NFL Week 17

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

not according to cris collingsworth. According to him it's meaningless if they don't win the SB

He didn't exactly say that. He just said they have to win the SB for it to be a great achievement. I agree that it loses some of its impact if they choke in the playoffs.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Meh. Pats need to win it all or all of the hoopla is for naught. Still, pretty freakin' impressive. It just felt like they'd pull it off, even when they were down. Great team to watch. They just get it done.

it's not for naught. They're 16-0 in the regular reason. Never been done before.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

not according to cris collingsworth. According to him it's meaningless if they don't win the SB

For the first time ever in my life, I agree with him. Its about winning the superbowl, if they don't, then they didn't end the year with a perfect season. Its an amazing team, and been fun to watch, probably the best team I have ever watched.. but they still have 3 more games to win or its all for naught.

[Cringer]

Just wow. Amazing.

[Rizon]

Originally Posted by Cringer

Just wow. Amazing.

Yep, damn.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

it's not for naught. They're 16-0 in the regular reason. Never been done before.

And it will be remembered as one of the most spectacular failures in NFL history if they don't win the Super Bowl.

[Jas_lov]

The Patriots deserve all the praise they're getting for finishing the regular season undefeated. It's only been done twice in NFL history. Only 35 days, 21 hours, and 48 minutes to a perfect 19-0 season for the Patriots. I'll be updating the countdown regularly for those like DaddyTorgo who are interested.

[Buccaneer]

Congrats to the Pats. What an awesome season.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

The Patriots deserve all the praise they're getting for finishing the regular season undefeated. It's only been done twice in NFL history. Only 35 days, 21 hours, and 48 minutes to a perfect 19-0 season for the Patriots. I'll be updating the countdown regularly for those like DaddyTorgo who are interested.

LOL. You weren't really bugging me...just being a lil superstitious. I am firmly in the camp of non-superstitious though

[Galaril]

Congrats. And I agree it is for naught if they don't win it. There are some pretty good teams coming into the AFC playoffs and they all are pretty much tough defenses and strong running teams which seem to be the best team to match up against the Pats. I think the AFC wildcard teams , in fact both could even make some noise, so the SB is not a given. It ought to be a lot of fun.

[Jas_lov]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

LOL. You weren't really bugging me...just being a lil superstitious. I am firmly in the camp of non-superstitious though

Damn. That's the only reason I was doing it. Anyway, I agree that the playoffs are going to be fantastic! The AFC has a lot of good teams and the Patriots will certainly be challenged by the likes of Jacksonville and Indy. Indy should have a good game with the Chargers. The NFC will feature 4 terrible teams and 2 good ones who will meet again in the NFC Championship, hopefully with a different result. Should be interesting.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

The Patriots deserve all the praise they're getting for finishing the regular season undefeated. It's only been done twice in NFL history.

Not quite true... the Bears had a couple undefeated regular seasons spoiled by losses in the league championship game. The NFL goes all the way back to 1920, believe it or not, not just back to the NFL/AFL merger or the beginning of the "Superbowl."

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Not quite true... the Bears had a couple undefeated regular seasons spoiled by losses in the league championship game. The NFL goes all the way back to 1920, believe it or not, not just back to the NFL/AFL merger or the beginning of the "Superbowl."

Exactly my point. The pats are the 4th team to have an undefeated regular season (The first to do it in a 16 game regular season), but you don't hear anything about the two teams that did not win the championship. They have had a fantastic season so far, but the job is not complete. I'll be pulling for them to win it all though since my team is not in the playoffs.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Not quite true... the Bears had a couple undefeated regular seasons spoiled by losses in the league championship game. The NFL goes all the way back to 1920, believe it or not, not just back to the NFL/AFL merger or the beginning of the "Superbowl."

Given the media's (and the general population's) mental block on anything happening before 1980, I surprised they would include the 1972 Dolphins.

[Cringer]

I have to say, Superbowl win this year or not, I am now of the opinion that Bill Belichick is the greatest coach of all time besides Vince Lombardi. And I admit that the only reason I hold Lombardi ahead of him is that I am a Packer fan and love the legend of him.

