I Have Officially Seen It All (1 Viewer)

[Jewell]

The Patriots didn't need this game. There is no reason to risk injury to starters for a meaningless game. Sure, it would have been nice and could help them get the second spot in the playoffs, but that's about all. It was over. They were outplayed all game. no reason to keep Brady in when the only outcome was risk of injury.

As for the whole Belichick plays his starters for the whole game in blowouts nonsense, that must have been something you read on an internet message board and can't help Parroting. Here's an idea. Rather than copying and pasting other Pats bashers comments, do some research of your own. Then come back here and list all the games that Brady played to the final whistle that were blowouts.

The Pats haven't won on the road against a home team once this season. They only have a 2 game lead in the division. They are not a lock to make the playoffs, and clearly going on the road in the playoffs wouldn't be the best scenario.I'm pretty sure they "didn't need this game" couldn't be further from the truth.

Wow. You must not watch much AFC East football. Which team exactly should the Patriots be worried about winning the division?

 

[DoubleG]

For those of you defending the Belichick's decision in this one - do you think he'll bench Brady and company the next time he's winning by a large margin with minutes to go?

If you think he'll actually bench the guys, then this game may have been the moment where he realized the error of his ways.

If he keeps his guys out there like he normally does, it only confirms the level of disgust that should be given to the Patriots in regard to this game.

There's way too many pages to read for a ridiculous thread like this, and even responding to you is a waste of my time. You are either fishing, or you really don't know anything about football, and even less about the Patriots.The Patriots didn't need this game. There is no reason to risk injury to starters for a meaningless game. Sure, it would have been nice and could help them get the second spot in the playoffs, but that's about all. It was over. They were outplayed all game. no reason to keep Brady in when the only outcome was risk of injury.

As for the whole Belichick plays his starters for the whole game in blowouts nonsense, that must have been something you read on an internet message board and can't help Parroting. Here's an idea. Rather than copying and pasting other Pats bashers comments, do some research of your own. Then come back here and list all the games that Brady played to the final whistle that were blowouts.

The bolded part is patently false. They have a two game lead in the division with two teams chasing them and 5 games left (3 on the road - the Pats are 1-4 on the road.) one of which is a game against one of the two teams chasing them. They also desperately could use every win they can get to help garner home field advantage in the playoffs (if they make it to the playoffs). The Pats went 11-5 in 08 and missed the playoffs. They are currently ranked 29th in defense in terms of yards allowed. The Pats aren't guaranteed anything.I thought it odd that BB pulled Brady with 5 minutes left (as did several "experts" and TV talking heads) - but I certainly agree with his reasoning. His team was getting owned on the road. He felt they had little - no chance of coming back so why risk it?

 

[David Yudkin]

The Patriots didn't need this game. There is no reason to risk injury to starters for a meaningless game. Sure, it would have been nice and could help them get the second spot in the playoffs, but that's about all. It was over. They were outplayed all game. no reason to keep Brady in when the only outcome was risk of injury.

As for the whole Belichick plays his starters for the whole game in blowouts nonsense, that must have been something you read on an internet message board and can't help Parroting. Here's an idea. Rather than copying and pasting other Pats bashers comments, do some research of your own. Then come back here and list all the games that Brady played to the final whistle that were blowouts.

The Pats haven't won on the road against a home team once this season. They only have a 2 game lead in the division. They are not a lock to make the playoffs, and clearly going on the road in the playoffs wouldn't be the best scenario.I'm pretty sure they "didn't need this game" couldn't be further from the truth.

I still think the Pats didn't "need" this game as much as you are making it out to be. The Pats are up by 2 games and would likely have to lose 3 games to miss the playoffs. At that point they would be 9-7 and all this talk about them competing in the playoffs would be pretty much moot anyway. If they fashion themselves as having a legit chance to win it all this year (with the expectation that they win most of their remaining games), then last night's game in the situation they were in at the end of the game was not life or death.

 

[harryhood]

The Patriots didn't need this game. There is no reason to risk injury to starters for a meaningless game. Sure, it would have been nice and could help them get the second spot in the playoffs, but that's about all. It was over. They were outplayed all game. no reason to keep Brady in when the only outcome was risk of injury.

As for the whole Belichick plays his starters for the whole game in blowouts nonsense, that must have been something you read on an internet message board and can't help Parroting. Here's an idea. Rather than copying and pasting other Pats bashers comments, do some research of your own. Then come back here and list all the games that Brady played to the final whistle that were blowouts.

The Pats haven't won on the road against a home team once this season. They only have a 2 game lead in the division. They are not a lock to make the playoffs, and clearly going on the road in the playoffs wouldn't be the best scenario.I'm pretty sure they "didn't need this game" couldn't be further from the truth.

And they head on the road to play Miami(who probably wants a mulligan against BUF). Do all patriots fans think a game against an undefeated NFC team on the road is one "you dont need to win".

What about XLII? Didn't need to win that one either?

 

[David Yudkin]

They are currently ranked 29th in defense in terms of yards allowed.

What?The Pats defense ranks 12th in fewest yards allowed and 7th in fewest points allowed.

 

[Jewell]

If Brady had stayed in the game down 3 TDs with 4 minutes left, and had sustained a season ending injury,

then you would have a valid reason to start a thread.

This thread is a total joke.

The Pats were smoked and had no chance to win - that's why everyone was pulled.

Pretty simple really.

I don't understand why this is getting so much play but I do know that Knobs has something against the Pats.

The bolded part is completely false.

Fine. The Patriots had an "extremely slim" chance then.Saying that the Patriots had a chance to win that game is like saying that Jamarcus Russell has a chance to be a Hall of Fame QB. Technically, there's a chance.

So you wouldn't have a problem with JaMarcus Russell giving up on becoming a great QB just because there's only a slim chance of it and he might suffer an injury in the course of his pursuit? Or would you think maybe he's kind of being a noncompetitive baby?

