The Board's View on 19-0?

[luuked]

The one time I've really seen Brady ****y was his presser prior to 2007 SB. The little smug chuckle and "We're only going to score 17 points?" or whatever the exact comment was. I'm not usually superstitious or a believer in karma but I had a bad feeling as soon as I saw that. Not sure being overconfident had any bearing on the outcome but I don't think it helped.

I get that but I doubt he would have acted different on a 15-1 or 14-2 regular season record.

All of the "16-0 is bad" talk just feels like a superstition to me. I kinda underetand the underlying point that over coming adversity is important and I'd rather have challenging regular season games than go through motions for 17 weeks. But being perfect and pushing through tough games are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Lansdowne]

I will always root for the Pats to win their next game, 100%. No matter when. If there is any time for them to make a statement (as well as wipe 2007 away to some degree), now is that time. The 2009 Colts feared perfection, putting up the white flag in Week 16, and that did them no good in the end. As far as "invincibility" goes, it is now very easy for BB to keep the team in check and keep them humble. Just point to 2007 and now that ended.

The way I see it, is after the Patriots have clinched the 1 seed, I want them to continue playing their top players until there is a comfortable enough lead to start sitting guys. I want the Pats to start blowing teams out again. Right now they've had close shaves with the Jets and Giants, and I'm concerned that it's trending the way the 2007 season did where the Pats were killing every team first half of the year and then slowed down in the second half, having close battles a lot. It's going to be tough replicating the early season form, especially with Dion Lewis and Julian Edelman unavailable.

 

[Ring 6]

True players have been injured in practice before

It's not that. Let's say they sit all the top players in week 17. Those players will be so far out of the routine that got the team where it is. They will not practice and prepare hard for that game won't play then will have a bye week. Players lose their edge when they don't prepare and play. The risk of injury is much less harmful to your chances of winning than the risk of getting stale.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Observer]

Going 19-0 is a FAR greater achievement than winning the superbowl.

 

[wolverinejoe80]

19-0 concerns me

will Brady be hungry enough to want more after historic 19-0 season?


how about we go 14-2 and win the SB, and go 19-0 next season?

 

[wolverinejoe80]

Going 19-0 is a FAR greater achievement than winning the superbowl.

19-0 means winning a SB too.

would you take 19-0(1SB) or 2 SBs back to back?

 

[Observer]

I would take the 19-0. The likelihood of 19-0 is orders of magnitude smaller than back to back superbowls.

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

I'd only put a strong preference for 19-0 if the Panthers are 18-0 heading into the SB (which would have so much hype, the internet might break).

For me it's SB 50 first (another back to back) and the 5th for Brady. Anything after that is just extra (very much welcomed, but extra). I would want a dominant SB win with Brady making 4+TDs and winning by 15+ points.

 

[Pat the Pats Fan]

while 19-0 would be epic and the crème de la crème. I don't want another 16-0 banner(which to me is the equivalent of a playoff participation banner).

 

[PatsBoy12]

Tommy's fifth ring is history enough for me.

 

[Observer]

while 19-0 would be epic and the crème de la crème. I don't want another 16-0 banner(which to me is the equivalent of a playoff participation banner).

Not at all. Only one team has gone 16-0.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

To this day, this is the only sports game that I haven't personally played in that I cried over. I had to walk away from the party I was at and cry like a woman.

Awful game. I remember saying to wife even as the Pats were coming back for the go ahead TD that we played like sh!te and did not deserve the W. Knew that we left too much time on the clock for the Jints. Just had a negative feeling all through December about the Pats that I've never had since. Fortunately vacationing in FL I knew noting of the Tomasse BS since I never watch pre-game stuff.

So the next day I had to drive to Disney to meet the family for a couple nights. Figured that it would take my mind off the debacle. It did until I went to the pool where dozens of New Yawkiz had Giants SB victory ball caps on. How the frak did the get them so fast the monday after the SB???

 

[Joker]

yeah...and only one team has gone 18-0

just win, baby...

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Beat Cinci & beat Denver both for satisfaction and to to get the one seed. Do not care at all about 16-0.

 

[condon84]

And water is wet. Everyone agrees with that. Winning the SB is the goal.

The question is whether winning it at 19-0 would add any importance /joy/satisfaction whatsoever.

Well that's a no-brainer. Obviously going 19-0 is going to be a lot sweeter.

That's like asking what would you rather win, $1000 or $10,000?

 

[PatsFanSince74]

All reasonable points, and I think that's the common denominator of those who said no (and again, I get that more nuanced selections could have been included, but I thought this way it really get to the key question).

But again, feeling that way, and as counter to fandom as it runs....when do you want them to lose? Would it have been better just to have the Giants win? NFC game after all. Maybe too much history there to stomach that though. The Bills? The Eagles? Or is it more, no, you can never root against the Pats in the moment, but there's an abstract hope they lose at some point before they go 16-0?