Bill Parcels can't hold Bill Belichick's jock.

[SirFozzie]

16-0 is the best regular season ever. Can't take that away from the Pats. If they win 3 more, best season ever. Still nothing to sneeze at.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Not quite true... the Bears had a couple undefeated regular seasons spoiled by losses in the league championship game. The NFL goes all the way back to 1920, believe it or not, not just back to the NFL/AFL merger or the beginning of the "Superbowl."

Originally Posted by Alan T

Exactly my point. The pats are the 4th team to have an undefeated regular season (The first to do it in a 16 game regular season), but you don't hear anything about the two teams that did not win the championship. They have had a fantastic season so far, but the job is not complete. I'll be pulling for them to win it all though since my team is not in the playoffs.

Actually the Bears went 14-0 and lost in the championship game and 42 and the Cleveland Browns went 15-0 in 1948 in the old AAFC. So, in the NFL 16-0 is definitely the record.

http://www.profootballhof.com/histor...undefeated.jsp

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Galaril

Actually the Bears went 14-0 and lost in the championship game and 42 and the Cleveland Browns went 15-0 in 1948 in the old AAFC. So, in the NFL 16-0 is definitely the record.

http://www.profootballhof.com/histor...undefeated.jsp

I am pretty sure that is what I said. My point still stands though.

[st.cronin]

Vrabel has 12.5 sacks? Wow. I knew he was having a pretty good year, but I never would have guessed he had that many.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Cringer

Bill Parcels can't hold Bill Belichick's jock.

And I think you are nuts. Parcells is a master of turning around teams. I mean, it wasn't like Bellichick walked into a disaster area after all.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Galaril

So, in the NFL 16-0 is definitely the record.

Nobody claimed otherwise. Of course this is the first 16-0 season. It's also the fourth time an NFL team has completed the regular season undefeated. Not the second, which is what was explicitly claimed above, in the post I quoted earlier.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Alan T

I am pretty sure that is what I said. My point still stands though.

No, fellow Graftonite I wasn't saying you were wrong just adding color like Gumbel

[Jas_lov]

Originally Posted by Galaril

So, in the NFL 16-0 is definitely the record.

That's technically not true as the 1972 Miami Dolphins went a perfect 17-0. A 16-0 regular season is definitely the record, but overall it is not. The Patriots can defeat the Dolphins mark by winning the AFC Championship. The Patriots deserve all the credit they're getting for going 16-0 though. It's only happened twice in NFL history.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And I think you are nuts. Parcells is a master of turning around teams. I mean, it wasn't like Bellichick walked into a disaster area after all.

Parcells took over a worse situation in New England, true: But he only went 32-32 in his 4 years with the Patriots. Compare Belichek's first four years with Parcells' 4 years in Patriot-land, and there's simply no comparison at all, even given the higher degree of difficulty for Parcells.

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And I think you are nuts. Parcells is a master of turning around teams. I mean, it wasn't like Bellichick walked into a disaster area after all.

Parcell's does a damn good job turning around teams. Too bad he can't stick with them and see it through to the end. He hasn't done that since the Giants.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Parcells took over a worse situation in New England, true: But he only went 32-32 in his 4 years with the Patriots. Compare Belichek's first four years with Parcells' 4 years in Patriot-land, and there's simply no comparison at all, even given the higher degree of difficulty for Parcells.

Parcells didn't have Tom Brady either . Who, let's face it, fell into Belichick's lap after Bledsoe got hurt.

Also, I'm not just talking about the Pats, but the other jobs as well. Belli was merely average at Cleveland. Parcells was great with the Giants, completely turned around the Jets, and even turned around the Cowboys (who people forget were miserable for a number of years before he came along).

[korme]

Originally Posted by sabotai

And it will be remembered as one of the most spectacular failures in NFL history if they don't win the Super Bowl.

Yeah, it almost now feels like the NFL won't be right if they don't win the Superbowl now.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Parcells didn't have Tom Brady either . Who, let's face it, fell into Belichick's lap after Bledsoe got hurt.

Also, I'm not just talking about the Pats, but the other jobs as well. Belli was merely average at Cleveland. Parcells was great with the Giants, completely turned around the Jets, and even turned around the Cowboys (who people forget were miserable for a number of years before he came along).

