Steve Mariucci: 2008 Pats can go undefeated

[Richter]

And there you go. An incredibly foolish statement. And you completely miss the point on their new additions. It's not that they are all world beaters. It's that the Jets were arguably the worst (or bottom five) in the league in those areas and they have all been addressed. They are better in those areas. This is unarguable.

Actually, it IS arguable, that's the point. Damien Woody does not make a bottom 5 offensive line suddenly much better. I could go on, but it would be a waste of time with someone as close-minded as you.

 

[Sean Pa Patriot]

Lets get by the Jets game first, im not concerned about tom..

 

[Terry Glenn is a cowgirl]

The hell it isn't. Show me teams with tougher schedules.

Wanting ain't doing. FWIW, every team we played last year wanted to beat us.

Every team wants to beat every other team when they play them.

We want to beat them as much as they want to beat us.

They always do, that's true, but so what? How's that wanting been working out for them in the Brady era?

Wanting ain't doing.

what he said...

 

[BionicPatriot]

For one, you can't say how good a schedule is before the season starts. The NFL is a constant change year in and out. It's ridiculous to assume this schedule will be that easy.

2, if this team goes undefeated again during the regular season, I wont even know what to think. I damn sure wouldn't bet on it though. Losses can be productive learning experiences, believe it or not.

 

[ALP]

True, but can you honestly tell me that you've heard the 'undefeated' talk start up before, say, week 6 or so? Think about the early season streaks the Colts have gone on in the past decade. You didn't hear anything about undefeated until at least a few games are under their belt...NEVER before kickoff of the first game.

Again, I'm not saying anything about the quality of the team, just that people need to calm themselves down a bit...let's see how the OL plays, how the secondary shapes up, how Brady looks and how the youngsters work out before we start talking about them doing something that exactly two teams have ever--EVER--done in the history of the game.

not B4 the season started....but defenetely after week 2 (ie, after chargers game last yr?)

 

[Deus Irae]

31 teams can still go undefeated, but only 2 have done it in the Super Bowl era. That's why "one game at a time" is a good mantra to follow even if you're just a fan.

 

[Lansdowne]

I remember watching a few games last year with my buddy (a Buc's fan) and I was still relatively green in my football fandom. A couple of times it didn't look great at the half and he said something that proved to be true 18 out of 19 times.

He said they are a superior football team that knows how to win. They know how to cope with changes during the game and they have a monster collective game-play IQ. Don't count them out until the clock has expired.

And that's a mantra you simply can't buy into with over half of the teams in the league. In fact I think even a highly rated team such as the cowboys are very much momentum dependent. We'll find out soon if the way the pundits have set the table is going to change drastically before the banquet.

Absolutely. The Cowboys are a talented bunch but they are mentally weak, they shrink in the moment. The Colts, Steelers, and (at full strength) Eagles are teams I can think of that are usually consistent, and have that extra gear they can kick into when their team is trailing.

Even last year, there were a handful of games (@ Colts, Eagles, @ Ravens, @ Giants) that the Patriots very well could have lost, but with great determination, and a little luck, found a way to win every time. This year those types of games will probably result in losses, as we can't honestly expect the Patriots to play at the level they did last year. But we can certainly hope that they do, and then some.

31 teams can still go undefeated, but only 2 have done it in the Super Bowl era. That's why "one game at a time" is a good mantra to follow even if you're just a fan.

Also true. For the sake of my own sanity, I like to think about the next game and that's it. Looking too far ahead means you can lose sight of what's in front of you. I want to savor these games more individually, instead of being caught up in the "when does the Super Bowl start?" frame of mind. I didn't enjoy last season as much as I maybe should have, but that's for a plethora of reasons I rather not bother to rehash.

 

[ALP]

Absolutely. The Cowboys are a talented bunch but they are mentally weak, they shrink in the moment. The Colts, Steelers, and (at full strength) Eagles are teams I can think of that are usually consistent, and have that extra gear they can kick into when their team is trailing.

Even last year, there were a handful of games (@ Colts, Eagles, @ Ravens, @ Giants) that the Patriots very well could have lost, but with great determination, and a little luck, found a way to win every time. This year those types of games will probably result in losses, as we can't honestly expect the Patriots to play at the level they did last year. But we can certainly hope that they do, and then some.



Also true. For the sake of my own sanity, I like to think about the next game and that's it. Looking too far ahead means you can lose sight of what's in front of you. I want to savor these games more individually, instead of being caught up in the "when does the Super Bowl start?" frame of mind. I didn't enjoy last season as much as I maybe should have, but that's for a plethora of reasons I rather not bother to rehash.

change that to a LOT of luck, for the ravens game...

 

[Lansdowne]

change that to a LOT of luck, for the ravens game...

Well, yeah, the Ravens game was almost pure luck. That was like a Madden game, when the computer decides there's no chance in hell you're beating it.