Interesting Scenario for Week 17: Would BB do it?

[Batman]

Re: Would BB take a dive?

26 rushes seems like a very busy day, and resting a starting QB with no week off isn't the same as losing on purpose.

seems normal to me. and why use Vrabel to catch 2 TDs, if determined to lose?

I'm not saying that they went all out to win, just that the evidence for an intentional loss is far from definative

The top game is the game where Dillion didn't run was the phins game Vrabel caught passes TD in week 16 not 17.

 

[Haley]

Re: Would BB take a dive?

Brady was pulled.

Dillion didn't run

Brown and Fauria didn't catch a pass, Givens was pulled early too. Branch's passes were from Brady

Childress, Davis and Dwight all caught passes

Thats starting QB, RB, WR1,2 and 3 and our starting TE.

not to mention the line adjustments that don't show up.

Thanks. It is a pretty different lineup then.

Still, I would argue that risking injury to your team only makes sense in a game that matters to your team. Choosing not to risk personnel in a game isn't the same thing as throwing it. If BB had instead played all his top players and had them tired and injured for the playoffs, people would have chewed him out for having played them! I mean teams do this all the time before the playoffs don't they?

I guess in the end it is an argument of intent. By pulling his top players, does BB intend to protect them or is he trying to make the game impossible to win? If you argue the latter, I'd say at minimum you are speculating. Since this was a 28-26 game, it doesn't seem that even with these substitutions it was anywhere near an impossible to win game.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Re: Would BB take a dive?

Hell, no! He respect the history and integrity of the game WAY too much to even think of doing something like that. That goes way beyong any hating of the Jets or the rivalry or whatever.

The only dive I hope he'll take is the one in Hawaii after the Super Bowl win.

This is a dilemma common among many sports and games. I'm particularly familiar with it from reading lengthy discussions in bridge magazines where this has frequently come up.

Bottom line, a number of people believe the best course of action (some even argue the superior moral choice) is to maximize your own chances of winning regardless of other considerations. If this means letting an opponent beat you, then you should let an opponent beat you.

I personally tend to lean towards this philosophy. There are good arguments either way.

 

[Lansdowne]

Re: Would BB take a dive?

Many may disagree but I don't think he would be above diving in Week 17 if it meant sticking it to the Jets. This is, of course, assuming the Patriots would have their #1 seed locked up.

The Jets undoubtedly tanked it against the Dolphins two years ago when the Ravens eliminated them from the wildcard. Flash back to 2005 when the Pats locked up the division. They took out Brady after the first quarter for third-string rookie QB Matt Cassel. They allowed Doug Flutie to attempt a high risk dropkick for an extra point attempt as they were rallying for a comeback. They actually had an opportunity to tie the game with a 2-point conversion to bring the game into overtime, but Cassel WAY overthrew a wide open Bam Childress to end the game.

Losing the game meant they avoided overtime in a "meaningless" game, which eliminated the risk of further injuries, and they were able to avoid the Steelers and instead play a more favorable matchup with the Jaguars in the wildcard round. Granted that was a different kind of scenario, where resting players took precedent over playing for seeding purposes. But it still is an example of the Patriots taking the foot off the gas pedal in a Week 17 game.

The ONLY instance I see in which I see this happening is if the Colts overtake the Jaguars and clinch the AFC South prior to Week 17, the Jets struggle, the Ravens clinch a wildcard, and it comes down to the Jaguars and Jets for the final wildcard spot. I could totally see Brian Hoyer getting a lot of playing time in that game, followed by Bill Belichick mailing Rex Ryan a photo of him giving the Stone Cold Salute with a SB ring on each finger.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Re: Would BB take a dive?

Can people look at the end of this video, linked three times before in this thread? I keep reading the same misstatements:

Childress was wide open: false

Cassel threw it into the stands: false

Cassel overthrew him: false

It looks like Childress ran the route a yard too deep into the endzone, or at last a yard deeper than Matt expected, and so Matt threw it in front of him about 8 feet high-- a catchable ball if Childress was a yard closer to the front of the endzone.

NFL Game Center: Miami Dolphins at New England Patriots - 2005 Week 17

 

[Batman]

Re: Would BB take a dive?

Can people look at the end of this video, linked three times before in this thread? I keep reading the same misstatements:

Childress was wide open: false

Cassel threw it into the stands: false

Cassel overthrew him: false

It looks like Childress ran the route a yard too deep into the endzone, or at last a yard deeper than Matt expected, and so Matt threw it in front of him about 8 feet high-- a catchable ball if Childress was a yard closer to the front of the endzone.

NFL Game Center: Miami Dolphins at New England Patriots - 2005 Week 17

He had a yard and a half on the guy from 2 yards out thats pretty wide open in that area.

If he was a yard shallower he may not make the crab in the endzone Not to mention he was a guy who spent all but about 2 games on the practice squad was never more than a body

 

[Haley]

Re: Would BB take a dive?

He had a yard and a half on the guy from 2 yards out thats pretty wide open in that area.

