If you could choose: 7-3 with Sunday's injuries? Or 6-4 with good health?

[PATSYLICIOUS]

As long as the players avoid IR we're okay. So far, the most hurtful IR was probably Ras I, and if you're like me you were never counting on him from the start anyways. So I'll take the better record and hope everyone is healthy for the playoff run

 

[ausbacker]

With all due respect, only an idiot would choose a better regular season record at the cost of a playoff or Superbowl loss.

We're not in it for the regular season records as long as we get in the playoffs. And considering higher seeding has not proven to offer any kind of correlation to SB wins over the past decade, there's really little reason to want to go into the playoffs or Superbowl with an injury to one of your top offensive weapons.

When the NFL decides to explain to me and the rest of us why the #1 and #2 seed, and their 1 game advantage, has stopped working out statistically as it should, and the #1 seed is a 80% favorite to LOSE the big game, then I might give a crap.

But as it stands I stand by my statement. I'll take a 100% fully healthy roster and a lower seed than the #1 or #2 seed with a hobbled Gronk going into the big game. Unfortunately I don't get to make that choice and neither does anyone else. It's all hypothetical, not reality.

Since we're talking about hypotheticals losing is the fastest way to miss the playoffs. You'll never convince me otherwise.

 

[supafly]

Arguments can be made for both sides obviously.

I am still one in thinking that winning the game and being one step closer to a 1st round bye is what they are playing for...and could help in ultimately determining what they are playing for in a very big way.

I would choose the 7-3 record and the way it stands right now.

 

[supafly]

As long as the players avoid IR we're okay. So far, the most hurtful IR was probably Ras I, and if you're like me you were never counting on him from the start anyways. So I'll take the better record and hope everyone is healthy for the playoff run

I've brought it up before so forgive me if you have heard me mention it, but during the 08 season when Brady went down Richard Seymour proudly reminded everyone that "there is more than one way to skin a cat."

This offense has different options and looks, and can play to their strengths. If that means going more 3 wide sets, incorporating the running game more with Fells/Schiancoe as a blocker, or even developing Schiancoe or Fells as more of a potential downfield threat then so be it.

 

[JoeSixPat]

With all due respect, only an idiot would choose a better regular season record at the cost of a playoff or Superbowl loss.

We're not in it for the regular season records as long as we get in the playoffs. And considering higher seeding has not proven to offer any kind of correlation to SB wins over the past decade, there's really little reason to want to go into the playoffs or Superbowl with an injury to one of your top offensive weapons.

When the NFL decides to explain to me and the rest of us why the #1 and #2 seed, and their 1 game advantage, has stopped working out statistically as it should, and the #1 seed is a 80% favorite to LOSE the big game, then I might give a crap.

But as it stands I stand by my statement. I'll take a 100% fully healthy roster and a lower seed than the #1 or #2 seed with a hobbled Gronk going into the big game. Unfortunately I don't get to make that choice and neither does anyone else. It's all hypothetical, not reality.

It's nothing short of amazing to me to see how highly prized the bye still is among fans, despite the fact that 5 of the last 7 Super Bowl winners had to play in the Wild Card round.

You'd think that Patsfans in particular would remember that the Giants had pretty mediocre regular seasons yet peaked in performance and good health while the Patriots struggled in those games - with Gronkowski's injury in particular altering the potency of the offense.

The question of what is more important - good playoff health or regular season record really isn't even up for debate at this point. It's been proven in most of the recent Super Bowls, but I think I can appreciate why some might have blocked out some of those memories.

 

[supafly]

It's nothing short of amazing to me to see how highly prized the bye still is among fans, despite the fact that 5 of the last 7 Super Bowl winners had to play in the Wild Card round.

You'd think that Patsfans in particular would remember that the Giants had pretty mediocre regular seasons yet peaked in performance and good health while the Patriots struggled in those games - with Gronkowski's injury in particular altering the potency of the offense.

The question of what is more important - good playoff health or regular season record really isn't even up for debate at this point. It's been proven in most of the recent Super Bowls, but I think I can appreciate why some might have blocked out some of those memories.

I don't think it matters that 5 of the last 7 winners have played in the WC round, Joe.

I think that is simply due to the law of averages on some level, and one other thing greatly comes into play....luck. Had the NYG not won those last min games then both times the Pats would have had the bye and won.

History shows that having the chance to win ONE game at home to get to the AFFCG is the much better route to take, and that isn't even taking into account the fact that you also have 2 weeks to prepare for that game and to allow key players to rest up and become healthy.

Even more importantly--history shows that this particular team does very well when having the 1st rd bye, as they have gone to the SB every single time but the NYJ loss. That is more important to this conversation.

I would not look past the importance of the 1st rd bye due to the Giants throwing the whole thing out of whack on their game-winning lucky catch drives.

 

[JoeSixPat]

I don't think it matters that 5 of the last 7 winners have played in the WC round, Joe.

I think that is simply due to the law of averages on some level, and one other thing greatly comes into play....luck. Had the NYG not won those last min games then both times the Pats would have had the bye and won.

History shows that having the chance to win ONE game at home to get to the AFFCG is the much better route to take, and that isn't even taking into account the fact that you also have 2 weeks to prepare for that game and to allow key players to rest up and become healthy.

Even more importantly--history shows that this particular team does very well when having the 1st rd bye, as they have gone to the SB every single time but the NYJ loss. That is more important to this conversation.

I would not look past the importance of the 1st rd bye due to the Giants throwing the whole thing out of whack on their game-winning lucky catch drives.

I do understand that some do not think Gronkowski's injury made a difference in the Super Bowl- I strongly disagree with that and don't feel it would have been a close game with him playing at full health.

Aside from that, I think we can all agree that how a team is playing come the playoffs counts more than whether they were the two recent Super Bowl winners that had the bye, or the 5 recent Super Bowl winners that did not.

Of course I still feel strongly that good health is a factor in how well a team is playing come the playoffs - just as strongly as those who erroneously believe that the having the bye has been an advantage for the majority of recent Super Bowl winners.

 

[Deus Irae]

I do understand that some do not think Gronkowski's injury made a difference in the Super Bowl- I strongly disagree with that and don't feel it would have been a close game with him playing at full health.

Aside from that, I think we can all agree that how a team is playing come the playoffs counts more than whether they were the two recent Super Bowl winners that had the bye, or the 5 recent Super Bowl winners that did not.

Of course I still feel strongly that good health is a factor in how well a team is playing come the playoffs - just as strongly as those who erroneously believe that the having the bye has been an advantage for the majority of recent Super Bowl winners.

Just because teams haven't won with the bye, you claim it hasn't been an advantage? That's some seriously flawed reasoning.

 

[nekromantique]

gronk isnt out the whole season. he will be ready come playoff time. so ill take 7-3. hell miss most of the season...but hell be back...and it allows others to develop within the offense.

jones went out early and no one seems to know the extent..but its probably just a mild ankle sprain that they decided not to test.


Posted from Patsfans.com App for Android

 

[JoeSixPat]

Just because teams haven't won with the bye, you claim it hasn't been an advantage? That's some seriously flawed reasoning.

Silly me - I'm using the yardstick of winning the Super Bowl by which to judge whether the bye provides an advantage in winning the Super Bowl.