Your last part says it all. You had a negative view of Belichick long before last night's game, and you're using what happened last night to support your belief.And, no, I wouldn't have a problem with Jamarcus Russell giving up football. In fact, I think that most Raiders fans would encourage it.

 

[parrot]

If there's anything that Pats fans clearly can't wrap their head around, despite the last 3 seasons, it's that NE's defense, NOT Brady, was responsible for the SuperBowl wins.

32/48 354 3 0 SuperBowl record for completions. Final score 32-29. Defense gave up 3 fourth quarter TDs. Yeah, he really rode that Herculean defensive effort to the victory.

So, you're saying that going into the 4th quarter, the Pats defense had allowed only 8 points by the opponent? Sounds like pretty good defense to me.

The last time I checked they played four quarters.You really should save the long-winded posts decrying the decline in the level of discourse on this board when you so frequently post trolling, dishonest tripe like this.

 

[David Yudkin]

The Patriots didn't need this game. There is no reason to risk injury to starters for a meaningless game. Sure, it would have been nice and could help them get the second spot in the playoffs, but that's about all. It was over. They were outplayed all game. no reason to keep Brady in when the only outcome was risk of injury.

As for the whole Belichick plays his starters for the whole game in blowouts nonsense, that must have been something you read on an internet message board and can't help Parroting. Here's an idea. Rather than copying and pasting other Pats bashers comments, do some research of your own. Then come back here and list all the games that Brady played to the final whistle that were blowouts.

The Pats haven't won on the road against a home team once this season. They only have a 2 game lead in the division. They are not a lock to make the playoffs, and clearly going on the road in the playoffs wouldn't be the best scenario.I'm pretty sure they "didn't need this game" couldn't be further from the truth.

And they head on the road to play Miami(who probably wants a mulligan against BUF). Do all patriots fans think a game against an undefeated NFC team on the road is one "you dont need to win".

What about XLII? Didn't need to win that one either?

The "haven't won on the road thing" while a concern is getting way blown out of proportion. They lost to the Jets when Brady was still getting his sea legs back and they always struggle in Denver. Then they played two undefeated teams. Losing on the road to a playoff team and two undefeated teams is hardly deplorable.Let's see how they play in their remaining road games (MIA, BUF, HOU) before we say they can't win on the road. I would put a much higher chance that they end up 12-4 than I would them missing the playoffs.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Granted the Pats were getting drilled all night long, how do you pull Brady & Co with over 5 minutes left in a game that three TDs could win?

Trust me, I don't think the Pats had a shot in hell but I am stunned.

Brady is no Manning.

you're right.Brady is not a regular season stat monger like Manning...he's also not a post season choker and he doesn't have a losing post season record.Brady has, however, played in 4 SB's, winning a few on last second drives that he engineered...he also led a team to a 16-0 mark and if not for a miracle toss from Eli, Brady would have won a 4th SB capping the NFL's second-only undefeated season..he's never lead a team to a 12-4 or better record, only to lose in the first round of the playoffs, something Manning has done 5 times ,if I'm not mistaken? so yeah, Brady surely is NOT Manning...

and in January, in the post season,when NE is still alive and Manning is drinking hot cocoa on his rocking chair at home watching TV after losing yet another playoff game, maybe then you'll say Manning surely is no Brady..

because, you know, he isn't..

you're comparing greatness to greatness..and when doing so, post season record and titles won, means a hell of a lot more than 4k yards, 28 tds, and consistently finishing the 'regular' season with a 12-4 record ala Manning. big friggin deal.Brady wins when it matters.something Manning doesn't do nearly as often..he doesn't win post season games.

Post season record has more to do with the team around you than one position of QB. Look at Big Ben's first SB win...he almost singlehandedly lost the game for Pitt and that is really hard to do. But at the time people were saying what a winner he was Of course, people talked about what a choker Manning was until he won, even though he didn't have the horses in his losses. same with Elway, until he got the #1 rushing attack to help him and Marino is the same way, except Marino never had the defense or running attack to help him. (the one year Marino had a good defense, they went to the SB, only to see that defense allow 38 points to one of the better teams of all time...but was he a choker?

Why are people chokers until they win? Look at ARod, even though he was excellent in the postseason before he came to the Yanks and then again excellent for the first few series with the Yanks in the postseason, after a few real bad series (only 34 AB's though) he was labeled a choker...but then he has a dominating postseason and he is not a choker anymore? How about some perspective folks?

 

[switz]

I still think the Pats didn't "need" this game as much as you are making it out to be. The Pats are up by 2 games and would likely have to lose 3 games to miss the playoffs. At that point they would be 9-7 and all this talk about them competing in the playoffs would be pretty much moot anyway. If they fashion themselves as having a legit chance to win it all this year (with the expectation that they win most of their remaining games), then last night's game in the situation they were in at the end of the game was not life or death.

Where did I say it was life or death? I merely refuted the point that many Pats fans are trying to promote that the game was meaningless, and they didn't need it at al. Quite frankly, I would say of the games they play over the last half of the season, the Colts and Saints games were two of the more important games, because they serve as a barometer of where the Pats are. Can you honestly say that if the Pats meet the Colts in the playoffs, their won't be some doubts in their mind that they can beat them? In the unlikelihood they make the SuperBowl, if their opponent is the Saints, do you really think after getting beaten that badly, they won't be worried? Lacking confidence is a killer. Right now I think if the Begals and Pats played, the Bengals would have the edge in confidence.

Watching the way Belichick has handled those games says to me that he's not confident in this team at all. If that's the case, then there's real reason for concern among Pats fans.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Your last part says it all. You had a negative view of Belichick long before last night's game, and you're using what happened last night to support your belief.And, no, I wouldn't have a problem with Jamarcus Russell giving up football. In fact, I think that most Raiders fans would encourage it.