It's easy (for me at least) to forget that the Colts put together a great season in 2007, going 13--3, including a meaningless loss in Week 17 (the game had Playoff implications for other teams, so the Colts, to their credit, played a competitive game most of the way).

As a result, the Pats didn't lock up Home Field until they got to 14--0 on December 16 (they held the tie-breaker over the Colts...both teams had been 7--0 when the Pats beat them in that year's "Game of the Century" in Indy).

Until the 16th, then, winning every game wasn't just a matter of an undefeated season but of being sure they wouldn't have to play the Colts in Indy again.

Their win on the 16th left games against the Dolphins and the Giants as the only obstacles to a perfect Regular Season, with Home Field secured.

At that point, the "Perfect Season" pressure that had been building since the Indy win became intense. If the Pats had tanked either or both of those games, a lot of Pats fans would all have been as furious at the team as Indy fans were in 2009 when they got to 14--0 and tanked the last two games with Home Field secured.

Ironically, both the 2007 Patriots' and the 2009 Colts' seasons had the same outcomes: SB losses.

Speaking just personally, I felt at the time that the pressure was just too great. I can't deny that I was pulling for them to beat Miami (remember all the hoopla over whether the Dolphins would stop the Pats from achieving what only their Franchise had achieved?) and the Giants. But, I had a feeling in my gut that a loss would be a relief. Particularly, in retrospect, in the case of the Giants. While a loss would have been a huge letdown...at the time... Belichick doesn't lose to a team twice in a season.

I have always felt...without a single shred of anything vaguely resembling proof or evidence ...that the Patriots would have come into SB XLII in a far different frame of mind had they been on a mission to avenge that loss. I think they would have covered that 14 point spread and then some. But, that's just my opinion and I'm not trying to convince anyone else to see it my way.

 

[A Defiant Goose]

19-0 means winning a SB too.

would you take 19-0(1SB) or 2 SBs back to back?

Now THERE's a good f***ing question. I'd still go with 2 SBs but considering Brady's already won 4...19-0 and a 5th would be icing on the cake

 

[aluminum seats]

It's easy (for me at least) to forget that the Colts put together a great season in 2007, going 13--3, including a meaningless loss in Week 17 (the game had Playoff implications for other teams, so the Colts, to their credit, played a competitive game most of the way).

As a result, the Pats didn't lock up Home Field until they got to 14--0 on December 16 (they held the tie-breaker over the Colts...both teams had been 7--0 when the Pats beat them in that year's "Game of the Century" in Indy).

Until the 16th, then, winning every game wasn't just a matter of an undefeated season but of being sure they wouldn't have to play the Colts in Indy again.

Their win on the 16th left games against the Dolphins and the Giants as the only obstacles to a perfect Regular Season, with Home Field secured.

At that point, the "Perfect Season" pressure that had been building since the Indy win became intense. If the Pats had tanked either or both of those games, a lot of Pats fans would all have been as furious at the team as Indy fans were in 2009 when they got to 14--0 and tanked the last two games with Home Field secured.

Ironically, both the 2007 Patriots' and the 2009 Colts' seasons had the same outcomes: SB losses.

Speaking just personally, I felt at the time that the pressure was just too great. I can't deny that I was pulling for them to beat Miami (remember all the hoopla over whether the Dolphins would stop the Pats from achieving what only their Franchise had achieved?) and the Giants. But, I had a feeling in my gut that a loss would be a relief. Particularly, in retrospect, in the case of the Giants. While a loss would have been a huge letdown...at the time... Belichick doesn't lose to a team twice in a season.

I have always felt...without a single shred of anything vaguely resembling proof or evidence ...that the Patriots would have come into SB XLII in a far different frame of mind had they been on a mission to avenge that loss. I think they would have covered that 14 point spread and then some. But, that's just my opinion and I'm not trying to convince anyone else to see it my way.

So do you want the Pats to lose in the regular season? If so, which game? Or only when the #1 seed is secure? That could again be not until the end of the season, possibly against Miami.

 

[Shed83]

We could after all not lose a game but still not achieve 16-0.

Root for a tie against the Eagles??

Nah!

19-0 lets have it lads!

 

[ivanvamp]

We're on to Buffalo...

I want the Patriots to think this way ("We're on to Buffalo"), but it's perfectly ok for fans to look ahead.

As for 19-0, I want it. I want the whole enchilada. I want an undefeated season, for real. I want another Lombardi. I want Goodell to have to hand the MVP trophy to Tom Brady, who barely acknowledges his existence. I want the ultimate FU tour this year, one that is capped by a Super Bowl victory. I want this to be considered the greatest team of all time, not only because of a perfect season, but because it will be back-to-back Super Bowl championships.

If the question is, would I rather go 18-1 and win the title, or 18-1 and have that one loss be in the Super Bowl, well, duh, obviously I'd rather go 18-1, losing a regular season game and winning the Super Bowl. But I'd rather be undefeated going into the playoffs, because I want this team to achieve immortality.

Though I must say, just being back-to-back champs is pretty rarified air.