This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
If the Patriots go 16-0 and choke in the playoffs they will make "history".........just not in a good way.With all the attention that this Giants-Patriots game (insane if you ask me - NFL Live yesterday had the entire show talking about it, and nothing on teams playing a meaningful game - playoff implications), I was wondering if 16-0 matters if they don't win the Super Bowl. I say it doesn't really matter. Am I wrong?
Until the NFL adds another game or two to the schedule.
How is that?
I really hope they do this within the decade, never can get enough of football.
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
32 team league > 26 team league.450 SOS > .327 SOSThe Pats have already had a harder schedule than the '72 Dolphins ever did.
Not winning all your games diminishes the accomplishment, especially if it involves winning all your games. The patriots have to win the SB for the record to mean anything. Otherwise, there will be a big, fat BUT everytime the records is mentioned. It will be a sore spot with the team, and everybody form BB to Brady to Moss to Kraft will consider the season disappointing.
my thoughts exactly.Dope said:
Because the season wasn't 16 games long before. Fact is, they would be the SECOND team to finish the regular season undefeated in the modern area, not the first. That's how it will be viewed.
17-0 in 1972 = Lombari Trophy16-1 in 2007 = Atta Boy
The Patriots currently hold the record for most consecutive wins, most consecutive regular season wins, and with 15, they hold the record for most wins to start the season. 16 would be a perfect season and unbreakable unless the league adds more games. All of those are impressive records.
Yes, if they lose I would put it right below landing a man on the moon, If they win out it will be a little ahead of Pearl Harbor and the JFK assassination.
I can name 4 teams they didn't dominate this year, but your point is well taken, nonetheless.
As the number one Pats fan I have to use such hyperbole. Fact is, the Pats really should have lost the Colts and Ravens game....
I wonder if this includes playoff teams, or if it includes the losses to the undefeated team?edit: as near as I can tell, this is the composite winning % for New England's opponents:.453 (including the losses to New England).500 (not including the losses to NE)The 1972 Dolphins break down like this:.364 (including games vs. Miami).414 (not including the Miami games)When you include the playoff opponents then the numbers bump to .444/.489.
Doesn't matter....the Steelers may have won 17 in a row that year but they weren't perfect. Also, you're right that the Pats this year are FAR more dominant than the Steelers were that year (despite their amazing record). I believe the Steelers weren't even favored to win at home in the AFC championship game against the Pats.Captain Spaulding said:1st off....if they don't win the Superbowl, they aren't considered better than the '72 Dolphins. Dolphins faithful consider "perfect season" not just regular season.Now for the more interesting debateuring the 2004 season, the Steelers won 17 straight in the same season to eclipse the Dolphins of '72...lost week 1 then didn't lose again until the AFCCG). That doesn't count for squat though now does it!So if the Pats win against the Giants have a perfect reg. season but lose the 1st round of the playoffs, which is the better season. 2004 Steelers winning 17 straight in the same season (beating both Eagles and Pats mid-season as well...both Superbowl teams) or the Pats this year, if they only win 16 straight in the same season. Hmmmm! 17 straight same-season victories with 1 of them being a playoff victory.or 16 straight victories in regular season with no playoff wins.I'm sure most will say the Pats situation....just because they are more impressive in their dominance.Then you get the various win streaks that carry over from year to year...but I think that isn't in consideration since there is player/coaching turnover from year to year and such.
You are correct. Plus, from the football fans in general, historical greatness of a team is measured more by their dominance over the opposition, not necessarily by wins/losses. 14-2 1989 SF team that routed Denver in the Superbowl is arguably the best ever yet they had 2 "off" games along the way. Most consider that SF team way better than the '72 "perfect" Dolphins. Probably a few other teams over history as well are considered better than the '72 Dolphins.Doesn't matter....the Steelers may have won 17 in a row that year but they weren't perfect. Also, you're right that the Pats this year are FAR more dominant than the Steelers were that year (despite their amazing record). I believe the Steelers weren't even favored to win at home in the AFC championship game against the Pats.Captain Spaulding said:1st off....if they don't win the Superbowl, they aren't considered better than the '72 Dolphins. Dolphins faithful consider "perfect season" not just regular season.Now for the more interesting debate
17-0 in 1972 with a backup QB for most of the games >>>>>>>>> 16-1 in 2007
You're right. They probably would have struggled just to finish the season .500. They've been lucky.NE would be a great Arena football team, maybe the best ever. But in terms of great NFL teams they are not. The current NFL is pretty watered down with only a handful of "good" teams. This NE team would have been lucky to finish .500 in the NFC East back in the '80s/early '90s. I believe Jerry Glanville coined the phrase "chuck and duck".
While you are obviously overstating it quite a bit, the fact that 18 of the 32 teams are under .500 going into the last week of the season definitely gives merit to the argument that the Patriots have taken advantage of what is a pretty weak league overall this year; playing in a division where the others teams are a combined 11-34 has certainly helped, too.NE would be a great Arena football team, maybe the best ever. But in terms of great NFL teams they are not. The current NFL is pretty watered down with only a handful of "good" teams. This NE team would have been lucky to finish .500 in the NFC East back in the '80s/early '90s. I believe Jerry Glanville coined the phrase "chuck and duck".