I actually have a two-sided thing with Belichick. As a stat-oriented guy, I love that he makes the right move to give his team the best chance to win instead of the safe move. I defended the fourth and two call around these parts endlessly, and in other threads I've explained my admiration for his decisionmaking. However, as an NFL fan, I dislike his dismissive attitude towards NFL fans and their right to access and information, as exhibited by his press conferences and his abuse of the injury reports. He doesn't seem to "get" that if everyone involved with the NFL at high levels acted like he did towards fans, he wouldn't have a high-paying job. I also dislike his tendency to appear petulant and childish when things don't go his way at times. So I think I can objectively evaluate the guy, or at least I can do it more objectively than a Pats fan. And last night's move sure looked like a childish bush league move to me. Furthermore, I'm not alone- Steve Young and who knows how many other objective observers reached the same conclusion.

 

[KarmaPolice]

For the people defending this, where was the cutoff? Would you have been OK quitting down 21 with 8 minutes to go? Why risk injury to anyone? Should teams just concede when they get down 21 and not take the field at all. This would ensure they can't get hurt. Cowardly to not even try and score with 5+ minutes to go. What a disgrace.

I think what people are glazing over about this situation is the element of having a "feeling" about your team and what is going on down on the field. This is what the fourth and 4 call the other week was about as well (IMO). You can throw stats on either side of the argument, but it also comes down to your gut. To me the call against Indy was quite a bit about feeling that the D was getting outmatched, they were blow up for a long drive, Manning was getting hot, etc... To me it was a decent call to put the ball in Brady's hands at that point. Tonight was the same thing - the offense hadn't done #### for most of the 2nd half, but all of a sudden they are going to put up 21 points in 5mins (this is ASSUMING that their D could stop the Saints a couple times too, which wasn't happening). People keep bringing up keeping the guys out there in "blowout" wins. A lot of that boils down to keeping the swagger/chemistry/timing going for your offense. Nothing is gained from keeping the starters out there tonight. That's not classless or being cowards. What's wrong with knowing when you are beat? It WOULD be classless if they came out and #####ed that the Saints were still passing towards the endzone at the end of the game. The Patriots are riddled with injuries this year - 3 or 4 OLs, Galloway, F.Taylor. This combined with losing (or getting rid of) their leadership on D, and I think they did the safe thing knowing they are still in the hunt for the #2 seed in the AFC - end of story.

So you think it's OK to keep pounding teams with Brady, Moss, and Welker while up by 40, but to give up down by 21 with 5 min left? One is bad as the other IMO. You also mention not having Galloway and F Taylor like that's something of significance. Galloway was done and Taylor is not far behind. The big problem with NE isn't inuries to their offense, but the fact that their defense sucks.

As I stated in my post, I think both situations are about getting the pulse of the team. I have seen Bill pull starters at the end of games, but rarely is it much before 5-7 left in the games when up. It's about keeping the Offense going and in rhythm. Should teams instantly pull starters at the half if they are up by 25-30 points? Good teams would have their players sitting 1/4 of the season if teams pulled players all the time like this. It's about winning a SB, so if a coach thinks the team would be hurt by doing things like that, who are we to complain about it. Granted they aren't world-beaters anymore, but don't pretend that it takes away from the offense when you have to get used to different starters each week. They are on their 3rd LT and 2nd RG I believe. Brady seemed to look Galloway's way, and then it had to be Edelmen, now it's Aiken, etc.. Losing starters matters no matter who you are.

 

[switz]

If there's anything that Pats fans clearly can't wrap their head around, despite the last 3 seasons, it's that NE's defense, NOT Brady, was responsible for the SuperBowl wins.

32/48 354 3 0 SuperBowl record for completions. Final score 32-29. Defense gave up 3 fourth quarter TDs. Yeah, he really rode that Herculean defensive effort to the victory.

So, you're saying that going into the 4th quarter, the Pats defense had allowed only 8 points by the opponent? Sounds like pretty good defense to me.

The last time I checked they played four quarters.You really should save the long-winded posts decrying the decline in the level of discourse on this board when you so frequently post trolling, dishonest tripe like this.

Yes, but imagine if they hadn't played well in the first three quarters? What if they gave up 3 TDs per quarter.Bottom line is, the defense has been more responsible for the Pats SB wins than Tom Brady has... just as the defense was more responsible for the Colts win than Peyton Manning was. Defense wins championships. The "greatest show on turf" couldn't beat NE's defense in '03. The Pats great offense couldn't beat the Giants in '07.

 

[harryhood]

The Patriots didn't need this game. There is no reason to risk injury to starters for a meaningless game. Sure, it would have been nice and could help them get the second spot in the playoffs, but that's about all. It was over. They were outplayed all game. no reason to keep Brady in when the only outcome was risk of injury.

As for the whole Belichick plays his starters for the whole game in blowouts nonsense, that must have been something you read on an internet message board and can't help Parroting. Here's an idea. Rather than copying and pasting other Pats bashers comments, do some research of your own. Then come back here and list all the games that Brady played to the final whistle that were blowouts.

The Pats haven't won on the road against a home team once this season. They only have a 2 game lead in the division. They are not a lock to make the playoffs, and clearly going on the road in the playoffs wouldn't be the best scenario.I'm pretty sure they "didn't need this game" couldn't be further from the truth.

And they head on the road to play Miami(who probably wants a mulligan against BUF). Do all patriots fans think a game against an undefeated NFC team on the road is one "you dont need to win".

What about XLII? Didn't need to win that one either?

The "haven't won on the road thing" while a concern is getting way blown out of proportion. They lost to the Jets when Brady was still getting his sea legs back and they always struggle in Denver. Then they played two undefeated teams. Losing on the road to a playoff team and two undefeated teams is hardly deplorable.Let's see how they play in their remaining road games (MIA, BUF, HOU) before we say they can't win on the road. I would put a much higher chance that they end up 12-4 than I would them missing the playoffs.

Those 3 teams are teams that shouldn't be around in 5 weeks.

