Question About 07 Pats

[Pats1989]

Maybe a dumb question. Nonetheless: Would the 07 team have been better off losing a game or two in the regular season? There wouldn't of been pressure of being undefeated.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Maybe.

They did play tight in the SB

 

[Chevy]

No.

The Giants had the defensive personnel to play the Pats tight, rushing four and getting pressure with it. On offense, enough to keep them in the game.

Remember - it came down to Eli doing his best Houdini impersonation (and a no-call for In The Grasp) and a miracle helmet catch to put them in position to win.

The other team comes to play, too.

 

[jmt57]

In hindsight yes, but that was only part of it.

Tomasse's hatchet job had to have taken away focus as well. If I recall correctly the NFL interviewed Belichick on the false accusations on the eve of the Super Bowl.

The team was physically wearing down over the last few regular season games, and more so after the playoff game versus San Diego. Losing Stephen Neal early in that game certainly did not help matters. To me that injury had a big negative impact for the Pats but is generally ignored when discussing that game.

 

[Gumby]

In hindsight yes, but that was only part of it.

Tomasse's hatchet job had to have taken away focus as well. If I recall correctly the NFL interviewed Belichick on the false accusations on the eve of the Super Bowl.

The team was physically wearing down over the last few regular season games, and more so after the playoff game versus San Diego. Losing Stephen Neal early in that game certainly did not help matters. To me that injury had a big negative impact for the Pats but is generally ignored when discussing that game.

BINGO. IIRC shortly (next play?) after Neal left, pressure came in and the refs called that bogus intentional grounding for a safety on the pass when the DL hit his arm and the ball went 5 yes OVER a wr head. Rest of the game they were plugging holes in the OL. And the safety changed the whole dynamic of the scoring the rest of the way.

I am fairly certain [warning: conspiracy theory] the refs thought Pats were unstoppable too, and gave the gints the safety thinking that will keep it closer (=entertaining) and not dreaming that might be the difference.

 

[pheenix11]

BINGO. IIRC shortly (next play?) after Neal left, pressure came in and the refs called that bogus intentional grounding for a safety on the pass when the DL hit his arm and the ball went 5 yes OVER a wr head. Rest of the game they were plugging holes in the OL. And the safety changed the whole dynamic of the scoring the rest of the way.

I am fairly certain [warning: conspiracy theory] the refs thought Pats were unstoppable too, and gave the gints the safety thinking that will keep it closer (=entertaining) and not dreaming that might be the difference.

You're thinking of the 2nd Giants super bowl, that was the one with the safety. I know, they all blur together into one miserable mess LOL.

 

[PatsGirl2011]

Possibly. I believe if they lost the last game of the regular season or even one game, they possibly would have won the SB. They clearly were running out of gas during the second of the season and it showed against Baltimore on MNF and a game vs the Eagles. Plus, teams developed a game plan to stop the offense but only the Giants in the SB were able to barely pull it off.

 

[Ring 6]

Maybe a dumb question. Nonetheless: Would the 07 team have been better off losing a game or two in the regular season? There wouldn't of been pressure of being undefeated.

No

 

[Ring 6]

Possibly. I believe if they lost the last game of the regular season or even one game, they possibly would have won the SB. They clearly were running out of gas during the second of the season and it showed against Baltimore on MNF and a game vs the Eagles. Plus, teams developed a game plan to stop the offense but only the Giants in the SB were able to barely pull it off.

Having your DL consistently win one on one battles with the OL is not a game plan.

 

[Ring 6]

In hindsight yes, but that was only part of it.

Tomasse's hatchet job had to have taken away focus as well. If I recall correctly the NFL interviewed Belichick on the false accusations on the eve of the Super Bowl.

The team was physically wearing down over the last few regular season games, and more so after the playoff game versus San Diego. Losing Stephen Neal early in that game certainly did not help matters. To me that injury had a big negative impact for the Pats but is generally ignored when discussing that game.

The players have consistently said undefeated was never even a topic, was never even discussed, they were only concerned wkth winning the next game.
They played a poor game and lost. Scapegoating the other wins is incorrect.

 

[sean10mm]

The 07 Giants were a crazy loaded team that was also kind of dysfunctional for most of the year, but they got it together for a really good stretch run. The DL was a wrecking crew and the offense had a ton of good weapons (Burress, Toomer, Shockey, Jacobs, Ward); once they got out of their own way and Eli stopped coughing up unforced picks for a while they were extremely dangerous to anybody.

In 2011 neither the Giants nor the Patriots were nearly as good as 07, especially when you factor in injuries. Once Gronk went down that offense was cooked; unlike 2016 there was no depth there to make up the loss.

It wasn't hard to see that the Patriots were way more dominant the first 8-10 games than they were the rest of the year. That team was really fun to watch but people overrate them because they dunked on people so hard early on.

 

[Oswlek]

Not this again. Thread ignore... initiate!

 

[meatface]

Maybe a dumb question. Nonetheless: Would the 07 team have been better off losing a game or two in the regular season? There wouldn't of been pressure of being undefeated.

I don't think losing week 13 to the Ravens or something would have made the Patriots O-line protect brady better.

 

[jmt57]

The players have consistently said undefeated was never even a topic, was never even discussed, they were only concerned wkth winning the next game.
They played a poor game and lost. Scapegoating the other wins is incorrect.

