We just picked a wrong game to lay and egg. If we were to play the Giants again, it would be a different story. The Pats just didn't seem themselves that day. "Any given Sunday". Were we the better team in 01 when we defeated the Rams? I say "no way". It happens and that part of life. I do believe we will go undefeated next year and win the SB but that is my take.

If you played the Giants again you may have had to carry Brady off the field.