I Hope the PATs don't go 16-0

[spacecrime]

which I sincerely doubt.

wow aren't you clever? I think you know that I was referring to the media diarrhea about the 16-0 record by the '72 fins in the same season, and I never said they CAN'T do it.

The Pats need to win the next 12 games to go 16-0, and your post sounds like if they did, it would be without resting regulars because they can't win with their backups.

The once won the last 13 games of the year AND won the superbowl, so obviously winning the next 12 games does NOT preclude their winning the superbowl.

Nothing is un-Belichickian. Resting players, like everything else, is situational football. If it appears the best thing to do he will play his guys. If they aren't playing as well as he'd like, if the last couple games were too close, if their third down defense has been horrible but the offense was bailing them out, if the offense couldn;t get started and theiy were winning 3-0 or 6-3, or if for any reason he thinks important, he will not rest players.

Some of us have learned to stop saying, "BB will never ..."

The title of your thread is "I Hope the PATs Don't Go 16-0" and the only way you can do that is to hope they lose a game.

I hope the Patriots disappoint you and go 19-0, because 19-0 is what I hope they do.

 

[Wildo7]

The Patriots 2007 Schedule is as such:

-
-
-
-
Browns

News flash: you're not on the roster. You're not a coach. I love BB too, but we don't need to talk in PATs-speak here. We're fans, for us, the schedule is the entire schedule and we can talk about whatever part we want. Now go out there and have a good day of practice preparing for the Browns.

 

[Patjew]

News flash: you're not on the roster. You're not a coach. I love BB too, but we don't need to talk in PATs-speak here. We're fans, for us, the schedule is the entire schedule and we can talk about whatever part we want. Now go out there and have a good day of practice preparing for the Browns.

That's how I feel.

That being said, I hope they go 16-0 this year and then win 3 more. I hate ANY loss.

 

[spacecrime]

The Patriots won 21 games in a row but it was not the EXACT same team because it was between 2 seasons with several different players coming and going so technically this would be a first if it actually happened and they won so many straight (which it won't be the situation IMO)

Very true. I am not sure if it is harder to win 21 in a row over two years with two very different teams, or if it is harder to win 16 in a row with the same team. You can make a case either way.

What I do know is that it is very hard to do, and requires luck as well as skill, and needs a totally focused team. The last part might be the most important, assuming the team is very good.

I also know that I will never hope they lose a game. I didn't hope they would lose the "Marcus Allen Bowl" with the Colt, and I certainly hope they don't lose any games this year.

I only meant that those who say 16 in a row is out of the question are wrong. It is not out of the question. And now they only need 12 in a row, something many teams have done.

 

[Ring 6]

Well, I obviously never hope for them to lose, but my point was that they should rest their starters even if undefeated after week 14 (assuming the Colts and Boys will have 12 wins only) and if they do, I think the Giants and Fins will have it out for us amidst a media circus of epic proportions (and would start Eli, Green et. al. against our second string). And I'd rather lose to the Fins (I think?) tough one...

I disagree. Players play. We will be in worse shape going into the playoffs with players who havent played in a month than with injuries from them having played.
If, as you suggest, we rest everyone if we are 14-0, there are 2 weeks left in the season, then a bye, and it would be one month since the guys you want to rest played football.

BB will play them regardless of record right through the 15th game, then in the 16th game, the starters will start, and by the 2nd half take the starters out.
This has nothing to do with a perfect record, it has everything to do with the best chance for success in the playoffs.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

I almost hope they lose one to end having every third post here be about whether they can go 16-0.

Wake me up if they get to 13-0 or 14-0 and I'll entertain the silly question whether it would be wise to rest players.

I don't understand why anyone cares about this. It seems like a media creation that we're buying into. The difference between 16-3 and 19-0 is entirely meaningless to me.

I don't care. So long as the last game is W, the added satisfaction of going undefeated would be entirely negligible; virtually irrelevant. I suppose I'd be happy to have to stop seeing the champagne drinking celebration by Miami every year. I want the team to get the bye and home field, so of course I want them to keep winning. But whether that's 14-2 or 16-0 doesn't matter to me.

But, if I have to play the game, I think going undefeated is laughable. Schedule is way too hard. Not just the 3 or 4 games everyone says is hard, but the other ones too. I think we'll drop at least one of the "expected" wins.

 

[Wildo7]

The Pats need to win the next 12 games to go 16-0, and your post sounds like if they did, it would be without resting regulars because they can't win with their backups.

The once won the last 13 games of the year AND won the superbowl, so obviously winning the next 12 games does NOT preclude their winning the superbowl.

Nothing is un-Belichickian. Resting players, like everything else, is situational football. If it appears the best thing to do he will play his guys. If they aren't playing as well as he'd like, if the last couple games were too close, if their third down defense has been horrible but the offense was bailing them out, if the offense couldn;t get started and theiy were winning 3-0 or 6-3, or if for any reason he thinks important, he will not rest players.

Some of us have learned to stop saying, "BB will never ..."

The title of your thread is "I Hope the PATs Don't Go 16-0" and the only way you can do that is to hope they lose a game.

I hope the Patriots disappoint you and go 19-0, because 19-0 is what I hope they do.

I sincerely doubt they will, but they definately could...I don't think thos two statements are mutually exclusive. I agree that it may not necessarily be the best to rest all of the players, and BB cannot be predicted, but what I meant was that if they don't rest them, when they normally would, just to go to 16-0 that that would be a mistake.