If he was a yard shallower he may not make the crab in the endzone Not to mention he was a guy who spent all but about 2 games on the practice squad was never more than a body

I've seen enough throws that look just like that in hard-fought games not to suspect anything from it. It may not have been the greatest pass in the world nor in the game they all most cared to win, however I can't see why you'd try to get a touchdown with the clock at 0 seconds remaining only to throw away the conversion point. Why bother with the TD at all? I guess that is just too much tinfoil for me. Besides, Cassel's reaction to the failure looks genuine to me (sort of initially annoyed and then the realization comes over him that this is not really a game they needed to win).

 

[drew4008]

Re: Would BB take a dive?

I would accept that meaningless loss if it meant no more Jets. I effing hate them.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

Re: Would BB take a dive?

the realization comes over him that its not really a game they needed to win).

He just realized that then

If the first clue wasn't the fact he was playing in the game without Brady getting carted off the field with a series injury then he is pretty dense.

 

[Haley]

Re: Would BB take a dive?

He just realized that then

If the first clue wasn't the fact he was playing in the game without Brady getting carted off the field with a series injury then he is pretty dense.

No, but that is exactly the point. Although he knows this information, he is actually trying to win the game so he doesn't really think too much about it until after they actually lose. At least that was my read on his reaction.

 

[Lansdowne]

Re: Would BB take a dive?

They had to make it look like they were trying to tie that game. If the Pats kept kneeling ball while down 8 points, that wouldn't have gone over well with the locals. Cassel leading them down to a potentially game-tying drive gave him valuable in-game experience, as well as the illusion that they're still trying. Maybe it wasn't the case, but I wouldn't be surprised if Belichick told Cassel to throw it out of bounds.

Look at the replay again. Andre' Davis was blanketed to the corner, but Bam Childress was in the slot and got himself open on a quick out route. Cassel threw it where neither receiver would have a chance to catch it. He was either way off or right on the money, depending on how you choose to look at it.

 

[terabthia2]

Re: Would BB take a dive?

The only other blatantly "tanked" game I can think of regarding the Patriots, however indirectly, was the Packers playing their C-strings against the Jets in their final game of 2002, thus giving the Jests a chance to romp and thus deny the Pats a playoff spot.

I suppose this COULD give BB incentive to return the "favor" at some point if the opportunity arose, but if he did, he'd do it in a way that was so subtle that nobody would notice.

 

[PittPatriot]

Re: Would BB take a dive?

Hell, no! He respect the history and integrity of the game WAY too much to even think of doing something like that...

I don't think BB cares about any of those things. He only cares about his team winning, no matter what it takes.

 

[Ring 6]

Re: Would BB take a dive?

IMHO BB proved he would "take a dive" if he thought it led to a favorable matchup when the Patriots lost the last game of the year when Cassell threw a 2 point conversion attempt to tie -- into the 3rd row. That resulted in us getting the Jags at home, IIRC, instead of the Steelers or something.

That was 2005. We ended up beating the Jags at home but then losing to the Broncos in Denver. The Steelers took their 6th seed Wild Card slot and won out, winning the SB.

Thats a bunch of crap.

 

[PatsFanStnfrd]

Eric Wilbur's Boston Sports Blog

Consider the following scenrio: Pats win next two games; clinch home field advantage over Pittsburgh and anyone else throughout playoffs. Jets lose to Steelers and Bear. Miami wins next two. Entering Week 17, Miami and Jets rae tied for 9-6. Jets play Buffalo. NE plays Miami. If Miami wins, they are the last wild card team over the Jets. Should BB rest Brady and a few starters and "let" Miami win? That will mean the Jets miss the playoffs completely.

I know there are lots of "Ifs" here. It would be a delicious irony on many counts. What do you think?

 

[Ron Sellers]

Eric Wilbur's Boston Sports Blog

Consider the following scenrio: Pats win next two games; clinch home field advantage over Pittsburgh and anyone else throughout playoffs. Jets lose to Steelers and Bear. Miami wins next two. Entering Week 17, Miami and Jets rae tied for 9-6. Jets play Buffalo. NE plays Miami. If Miami wins, they are the last wild card team over the Jets. Should BB rest Brady and a few starters and "let" Miami win? That will mean the Jets miss the playoffs completely.

I know there are lots of "Ifs" here. It would be a delicious irony on many counts. What do you think?

I think Eric Wilbur gets ideas for his columns from this forum.

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/708985-would-bb-take-dive.html
http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/703397-hypothetical-question.html

 

[peterforpats]

why give any team "new" life? look at what the jets did last year. they made it to the afc championship game.. let nature take its course and don't forget the law of unintended consiquences. we need to worry about the pats and not try to engineer outcomes-it never works the way you want it!!

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

It's been discussed inside and out, over and over, ad nauseum, in another thread

 

[blackglass3]

Nah, I don't want to hear Rex and his handpuppet Bart Scott going on and on about the Patriots "being afraid" of playing the Jets in the playoffs. Trounce the Dolphins! Then have someone go down to NJ, dig up the game ball Rex "buried", and display it in the Hall at Patriot Place.

 

[Warren1985]

I think he would do it just to rest his players anyway not entirely because of the JETS.

Why play big players in the final game when it means nothing? Jets must know this and have to go out and perform in the next few weeks!