 

[switz]

Granted they aren't world-beaters anymore, but don't pretend that it takes away from the offense when you have to get used to different starters each week. They are on their 3rd LT and 2nd RG I believe. Brady seemed to look Galloway's way, and then it had to be Edelmen, now it's Aiken, etc.. Losing starters matters no matter who you are.

You mean like the Saints and their secondary, and their RBs? What about 2/3 of the Colts starting WRs being new this season, or bringin in a new LT at the beginning of the season, yet they're still undefeated?

 

[switz]

The Patriots didn't need this game. There is no reason to risk injury to starters for a meaningless game. Sure, it would have been nice and could help them get the second spot in the playoffs, but that's about all. It was over. They were outplayed all game. no reason to keep Brady in when the only outcome was risk of injury.

As for the whole Belichick plays his starters for the whole game in blowouts nonsense, that must have been something you read on an internet message board and can't help Parroting. Here's an idea. Rather than copying and pasting other Pats bashers comments, do some research of your own. Then come back here and list all the games that Brady played to the final whistle that were blowouts.

The Pats haven't won on the road against a home team once this season. They only have a 2 game lead in the division. They are not a lock to make the playoffs, and clearly going on the road in the playoffs wouldn't be the best scenario.I'm pretty sure they "didn't need this game" couldn't be further from the truth.

And they head on the road to play Miami(who probably wants a mulligan against BUF). Do all patriots fans think a game against an undefeated NFC team on the road is one "you dont need to win".

What about XLII? Didn't need to win that one either?

The "haven't won on the road thing" while a concern is getting way blown out of proportion. They lost to the Jets when Brady was still getting his sea legs back and they always struggle in Denver. Then they played two undefeated teams. Losing on the road to a playoff team and two undefeated teams is hardly deplorable.Let's see how they play in their remaining road games (MIA, BUF, HOU) before we say they can't win on the road. I would put a much higher chance that they end up 12-4 than I would them missing the playoffs.

Those 3 teams are teams that shouldn't be around in 5 weeks.

It wouldn't surprise me if the Pats lost all three of those games, or at least 2 of the 3.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Granted they aren't world-beaters anymore, but don't pretend that it takes away from the offense when you have to get used to different starters each week. They are on their 3rd LT and 2nd RG I believe. Brady seemed to look Galloway's way, and then it had to be Edelmen, now it's Aiken, etc.. Losing starters matters no matter who you are.

You mean like the Saints and their secondary, and their RBs? What about 2/3 of the Colts starting WRs being new this season, or bringin in a new LT at the beginning of the season, yet they're still undefeated?

Did I say that the Pats were the only team dealing with injuries?

The Saints and Colts are handling it, teams like NE and Pitt seem to be hurt by it.

I think the NE offense is fine, but the D is killing them. Over the span of 2 years they have lost all their leadership (Seymour, Bruschi, Vrabel, Harrison, Samuel, etc..) and it is biting them in the ###. I agree with an above poster that stated Belichick's decisions have seemingly reflected that feeling - he has 0 confidence in the D when the game is on the line.

 

[Don Quixote]

I don't get the "didn't need this game" or "meaningless game" argument. The #2 seed is a pretty big deal, and they are now a game behind San Diego and Cincy for that.

 

[Lash]

it was a smart move

Saints were teeing off on Brady, even got him low (thigh area)

 

[David Yudkin]

I don't get the "didn't need this game" or "meaningless game" argument. The #2 seed is a pretty big deal, and they are now a game behind San Diego and Cincy for that.

The issue was whether risking an injury was worth the risk in a game they were down 3 TD with five minutes to go. The Pats had not made much progress on offense in the second half and they had several players take big hits. If the game was do or die to make the playoffs then the Pats would have been out there with boots on in the trenches. Who knows, maybe with more pounding, another INT or two, more sniping among the key players, etc. it would have left the team in more of a quandry than just throwing in the towel.What we think really doesn't matter, as BB was content to walk away without additional injuries and live to fight another day.And for those that were suggesting why not throw 4 bombs in a row to Moss rather than take out the starters . . . if Brady had time to throw to Moss deep all game he would have been doing so all game long. On many plays Brady was getting pressured and did not have the luxury of just camping out in the pocket and airing it out 60 yards. I'm not defending the call to put in the B team, but sometimes people here have great solutions that seem so easy to implement.

 

[Colts Win]

Just shows again they cant count on Brady to lead a real 4th quarter come back.

 

[PizzaDeliveryGuy]

Just shows again they cant count on Brady to lead a real 4th quarter come back.

Horrible.

 

[DoubleG]

They are currently ranked 29th in defense in terms of yards allowed.

What?The Pats defense ranks 12th in fewest yards allowed and 7th in fewest points allowed.

Odd - for some reason cbs has completely wrong rankings (http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/teams/page/NE/new-england-patriots)But I do appreciate you taking an entire post with several points, finding one that is incorrect (which wasn't even the basis of the post) and arguing that one, instead of the other points which were equally pertinent.

 

[PatsFanCT]

I still think the Pats didn't "need" this game as much as you are making it out to be. The Pats are up by 2 games and would likely have to lose 3 games to miss the playoffs. At that point they would be 9-7 and all this talk about them competing in the playoffs would be pretty much moot anyway. If they fashion themselves as having a legit chance to win it all this year (with the expectation that they win most of their remaining games), then last night's game in the situation they were in at the end of the game was not life or death.

Where did I say it was life or death? I merely refuted the point that many Pats fans are trying to promote that the game was meaningless, and they didn't need it at al. Quite frankly, I would say of the games they play over the last half of the season, the Colts and Saints games were two of the more important games, because they serve as a barometer of where the Pats are. Can you honestly say that if the Pats meet the Colts in the playoffs, their won't be some doubts in their mind that they can beat them? In the unlikelihood they make the SuperBowl, if their opponent is the Saints, do you really think after getting beaten that badly, they won't be worried? Lacking confidence is a killer. Right now I think if the Begals and Pats played, the Bengals would have the edge in confidence.