 

[QuiGon]

if they do it will mean either:

A) They didn't rest Brady, Moss, Maroney et.al for the playoffs after securing their 14th win which would be incredibly stupid (i.e. un-Belichick-like)

Actually, Belichick has shown that he doesn't rest starters in meaningless week 17 games - at least not as much as one might expect.

The Patriots' final game on the schedule is the NY Giants. There is nothing worse in the NFL than a team playing their final game for a lame duck coach.

 

[Ethan 55]

Has nobody mentioned that in 2004 when we were locked into the #2 spot, the starters played 3/4 of a meaningless game against the 49ers? The bye is plenty of rest. Sure, work in the backups a little bit more to get them some more game experience (especially Cassel), but like others have said, if you give them 2 games off plus the bye, they're inactive for waaaay too long.

 

[Wildo7]

I almost hope they lose one to end having every third post here be about whether they can go 16-0.

Wake me up if they get to 13-0 or 14-0 and I'll entertain the silly question whether it would be wise to rest players.

I don't understand why anyone cares about this. It seems like a media creation that we're buying into. The difference between 16-3 and 19-0 is entirely meaningless to me.

I don't care. So long as the last game is W, the added satisfaction of going undefeated would be entirely negligible; virtually irrelevant. I suppose I'd be happy to have to stop seeing the champagne drinking celebration by Miami every year. I want the team to get the bye and home field, so of course I want them to keep winning. But whether that's 14-2 or 16-0 doesn't matter to me.

But, if I have to play the game, I think going undefeated is laughable. Schedule is way too hard. Not just the 3 or 4 games everyone says is hard, but the other ones too. I think we'll drop at least one of the "expected" wins.

I agree, and this was the gist of why I actually started this thread. But it's not wholly a media creation. It is a record, and the fact that only one team has ever done it makes it intriguing. Obviously SB win is more important, and my point was that we shouldn't do anything to impede that goal to get to 16-0.

 

[aluminum seats]

First of all, BB plays to win games. Period. That's why this team has sustained such extraordinary focus over the years. Second, as noted, the Pats will have to continue to play hard until probably 14 wins to assume homefield throughout the playoffs. At that point, do you really think the Pats would lose to Miami at home? Or, if 15-0, to the Giants? No effing way.

It is true that 99% of all that matters is the Superbowl. Not individual games, not power rankings, not any of that other nonsense. But an undefeated season would also matter, because it's historic. If the Pats have a chance, you can bet they're going for it.

 

[Ring 6]

I agree, and this was the gist of why I actually started this thread. But it's not wholly a media creation. It is a record, and the fact that only one team has ever done it makes it intriguing. Obviously SB win is more important, and my point was that we shouldn't do anything to impede that goal to get to 16-0.

How would WINNING impede winning a SB?

 

[Wildo7]

Actually, Belichick has shown that he doesn't rest starters in meaningless week 17 games - at least not as much as one might expect.

The Patriots' final game on the schedule is the NY Giants. There is nothing worse in the NFL than a team playing for a lame duck coach.

last year's week 17 game wasn't meaningless. If the Colts had lost while we beat the Titans we would have gained home field advantage.

 

[Wildo7]

How would WINNING impede winning a SB?

please see previous comments (injury, fatigue, exposing too much of the playbook etc.)

 

[QuiGon]

last year's week 17 game wasn't meaningless. If the Colts had lost while we beat the Titans we would have gained home field advantage.

I never said last year's game was meaningless, and I wasn't referring to last year. But they have had meaningless week 17 games and played the starters more than I think most would have expected.

I already regret entering another one of these stupid "16-0" threads (it's only week 5, people) so let my final word on this matter be that if the Patriots are 15-0, they will be going all out to beat the Giants. You can bank on that.

Even if they aren't 15-0, they would still play starters pretty heavily if they clinched a bye week. There's such a thing as "too much rest". If you don't believe me, just ask the 1996 Denver Broncos.

 

[Wildo7]

"At that point, do you really think the Pats would lose to Miami at home?"

they lost to them last year at 9-3

 

[FirstAndGoal]

I don't think he'd rest them unless it was the last game. Assuming we were undefeated (I don't think we will be ), that means we get the wildcard weekend off. BB is not going to rest players for more than a couple of weeks. He never has. He'll probably start to take a more cautious approach and rest people who he thinks need the rest but I doubt he starts opening up the last few games with the second string.

 

[aluminum seats]

"At that point, do you really think the Pats would lose to Miami at home?"

they lost to them last year at 9-3

If the Patriots are 14-0, they will beat Miami this year at home. There has never been a greater certainty in the history of mankind.

 

[Wildo7]

If the Patriots are 14-0, they will beat Miami this year at home. There has never been a greater certainty in the history of mankind.

Mangina smelling his own farts is a greater certainty.

 

[Ring 6]

please see previous comments (injury, fatigue, exposing too much of the playbook etc.)

Winning doesn't do that. It is much worse to have football players not play football.
You seem to be endorsing winning until home field is clinched then giving players a vacation because of a fear they could get hurt. Players get hurt when they play, players lose their edge when they sit.
I would much rather have a sharp team that played all 16 games and is missing a guy or 2 because of injury than a fully healthy team that has sat around doing nothing, and lost their edge. BB has shown he agrees with this.

I would agree that we sit down key guys in the second half of the last game, but thats about it. I would also get some extra reps for the subs during the last few games, but were talking a series here or there.