I agree that Parcells is one of the greatest coaches of all time. But, all things being equal, who would you rather have coaching your team, him or BB?

[korme]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Given the media's (and the general population's) mental block on anything happening before 1980, I surprised they would include the 1972 Dolphins.

You are absurd! They don't recognize the other 2 because they were shorter schedules and before the merger.

What media blocks anything before 1980? The same media that glorifies Babe Ruth, Ali, those historic Celtics teams, and all other greats?

[korme]

And for this little Belichick/Parcells war, let's just say that growing up, the first team I learned about besides the Bengals was the Browns, and until Belichick won his 1st SB in NE I had no idea he was Cleveland's HC. I knew all about the glory that Parcells achieved, however.

I say Parcells > Belichick all-time, however, Belichick is certainly maximizing what he has in NE - remember, before this year, besides against Carolina, NE was underdogs in their Super Bowls.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I agree that Parcells is one of the greatest coaches of all time. But, all things being equal, who would you rather have coaching your team, him or BB?

Probably Parcells. But even if you pick Belichick, saying Parcells can't hold BB's jock is quite a ridiculous statement.

Originally Posted by Shorty3281

before this year, besides against Carolina, NE was underdogs in their Super Bowls.

Aroo? I seriously doubt they were underdogs against Philly.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Probably Parcells. But even if you pick Belichick, saying Parcells can't hold BB's jock is quite a ridiculous statement.

Pffft, I say more ridiculous things than that every day.

[ISiddiqui]

Regardless... it doesn't make that statement any less ridiculous .

[astrosfan64]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Probably Parcells. But even if you pick Belichick, saying Parcells can't hold BB's jock is quite a ridiculous statement.



Aroo? I seriously doubt they were underdogs against Philly.

Umm NE were heavy favorites vs philly. They only superbowl they weren't the favorite was their first against the rams.

[astrosfan64]

I think this "record" that isn't a record is nice, but the Pats had everything fall into their laps.

The AFC East is the worst division in football.

The bills the 2nd place team, hasn't had 1 win against a winning team.

The dolphins only have 1 win.

The Jets are terrible.

That is six easy wins, right off the top.

No major injuries.

Playing the East in the NFC was a bit difficult. Their major games were the Colts and the Cowboys.

I don't think the Pats are going to win the superbowl, unless the league has an agenda like they did tonight.

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Probably Parcells. But even if you pick Belichick, saying Parcells can't hold BB's jock is quite a ridiculous statement.

So I got all horny for Belichick and exagerated a little. I still take him over Parcells every time. Parecells can build teams, good for him. He should be a GM. Patriots, Jets, Cowboys....he never finished the job. Two with the Giants, and he is a great coach for that (and no I won't say they were in large part to Belichick being with him, I don't go that far). I have a problem with a guy taking over a team for 4 years and then jumping ship. I don't even remeber why he left each team now so maybe someone who does can remind me?

[astrosfan64]

Originally Posted by Cringer

So I got all horny for Belichick and exagerated a little. I still take him over Parcells every time. Parecells can build teams, good for him. He should be a GM. Patriots, Jets, Cowboys....he never finished the job. Two with the Giants, and he is a great coach for that (and no I won't say they were in large part to Belichick being with him, I don't go that far). I have a problem with a guy taking over a team for 4 years and then jumping ship. I don't even remeber why he left each team now so maybe someone who does can remind me?

Left the Giants for health reasons I thought.

Left the Pats, because the GM made him pick someone he didn't want in the draft. That WR he called she .

Left the Jets, because he was burned out I thought or health reasons.

Left the Cowboys, because Jerry Jones is an ass, I'm not really sure why he left the cowboys.

[Daimyo]

I wonder if Manning now regrets sitting out the last game in 2004?

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by astrosfan64

I think this "record" that isn't a record is nice, but the Pats had everything fall into their laps.

The AFC East is the worst division in football.

The bills the 2nd place team, hasn't had 1 win against a winning team.

The dolphins only have 1 win.

The Jets are terrible.