Watching the way Belichick has handled those games says to me that he's not confident in this team at all. If that's the case, then there's real reason for concern among Pats fans.

This ones easy. No, the Patriots wont have any doubts if they have to face the Colts in the playoffs. They already went to Indy and blew them up. Sure, they lost, but only by the chanciest of luck. I highly doubt... make that I am positive, there is not one player on the Patriots worried about facing the Colts in the playoffs. In fact, they way Indy has had to come from behind to win all season, they are probably the ones with doubt.

As for the Saints, that might be a different story. They'll probably be rooting for the Vikings in the NFCC game.

 

[David Yudkin]

They are currently ranked 29th in defense in terms of yards allowed.

What?The Pats defense ranks 12th in fewest yards allowed and 7th in fewest points allowed.

Odd - for some reason cbs has completely wrong rankings (http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/teams/page/NE/new-england-patriots)But I do appreciate you taking an entire post with several points, finding one that is incorrect (which wasn't even the basis of the post) and arguing that one, instead of the other points which were equally pertinent.

I don't even remember what you said in your post. I wasn't agreeing, diasagreeing, or arguing anything. I was only clarifying something citing erroneous information.

 

[BaBastage]

it was a smart moveSaints were teeing off on Brady, even got him low (thigh area)

Except the thighs are fair game. (Thigh is above the knee, Below the knee is protected via the 'Brady Rule'.)

 

[DoubleG]

I still think the Pats didn't "need" this game as much as you are making it out to be. The Pats are up by 2 games and would likely have to lose 3 games to miss the playoffs. At that point they would be 9-7 and all this talk about them competing in the playoffs would be pretty much moot anyway. If they fashion themselves as having a legit chance to win it all this year (with the expectation that they win most of their remaining games), then last night's game in the situation they were in at the end of the game was not life or death.

Where did I say it was life or death? I merely refuted the point that many Pats fans are trying to promote that the game was meaningless, and they didn't need it at al. Quite frankly, I would say of the games they play over the last half of the season, the Colts and Saints games were two of the more important games, because they serve as a barometer of where the Pats are. Can you honestly say that if the Pats meet the Colts in the playoffs, their won't be some doubts in their mind that they can beat them? In the unlikelihood they make the SuperBowl, if their opponent is the Saints, do you really think after getting beaten that badly, they won't be worried? Lacking confidence is a killer. Right now I think if the Begals and Pats played, the Bengals would have the edge in confidence.

Watching the way Belichick has handled those games says to me that he's not confident in this team at all. If that's the case, then there's real reason for concern among Pats fans.

This ones easy. No, the Patriots wont have any doubts if they have to face the Colts in the playoffs. They already went to Indy and blew them up. Sure, they lost, but only by the chanciest of luck. I highly doubt... make that I am positive, there is not one player on the Patriots worried about facing the Colts in the playoffs. In fact, they way Indy has had to come from behind to win all season, they are probably the ones with doubt.

As for the Saints, that might be a different story. They'll probably be rooting for the Vikings in the NFCC game.

Yep - nothing breeds doubt like success. Man, I love the spin. So the 11-0 teams should be worried but the 7-4 teams are 100% confident. Wow.

News flash for Pats fans: This isn't 2007. The defense good, but not great. The Pats are 7-4, not 11-0. The Pats aren't going to have homefield advantage throughout the playoffs. I realize it's been 22 months since the Pats have played a post season game, but it seems you have all forgotten one very important point: the other teams you play against get payed to play too.

First off, assuming the Patriots have any interest in who wins the NFC Championship game is a huge assumption for a team that has dropped two of it's last three games, is 1-4 on the road, and can't pressure opposing QBs. Along those lines, here is a fun stat:

What do the Colts, Chargers, Dolphins, Broncos, Steelers, Vikings and Saints all have in common?

Oh - and I don't think the Pats would be rooting for the Vikings at any rate - they lead the NFL in sacks with 40 - and Brady didn't seem to handle the pressure from the Saints very well, and they only have 26 sacks.

As of now, there is only one team that has clinched a division - and it's NOT the Patriots.

Why don't we see if the Patriots make the post season before we start deciding who they want to face in the Super Bowl?

 

[TobiasFunke]

I still think the Pats didn't "need" this game as much as you are making it out to be. The Pats are up by 2 games and would likely have to lose 3 games to miss the playoffs. At that point they would be 9-7 and all this talk about them competing in the playoffs would be pretty much moot anyway. If they fashion themselves as having a legit chance to win it all this year (with the expectation that they win most of their remaining games), then last night's game in the situation they were in at the end of the game was not life or death.

Where did I say it was life or death? I merely refuted the point that many Pats fans are trying to promote that the game was meaningless, and they didn't need it at al. Quite frankly, I would say of the games they play over the last half of the season, the Colts and Saints games were two of the more important games, because they serve as a barometer of where the Pats are. Can you honestly say that if the Pats meet the Colts in the playoffs, their won't be some doubts in their mind that they can beat them? In the unlikelihood they make the SuperBowl, if their opponent is the Saints, do you really think after getting beaten that badly, they won't be worried? Lacking confidence is a killer. Right now I think if the Begals and Pats played, the Bengals would have the edge in confidence.

Watching the way Belichick has handled those games says to me that he's not confident in this team at all. If that's the case, then there's real reason for concern among Pats fans.

This ones easy. No, the Patriots wont have any doubts if they have to face the Colts in the playoffs. They already went to Indy and blew them up. Sure, they lost, but only by the chanciest of luck. I highly doubt... make that I am positive, there is not one player on the Patriots worried about facing the Colts in the playoffs. In fact, they way Indy has had to come from behind to win all season, they are probably the ones with doubt.