You don't think the team was physically wearing down?

The Patriots took the high road in their responses, just like the almost always do.

From the Eagles game on the Pats were inconsistent and far less dominant.

Yes, the Patriots did play a poor game and lost. But the reason for the loss isn't an either/or answer. There were multiple factors.

 

[Ring 6]

You don't think the team was physically wearing down?

No more than any other team but how would losing change that?

The Patriots took the high road in their responses, just like the almost always do.

It's not a high road thing. I think it was light recently who was asked (it came from talk about undefeated this year) and he said it was never even brought up. They never ever discussed it and it was a non factor.

From the Eagles game on the Pats were inconsistent and far less dominant.

Again how would losing change that?

Yes, the Patriots did play a poor game and lost. But the reason for the loss isn't an either/or answer. There were multiple factors.

But having lost in November wouldn't have caused them to win the SB.

 

[jmt57]

No more than any other team but how would losing change that?

Once again, multiple factors

It's not a high road thing. I think it was light recently who was asked (it came from talk about undefeated this year) and he said it was never even brought up. They never ever discussed it and it was a non factor.

Light and co are high character people. Since when do the Patriots make an excuse for a loss? Doesn't happen...

Again how would losing change that?

We don't know, do we. Maybe it would with less scrutiny, less pressure. Maybe it wouldn't matter. We don't know for a fact one way or the other.

[quote But having lost in November wouldn't have caused them to win the SB.[/QUOTE]

Okay straw man, this is a waste of both of our time. I'm done.

 

[BabeParilli]

I don't believe so. The Giants played classic ball control keeping the Pats possessions down and our OL stank all the way back to NE. Samuel choked. The D choked at the moment of truth. That's about all there is to that.

 

[Ring 6]

Once again, multiple factors

But not having lost a game they won just isn't one of them. Unless you can explain to me how an early loss would have changed what happened in the SB and I can't see how you could.

Light and co are high character people. Since when do the Patriots make an excuse for a loss? Doesn't happen...

It's not an excuse. He was asked how much they talked about making history and going undefeated and he honestly answered all they talked about eas winning the next game and winning the SB.
Saying yes we really thought that would be special is no less character than the truth he told.

We don't know, do we. Maybe it would with less scrutiny, less pressure. Maybe it wouldn't matter. We don't know for a fact one way or the other.

Right, so there is no reason to believe it would have changed anything.
It's like saying if I wore a different shirt they would have won. It's a total non contributing factor.

[quote But having lost in November wouldn't have caused them to win the SB.

Okay straw man, this is a waste of both of our time. I'm done.[/QUOTE]
Straw man?
That is exactly the question at hand. If they were 17-1 would they have won. How is the exact argument being discussed a straw man?
What do you think the question being discussed is?

 

[RayClay]

I don't think losing week 13 to the Ravens or something would have made the Patriots O-line protect brady better.

Wouldn't have made Maroney a gutsy consistent RB either.

 

[lancerman]

No the Giants would have given them trouble no matter what. The Patriots were impressive all year, especially early on. But people forget that the Indy game was very tight and could have easily went the other way. Yes the Eagles and Ravens had games against them, but I attribute that more to off nights.

For as much talk as there was of the Patriots running out of gas they finished the year:

34-13 vs Pittsburgh
20-10 vs Jets (this was in a snow storm)
28-7 vs Miami
38-35 vs the Giants (who were the one team to ultimately beat them in the end)
31-20 vs Jaguars
21-12 vs the Chargers (who were a much better team at the end of the year than the beginning)

before finally losing to the Giants. So after the Raven game they had one real competitive game the whole year and it was a team that ended up running through the two best teams in the NFC (Cowboys and Packers) before facing and beating us. So subtract the Giants out of the equation. In 17 games only 3 were competitive. The Colts in Indy who were the second best team in the AFC and probably the one team most people thought had a shot against us in the playoffs, and the Ravens and Eagles after the bye week. Which realistically you can say both were us having off days while the other team had a good day. The best teams in the history of the NFL are prone to an off day. The 85 Bears lost to the Dolphins. The 89 Niners lost to the Rams and Packers at home and nearly lost to the Rams again. The 1972 Dolphins beat the 4 win Buffalo Bills by a margin of just 1 point, barely beat the Vikings by 2 points, only beat a .500 Jets team by 4 points, hell they only one the AFCCG game 21-17 and the Super Bowl 14-7.

I really think the "they ran out of gas" angle is overplayed. They had two off days and then competitive games against the best team in the AFC and the best team in the NFC (by the time they played them). The Giants just happened to match up really well with our offense more than any other team and they had enough x factors on offense to keep our defense in check. Meanwhile I think the Patriots executed a terrible game plan against the Giants and opted to lob the ball out rather than go for a more sure short pass game with Welker which would have been more effective against that defense. They should have picked their spots alot better. Also Belichick made some questionable decisions. That was more of a really good team with great match ups against us and some luck intersecting with some poor coaching and execution. It was just perfect storm that caused us to lose that game the way we did. It wasn't that we wore out as the season went on. We just came against the wrong team at the wrong time and made too many mistakes against them and it opened up a path for their victory.

I really don't think losing a game in the regular season would have made us any better off.