That is six easy wins, right off the top.

No major injuries.

Playing the East in the NFC was a bit difficult. Their major games were the Colts and the Cowboys.

I don't think the Pats are going to win the superbowl, unless the league has an agenda like they did tonight.

You aren't going to win that arguement. It's kind of dumb, IMO.

ANd the '72 Dolphins had the 3rd easiest schedule in NFL history. Not that year, not that decade, in history. Before and after '72. The Pats had a pretty good schedule, not super hard, but not exactly easy either. If Cleveland and Washington make the playoffs, then the Pats would have played and won against 7 playoff teams this season.

[Vegas Vic]

Great team, but they've got nothing on the 2014 Boston Rhinos.

[Vince]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Great team, but they've got nothing on the 2014 Boston Rhinos.

Win

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by Vince

Win

I don't think he does. Most of us have no idea about the Rhinos. I might as well throw out the Norfolk Vipers if we are going to go down that road.

[Cringer]

I just realized that NFL Radio is still doing a live radio show. They always end their live programming at midnight eastern time. This game meant a lot to them I guess, it's 2 hours past thier bedtime.

[larrymcg421]

I'm not sure what's more annoying:

The arrogant Pats fans who kept whining about Spygate several weeks after everyone stopped caring about it or the conspiracy theorists who say the NFL has fixed things for the Pats.

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I'm not sure what's more annoying:

The arrogant Pats fans who kept whining about Spygate several weeks after everyone stopped caring about it or the conspiracy theorists who say the NFL has fixed things for the Pats.

C. Bandwagon Cowboy fans in Texas.

[stevew]

Yeah, so of course this is a bit more meaningful than the "wildcard champs" t-shirt, but I always wonder who the people are who buy garbage like this. That shirt is basically like a gallon of milk, it has a pretty quick expiration date. Do you buy that one, hoping that you can buy the 19-0 superbowl champs shirt in 6 weeks, but dreading that it'll be funny looking if they lose the first playoff game. Like I'll still see people in 2005 AFC Champs steelers shirts....like why the hell didn't you wait 2 weeks and just buy a superbowl champ shirt.

[stevew]

that'd be sharp if you got it autographed though, i suppose.

[DeToxRox]

Originally Posted by stevew

that'd be sharp if you got it autographed though, i suppose.

That's one ugly shirt.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by astrosfan64

Umm NE were heavy favorites vs philly. They only superbowl they weren't the favorite was their first against the rams.

I think he was also referring to the SB losses against the Bears and Packers. But you are right about Philly game.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by astrosfan64

I think this "record" that isn't a record is nice, but the Pats had everything fall into their laps.

The AFC East is the worst division in football.

The bills the 2nd place team, hasn't had 1 win against a winning team.

The dolphins only have 1 win.

The Jets are terrible.

That is six easy wins, right off the top.

No major injuries.

Playing the East in the NFC was a bit difficult. Their major games were the Colts and the Cowboys.

I don't think the Pats are going to win the superbowl, unless the league has an agenda like they did tonight.

Your Pats' analysis is about as good as your betting strategy with the Seahawks. I would agree that they have had some cream puff games (but I disagree with your contention that the Bills are not at least a quality middle of the road NFL team). But what they lacked in the number of harder games, they made up for in the quality of the tough games.

When you look at the 16 games, they will have beaten 4 division winners (including 13-2 Colts and Cowboys teams on the road) and likely 2-3 other playoff teams.

As far as injuries, they have missed the catastrophic ones I would agree, but still Seymour did miss the first 6 games and still isn't healthy as of today. There have been other injuries like basically not having much of a TE corps the entire year. Colvin gone for the year has stressed the LB corps. But why is this a surprise? Is it really less of an accomplishment because they didn't go undefeated (so far) with a second string QB? Is what you're saying really that in comparison, many past teams' SB wins are tainted because they didn't have enough injuries? I mean that is usually the main reason behind quality performances in the NFL (except of course the Pats in 2003 and 2004 winning the SB after horrendous injury situations).

I will agree that the without a SB win, the achievement will be little more than a footnote. But as of today, before the playoffs occur, it stands as a great accomplishment.