As for the Saints, that might be a different story. They'll probably be rooting for the Vikings in the NFCC game.

This is awesome.

 

[phthalatemagic]

Maybe BB pulled Brady and the starting offense because he knows the aspects of the Patriots that perform comeback wins are not Tom Brady and the offense, but the defense and Adam V. Since apparently NE doesn't have a defense, nor their great kicker any longer there is no point in trying to come back from such a deficit, so he may as well quit.

 

[phthalatemagic]

I still think the Pats didn't "need" this game as much as you are making it out to be. The Pats are up by 2 games and would likely have to lose 3 games to miss the playoffs. At that point they would be 9-7 and all this talk about them competing in the playoffs would be pretty much moot anyway. If they fashion themselves as having a legit chance to win it all this year (with the expectation that they win most of their remaining games), then last night's game in the situation they were in at the end of the game was not life or death.

Where did I say it was life or death? I merely refuted the point that many Pats fans are trying to promote that the game was meaningless, and they didn't need it at al. Quite frankly, I would say of the games they play over the last half of the season, the Colts and Saints games were two of the more important games, because they serve as a barometer of where the Pats are. Can you honestly say that if the Pats meet the Colts in the playoffs, their won't be some doubts in their mind that they can beat them? In the unlikelihood they make the SuperBowl, if their opponent is the Saints, do you really think after getting beaten that badly, they won't be worried? Lacking confidence is a killer. Right now I think if the Begals and Pats played, the Bengals would have the edge in confidence.

Watching the way Belichick has handled those games says to me that he's not confident in this team at all. If that's the case, then there's real reason for concern among Pats fans.

This ones easy. No, the Patriots wont have any doubts if they have to face the Colts in the playoffs. They already went to Indy and blew them up. Sure, they lost, but only by the chanciest of luck. I highly doubt... make that I am positive, there is not one player on the Patriots worried about facing the Colts in the playoffs. In fact, they way Indy has had to come from behind to win all season, they are probably the ones with doubt.

As for the Saints, that might be a different story. They'll probably be rooting for the Vikings in the NFCC game.

Boy oh boy are you living in the past. The Colts have the Patriots for the past few years.

 

[DoubleG]

I still think the Pats didn't "need" this game as much as you are making it out to be. The Pats are up by 2 games and would likely have to lose 3 games to miss the playoffs. At that point they would be 9-7 and all this talk about them competing in the playoffs would be pretty much moot anyway. If they fashion themselves as having a legit chance to win it all this year (with the expectation that they win most of their remaining games), then last night's game in the situation they were in at the end of the game was not life or death.

Where did I say it was life or death? I merely refuted the point that many Pats fans are trying to promote that the game was meaningless, and they didn't need it at al. Quite frankly, I would say of the games they play over the last half of the season, the Colts and Saints games were two of the more important games, because they serve as a barometer of where the Pats are. Can you honestly say that if the Pats meet the Colts in the playoffs, their won't be some doubts in their mind that they can beat them? In the unlikelihood they make the SuperBowl, if their opponent is the Saints, do you really think after getting beaten that badly, they won't be worried? Lacking confidence is a killer. Right now I think if the Begals and Pats played, the Bengals would have the edge in confidence.

Watching the way Belichick has handled those games says to me that he's not confident in this team at all. If that's the case, then there's real reason for concern among Pats fans.

This ones easy. No, the Patriots wont have any doubts if they have to face the Colts in the playoffs. They already went to Indy and blew them up. Sure, they lost, but only by the chanciest of luck. I highly doubt... make that I am positive, there is not one player on the Patriots worried about facing the Colts in the playoffs. In fact, they way Indy has had to come from behind to win all season, they are probably the ones with doubt.

As for the Saints, that might be a different story. They'll probably be rooting for the Vikings in the NFCC game.

Boy oh boy are you living in the past. The Colts have the Patriots for the past few years.

The Colts are 5-1 vs. NE (regular and post season) since 2005.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Not that we'll ever know, but what if BB did it as a statement to his players. Looks like Brady was hanging his head a bit, and that int was really bad. On that play, it looked like Moss was mailing it in. That could've played into the decision as well, along with avoiding injuries.

Unfortunately (since I am a fan) the reality is that they no longer look like a championship team.

 

[DoubleG]

Not that we'll ever know, but what if BB did it as a statement to his players. Looks like Brady was hanging his head a bit, and that int was really bad. On that play, it looked like Moss was mailing it in. That could've played into the decision as well, along with avoiding injuries.

Good point - in fact I think one of MNF announcers said something to that effect (or something along those lines at least). As I said, the combo of injury risk along with the fact that his team was getting it handed to them, and had seemingly lost their edge, was certainly a reason to do it. Even my wife turned to me and said - "This may be the first time I've ever seen Brady's backup play when he wasn't injured." Obviously the team would understand the oddity of it as well.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I still think the Pats didn't "need" this game as much as you are making it out to be. The Pats are up by 2 games and would likely have to lose 3 games to miss the playoffs. At that point they would be 9-7 and all this talk about them competing in the playoffs would be pretty much moot anyway. If they fashion themselves as having a legit chance to win it all this year (with the expectation that they win most of their remaining games), then last night's game in the situation they were in at the end of the game was not life or death.

Where did I say it was life or death? I merely refuted the point that many Pats fans are trying to promote that the game was meaningless, and they didn't need it at al. Quite frankly, I would say of the games they play over the last half of the season, the Colts and Saints games were two of the more important games, because they serve as a barometer of where the Pats are. Can you honestly say that if the Pats meet the Colts in the playoffs, their won't be some doubts in their mind that they can beat them? In the unlikelihood they make the SuperBowl, if their opponent is the Saints, do you really think after getting beaten that badly, they won't be worried? Lacking confidence is a killer. Right now I think if the Begals and Pats played, the Bengals would have the edge in confidence.

