Crazy-### Hypothetical (1 Viewer)

[Morton Muffley]

OK, big IF here, but just thought it might be worth pondering. Please excuse the implied arrogance.

Suppose NE starts out 7-0...given the pressure they faced going 16-0 in 2007 and their ultimate SB loss to the Giants, do you think they should:

1) intentionally lose a game

2)don't try to lose in the regular season, but be relieved if/when they do lose

3)disregard idiot fans/pundits who will undoubtedly bring up the fact that they should consider losing on purpose

IF NE does start out strong (i.e. 6-0 or 7-0) will they face more pressure than they did during the 16-0 run? Or will having been though it before help them? If you were Belichick how would you handle/diffuse it?

Again, not saying they will start out 7-0 and I certainly know this sin't something that Belichick will spend any time worrying about at this point, but given their recent history thought it might be fun to ponder the various reactions from (fans, pundits, players, and coaches).

Thanks in advance.

 

[David Yudkin]

Given the rapid transition of personnel on defense, I don't see them having to worry about being undefeated for too long.

 

[Knobs]

What? Intentionally lose a game? These aren't the Texans...win as many as you can. Can you imagine the legacy they'd have with TWO seasons of going undefeated in the regular season? Greatest team ever, and I HATE the Patriots.

 

[Chairshot]

OK, big IF here, but just thought it might be worth pondering. Please excuse the implied arrogance.Suppose NE starts out 7-0...given the pressure they faced going 16-0 in 2007 and their ultimate SB loss to the Giants, do you think they should:1) intentionally lose a game2)don't try to lose in the regular season, but be relieved if/when they do lose 3)disregard idiot fans/pundits who will undoubtedly bring up the fact that they should consider losing on purposeIF NE does start out strong (i.e. 6-0 or 7-0) will they face more pressure than they did during the 16-0 run? Or will having been though it before help them? If you were Belichick how would you handle/diffuse it?Again, not saying they will start out 7-0 and I certainly know this sin't something that Belichick will spend any time worrying about at this point, but given their recent history thought it might be fun to ponder the various reactions from (fans, pundits, players, and coaches). Thanks in advance.

I don't think you can let what your record is influence you too much. Maybe very late in the season, if you have a playoff spot locked up, you might think about sitting players, etc.Whether you are 7-0 or 0-7, you still have to try to win the next game on your schedule, I think. BB is a good enough coach and the leadership on the Pats should be strong enough that any added pressure from outside influences should be minimal.Personally, if I were a player, I would LOVE to say I was on an undefeated team, so I think that would always be the goal, if possible, regardless of any other factors.

 

[Adebisi]

 

[hephner]

this.

 

[Morton Muffley]

this.

oops...did i jinx 'em?dang!

 

[sinatravolta]

I think you obviously shouldn't purposely lose a game. Would kill psyche. But I do agree if they were to get on an undefeated roll - it would be a big burden to carry and they'd probably be better off without that pressure. If I were a fan - I'd probably be rooting for a 6-1 start.

 

[AB in DC]

How about:

4) Try to win every game but REST THEIR STARTERS in December.

 

[Adebisi]

I think you obviously shouldn't purposely lose a game. Would kill psyche. But I do agree if they were to get on an undefeated roll - it would be a big burden to carry and they'd probably be better off without that pressure. If I were a fan - I'd probably be rooting for a 6-1 start.

You would rather see your team start 6-1 than 7-0?

 

[Wyld Stallyns]

In order to even consider intentionally losing a game, you'd have to first buy into the argument that the 2007 Pats lost the Superbowl because they went undefeated in the regular season and played their absolute hardest for 16 games... Which I think is just ridiculous right off the bat.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

Pats don't have a prayer of going undefeated this year. The NFL has "adjusted" to Brady / Moss / Welker (see the second half of 2007).

 

[Morton Muffley]

I think you obviously shouldn't purposely lose a game. Would kill psyche. But I do agree if they were to get on an undefeated roll - it would be a big burden to carry and they'd probably be better off without that pressure. If I were a fan - I'd probably be rooting for a 6-1 start.

You would rather see your team start 6-1 than 7-0?

this is exactly what I wanted to discuss as I believe if NE starts out 6-0 their will be relief if they lose a close one to go 6-1...not saying it's right or wrong, just predicting fan/media reaction

 

[Morton Muffley]

In order to even consider intentionally losing a game, you'd have to first buy into the argument that the 2007 Pats lost the Superbowl because they went undefeated in the regular season and played their absolute hardest for 16 games... Which I think is just ridiculous right off the bat.

fair enough, but just because you don't believe it doesn't mean others don't...and you know how the media grabs hold of a story and won't let it go...

 

[Morton Muffley]

Pats don't have a prayer of going undefeated this year. The NFL has "adjusted" to Brady / Moss / Welker (see the second half of 2007).

not suggesting that they will...merely trying to discuss the reaction to a good start

 

[David Yudkin]

The NFL has "adjusted" to Brady / Moss / Welker (see the second half of 2007).

For starters, every year and every team is different, so what happened then has no bearing on what happens now.That being said, in the second half of 2007, the "shut down" Pats offense:- Went 8-0- Saw Brady with 2375 yards and "only" 20 TD- Had Randy Moss put up 51-714-12- Saw Welker scaled back to "just" 56-562-2If the Pats repeated just what they did in the last half of 2007 they would be ecstatic.

 

[Adebisi]

Pats don't have a prayer of going undefeated this year. The NFL has "adjusted" to Brady / Moss / Welker (see the second half of 2007).

Or look at the pace Brady was on in limited action in '08 and project that out over a whole season.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

The NFL has "adjusted" to Brady / Moss / Welker (see the second half of 2007).

For starters, every year and every team is different, so what happened then has no bearing on what happens now.That being said, in the second half of 2007, the "shut down" Pats offense:- Went 8-0- Saw Brady with 2375 yards and "only" 20 TD- Had Randy Moss put up 51-714-12- Saw Welker scaled back to "just" 56-562-2If the Pats repeated just what they did in the last half of 2007 they would be ecstatic.

LOL...I know....the point is the games were a lot more competitive (Eagles, Ravens, Giants come to mind).Remember Bart Scott and the other Ravens crying about the refs in that game? "He (african american referee) called me Boy!" lolololol

 

[BaBastage]

If I knew you better, I'd suggest laying off the pipe, no offense.

No team would intentionally throw a game, with the rare exception of wanting a better draft spot the next year late in the season. And even then, that's not often done.

Could you imagine them going 7-0, throwing a game, and then lose a few more (for whatever reason - schedule, injuries, etc) and then risk missing the playoffs? No way.

(btw, Sitting players after your postseason is locked up is not throwing a game, because the intention is to rest your players and prevent injury, not to lose the game.)

 

[amnesiac]

this seems like a good place to post this:

what if NE uses the pick they got from Oakland to draft a QB to sit and learn for 3 years ala Aaron Rodgers?

seems like Belicheck is always thinking ahead.