Winning streaks

[godef]

Couple of notes about the Pats current winning streaks...

* Unlike the 2003-04 streak, the current streak is untainted by any overtime wins. I've always had trouble rationalizing OT wins when comparing the 03-04 win streak to the Dolphins early 70s streak when there was no regular season OT. Had there been no regular season OT today, the 03-04 streak would only be 14 games, beginning with the famous goal line stand at Indy in '03 (the prior game was an OT win at Houston). You might still say 21 game unbeaten streak if you want, but that's not the same.

* Should the Pats run the table, the overall win streak, currently at 16, would catch up to the regular season win streak which stands at 19. Should help clarify which is which, at least so long as the streak does not extend to the end of the 2008 regular season .

 

[xmarkd400x]

And, if they start next season with a respectable amount of wins (5 or 6) their winning streak will be ungodly long.

 

[PonyExpress]

There is nothing "tainted" about an overtime win. At all.

 

[FirstAndGoal]

There is nothing "tainted" about an overtime win. At all.

Yeah, I'd like the hear the logic around that one myself.

 

[Pat the Pats Fan]

IMHO, overtime wins should not "detract" or taint a win streak. A win streak is just that, wins, and teams develop win streaks by being able to overcome adversity. Overtime wins are much more adversarial than normal wins and are even more valuable, because they are not always on a level playing field, i.e., who wins the coin toss.

 

[hambone1818]

I don't think the OP is claiming that the OT wins are tainted, just that in the interest of historical comparison it's hard to include OT victories when previous teams didn't have that opportunity. If you are talking about an unbeaten streak then sure, you can include th OT games as much as you'd like. But with a winning streak, when there is an OT victory wrapped in there it gets a bit fuzzy since other teams did not have the same opportunity to finish off the victory the way the Patriots did.

 

[Pat the Pats Fan]

I don't think the OP is claiming that the OT wins are tainted, just that in the interest of historical comparison it's hard to include OT victories when previous teams didn't have that opportunity. If you are talking about an unbeaten streak then sure, you can include th OT games as much as you'd like. But with a winning streak, when there is an OT victory wrapped in there it gets a bit fuzzy since other teams did not have the same opportunity to finish off the victory the way the Patriots did.

Yes, but what win streaks were stopped by a "tie". Just because the opportunity to resolve a tie with overtime is here today, but not in the past doesn't taint the current win streaks. Miami's win streak certainly didn't end because of a tie....

 

[AzPatsFan]

Re: Winning streaks (and History)

The Cleveland Browns under Coach Paul Brown were unbeaten for 28 games but had ties at game 17 and 24, I believe. No regular season Overtime, prevented these games from going to a conclusion. On the surface, you would say the Browns had a much better chance of winning the OT than their opposition, so their "unbeaten" streak, might have been an "undefeated and untied" streak of 28 games instead.

Papa Halas had a snit because they eclipsed the only unbeaten streaks in NFL history held by his very own '34 and '42 Bears. Even though both Bears teams then both lost in the Championship game. He wanted to preserve these records, so he insisted that the Browns records not be recognized. And that a separate record for "consecutive regular season wins" be recognized. Halas could be, and was very petty.

Some may say the AAFC record should not be recognized; but the NFL recognizes the AFL records. Furthermore the Browns entered the NFL and immediately DOMINATED it, beating the NFL champions Eagles in their first game and went on to win the NFL Championship their first year; and several years afterwords. It took the AFL until their third Super bowl before Namath's Jets could equal and beat an old NFL Club (which by the way was an ex-AAFC club, the Baltimore Colts, ironically).

 

[FrontSeven]

There is nothing "tainted" about an overtime win. At all.

Nothing is tainted unless you consider the flip of the coin to be a bizarre way to determine who gets the ball.

I'd rather say it just isn't the same as a regular time win, and leave it at that. The old rules of play were different and there is no way to compare two teams IMO.

 

[Lloyd_Christmas]

Re: Winning streaks (and History)

The Cleveland Browns under Coach Paul Brown were unbeaten for 28 games but had ties at game 17 and 24, I believe. No regular season Overtime, prevented these games from going to a conclusion. On the surface, you would say the Browns had a much better chance of winning the OT than their opposition, so their "unbeaten" streak, might have been an "undefeated and untied" streak of 28 games instead.

Papa Halas had a snit because they eclipsed the only unbeaten streaks in NFL history held by his very own '34 and '42 Bears. Even though both Bears teams then both lost in the Championship game. He wanted to preserve these records, so he insisted that the Browns records not be recognized. And that a separate record for "consecutive regular season wins" be recognized. Halas could be, and was very petty.

Some may say the AAFC record should not be recognized; but the NFL recognizes the AFL records. Furthermore the Browns entered the NFL and immediately DOMINATED it, beating the NFL champions Eagles in their first game and went on to win the NFL Championship their first year; and several years afterwords. It took the AFL until their third Super bowl before Namath's Jets could equal and beat an old NFL Club (which by the way was an ex-AAFC club, the Baltimore Colts, ironically).

I think I would have to know A LOT about those two ties before I'd be willing to say the Browns probably would have won those if there had been an OT available at the time.

I'm willing to give them the "Longest streak without a loss" record. I'm not in favor of GIVING them 2 wins they didn't earn.

 

[AzPatsFan]

I agree, but I said that because they had won 17 in row before the first tie, and 17 in a row and 6 more in a row before the 24th game. Thats the only reason I thought they were more likely to win than their opponent.

But you are correct. I don't know the details of thier victory streak, or those particular games. I merely wanted to point out that there is an unrecognized professional football winning streeak that dwarfs the Patriots recognized three victory streak records. (21 in a row regular ands playoffs victory streak 2003-2004; 18 in a row regular season 2003-2004; and 19 in a row regular season victory streaks, 2006-2007.)

 

[godef]

There is nothing "tainted" about an overtime win. At all.

It simply does not, and cannot, compare with an outright win, or what would have been a tie back in the early 70s and before. Particularly with the current OT rules.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

It simply does not, and cannot, compare with an outright win, or what would have been a tie back in the early 70s and before. Particularly with the current OT rules.

I guess the Pats will just have to start next season 7-0, then.

 

[PonyExpress]

It simply does not, and cannot, compare with an outright win, or what would have been a tie back in the early 70s and before. Particularly with the current OT rules.

Total nonsense.

 

[godef]

Yeah, I'd like the hear the logic around that one myself.

Notice the quotations around "tainted"? Didn't think I'd need to translate that: Not really tainted, but not quite comparable to a regulation time win. Also, I did not say an OT win was tainted, I was talking about the win streak, and that only in attempting to compare that win streak with that of prior win streaks.

A 21 game win streak with no OT victories is superior to a 21 game win streak which includes OT games. They are both technically equal nonetheless. However, teams in the past didn't always have that chance of breaking a tie by playing in OT. Fortunately Miami, as the record holder prior to 2004, was not bothered with any OT games, which is a big help.

However, in 1942 through 1943, Chicago had a 24 game regular season unbeaten streak, of which there was one tie game. Had there been regular season OT back in that era, that might have been a 24 game RS winning streak, but they did not have the opportunity to break that tie with OT. And if there were no RSOT now, the Pats 03-04 RS win streak would have been only 11 games.

 

[godef]

I guess the Pats will just have to start next season 7-0, then.

That would do it for me.

 

[godef]

Total nonsense.

Care to explain why?