Watching the way Belichick has handled those games says to me that he's not confident in this team at all. If that's the case, then there's real reason for concern among Pats fans.

This ones easy. No, the Patriots wont have any doubts if they have to face the Colts in the playoffs. They already went to Indy and blew them up. Sure, they lost, but only by the chanciest of luck. I highly doubt... make that I am positive, there is not one player on the Patriots worried about facing the Colts in the playoffs. In fact, they way Indy has had to come from behind to win all season, they are probably the ones with doubt.

As for the Saints, that might be a different story. They'll probably be rooting for the Vikings in the NFCC game.

Boy oh boy are you living in the past. The Colts have the Patriots for the past few years.

The Colts are 5-1 vs. NE (regular and post season) since 2005.

You and the poster before you have a lot to learn about laughing at New England sports fans. Next time, try to prod them gently instead of shutting them down completely. You'll find that the resulting hilarity is second-to-none.

 

[KoolKat]

How can anyone say that the game was over? How can you forget Peyton's epic comeback against what was a very good Tampa defense and team? Less than a decade ago it was demonstrated that a team with a powerful offense can comeback from this very same situation. So, anyone who claims the game was over either has only watched football for the last five years, or decides to ignore facdts when they do not agree with their argument. Those that claim the game was over are either disingenuous about arguing, or are simply unfamiliar with the history of the NFL.

BB gave up while they still had a chance, there is no defending him.

 

[Avery]

For those of you defending the Belichick's decision in this one - do you think he'll bench Brady and company the next time he's winning by a large margin with minutes to go?

If you think he'll actually bench the guys, then this game may have been the moment where he realized the error of his ways.

If he keeps his guys out there like he normally does, it only confirms the level of disgust that should be given to the Patriots in regard to this game.

There's way too many pages to read for a ridiculous thread like this, and even responding to you is a waste of my time. You are either fishing, or you really don't know anything about football, and even less about the Patriots.The Patriots didn't need this game. There is no reason to risk injury to starters for a meaningless game. Sure, it would have been nice and could help them get the second spot in the playoffs, but that's about all. It was over. They were outplayed all game. no reason to keep Brady in when the only outcome was risk of injury.

As for the whole Belichick plays his starters for the whole game in blowouts nonsense, that must have been something you read on an internet message board and can't help Parroting. Here's an idea. Rather than copying and pasting other Pats bashers comments, do some research of your own. Then come back here and list all the games that Brady played to the final whistle that were blowouts.

This is why people hate Patriot fans.It has less to do with the success that the team has had (although that is assuredly a part of it) but more to do with the condescending, "you don't understand", and "responding isn't worth my time" attitude that some of the Patriot fans take.

If you don't want to talk about football and the decisions coaches make, don't frequent a fantasy football message board.

 

[KoolKat]

I just do not understand the mentality of not thinking you can come back when you have the offensive stars that New England has. Yes Brady was off his game. But he has Moss. and Welker. and Faulk. and is facing two inexperienced corners. Forget this whole we are down by 21 stuff. Let's try and get 1 TD fast. Had Brady connected with Moss deep on a TD and there was hypothetically 4:57 left, would you want the team to quit there down by two TDs. Momentum can change super fast. I can't think of why a good team should ever quit with 5+ minutes left to play. Some here disagree, but I doubt I will ever be convinced.

Seriously. They have the most talented WR in history, the best slot receiver I have ever seen, and a first-ballot HoFer at QB, yet they can't score 3 TDs in 5 minutes? Apparently, in the delusional world of those who say the game was over, there is no such thing as an onside kick, and Peyton never accomplished nearly the exact same feat, against a better defense.

 

[KoolKat]

Brady didn't look quite right but down 3 touchdowns with 2 timeouts, and those weapons, is something the Patriots could pull off.

Brady didn't look quite right but down 3 touchdowns with 2 timeouts, those weapons... and that defense... it's something the Patriots couldn't pull off.I don't care how good there offensive players are, that defense couldn't stop the Saints all game and they weren't about to in the last five minutes... and Belichick knew it.

There were more than 5 minutes left. If the Patriots had scored a quick touchdown they would have been down by 14 points with 5 minutes to go.If they hadn't scored and the Saints had, then he could have sat his players.

Seriously? You make it seem like they could just reach down in that magic hat they hold and...it just occured to me why so many are mad in here. The over under was 56, right? Everyone I know was calling me today and saying bet the over...it has to play a part. You either had players going tonight and lost which makes you this cranky or you had money riding on the over tonight and were really mad when the Pats couldn't get a garbage time TD after the Saints made it 38-17, which by the way for those not paying attention, the game was over at that point too but BB sent them back out for one last chance. You think in 7 minutes you might be able to squeeze in 3 drives but not in 5 minutes...they were not going to push the ball down there 3 times in 5 minutes. Here is the wet dream you all want to create in your heads...tell me this is believable.5:30-Brady takes the field4:30-Brady hits Moss 70 yd TD4:20-Onside kick recovered by the Pats and MOP hits the pipe2:30-Brady to Welker capping a 50 yard drive2:00-Onside kick recovered by the Pats0:00-Brady finds Moss in the end zone again to tie the game 38-38 and send it into overtime.Digest that a bit because that is scenario you are wanting to create and based on what happened the previous 55 minutes I think you are being very dishonest with yourself on why you wanted Brady still out there. If everyone think the Pats were wrong in doing so, hey go for it. Free country and you can think what you want but I bet the majority of non sports betting NFL fans and those that take this hobby way less serious than we do had absolutely no problem with the way the game was handled at the end. BB even kissed Drew Brees and waited for him to end the interview with ESPN so he could lay one on him.

Terrible logic. I own no Pats (although Brees needed to outscore Brady by 20 last night for me to win, and he did!) and am analyzing this from a strictly football sense. There was only a need for a stop and a onside. They had 2 timeouts. So, for you to claim they would need two onsides is inaccurate and misleading. Onsides happen all the time. In fact, the Pats beat the Bills early this year b/c of one. I am not saying it was likely, but you play until it is impossible to win. If I took the BB approach to my fantasy team, I would have said that it would be best for me if Brees rested, and avoid injury for the playoffs (as he had not outscored Brady by 20 once this year). It was incredibly unlikely for my team to win last night, and it was incredibly unlikely for Peyton to beat the Bucs in '03, but that is why they play the games. If you don't play you can't win, and even Herm Edwards can tell you that that is the only goal in football.

 

[parrot]

How can anyone say that the game was over? How can you forget Peyton's epic comeback against what was a very good Tampa defense and team? Less than a decade ago it was demonstrated that a team with a powerful offense can comeback from this very same situation. So, anyone who claims the game was over either has only watched football for the last five years, or decides to ignore facdts when they do not agree with their argument. Those that claim the game was over are either disingenuous about arguing, or are simply unfamiliar with the history of the NFL.

BB gave up while they still had a chance, there is no defending him.

Indianapolis Colts at 05:09

M.Gramatica kicks 72 yards from TB 30 to IND -2. B.Pyatt to TB 12 for 90 yards (J.Phillips).

1-10-TB 12 (4:54) P.Manning pass incomplete to J.Mungro.

2-10-TB 12 (4:50) J.Mungro up the middle to TB 9 for 3 yards (C.Darby).

3-7-TB 9 (4:10) P.Manning pass to T.Walters to TB 3 for 6 yards (T.Wansley; J.Lynch).

4-1-TB 3 (3:43) J.Mungro up the middle for 3 yards, TOUCHDOWN.

M.Vanderjagt extra point is GOOD, Center-J.Snow, Holder-H.Smith.

Slightly different scenarios. I'm guessing that if the Pats had been starting at the Saints 12 rather than their own 20ish, maybe we would have seen Brady back on the field.

 

[cvnpoka]

If Brady had stayed in the game down 3 TDs with 4 minutes left, and had sustained a season ending injury,

then you would have a valid reason to start a thread.

This thread is a total joke.

The Pats were smoked and had no chance to win - that's why everyone was pulled.

Pretty simple really.

I don't understand why this is getting so much play but I do know that Knobs has something against the Pats.

The bolded part is completely false.

Fine. The Patriots had an "extremely slim" chance then.Saying that the Patriots had a chance to win that game is like saying that Jamarcus Russell has a chance to be a Hall of Fame QB. Technically, there's a chance.

So you wouldn't have a problem with JaMarcus Russell giving up on becoming a great QB just because there's only a slim chance of it and he might suffer an injury in the course of his pursuit? Or would you think maybe he's kind of being a noncompetitive baby?

well, i certainly wouldnt blame the raiders, or any nfl organization, for giving up on jamarcus.

 

[DropKick]

As a Moss owner, I would have preferred some garbage time numbers but...

Most of you guys are full of crap and only see the world through homer colored glasses.

I've watched the NFL for 40 years and that game was over. It's not just the time on the clock but the full context of the game; momentum, injuries, what is/isn't working in the game plan, location, etc. Certainly not a "must win" situation for NE and not worth the risk of injury for the slimmest of chances at pulling out a win. It's just a basic NFL coaching decision.

Why does everyone insist on making every small issue into something monumental?

 

[KoolKat]

How can anyone say that the game was over? How can you forget Peyton's epic comeback against what was a very good Tampa defense and team? Less than a decade ago it was demonstrated that a team with a powerful offense can comeback from this very same situation. So, anyone who claims the game was over either has only watched football for the last five years, or decides to ignore facdts when they do not agree with their argument. Those that claim the game was over are either disingenuous about arguing, or are simply unfamiliar with the history of the NFL.

BB gave up while they still had a chance, there is no defending him.

Indianapolis Colts at 05:09

M.Gramatica kicks 72 yards from TB 30 to IND -2. B.Pyatt to TB 12 for 90 yards (J.Phillips).

1-10-TB 12 (4:54) P.Manning pass incomplete to J.Mungro.

2-10-TB 12 (4:50) J.Mungro up the middle to TB 9 for 3 yards (C.Darby).

3-7-TB 9 (4:10) P.Manning pass to T.Walters to TB 3 for 6 yards (T.Wansley; J.Lynch).

4-1-TB 3 (3:43) J.Mungro up the middle for 3 yards, TOUCHDOWN.

M.Vanderjagt extra point is GOOD, Center-J.Snow, Holder-H.Smith.

Slightly different scenarios. I'm guessing that if the Pats had been starting at the Saints 12 rather than their own 20ish, maybe we would have seen Brady back on the field.

Either way, it makes no sense to me. You have the best deep threat the NFL has ever seen, and you don't even give it a shot. Moss has caught more long TDs than anyone, and you don't even heave it up? Should a team just take a knee rather than throw a Hail Mary (which statistically is very rare as well) at the end of a game? Hell, even an ancient Brandon Stokely can catch a miracle to win a game.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

these threads are hilarious because the concerned citizens crying about the game not being over with 5 minutes still to play, and a once in a lifetime comeback still on the table, are the exact same goofs who were crying that brady should've been pulled with 12 minutes to play in those '07 games because those games were over.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Not that we'll ever know, but what if BB did it as a statement to his players. Looks like Brady was hanging his head a bit, and that int was really bad. On that play, it looked like Moss was mailing it in. That could've played into the decision as well, along with avoiding injuries.

Good point - in fact I think one of MNF announcers said something to that effect (or something along those lines at least). As I said, the combo of injury risk along with the fact that his team was getting it handed to them, and had seemingly lost their edge, was certainly a reason to do it. Even my wife turned to me and said - "This may be the first time I've ever seen Brady's backup play when he wasn't injured." Obviously the team would understand the oddity of it as well.

Who knows really. Just pointing out that it's easy to bag on BB all the time, but it could also be that he was pissed that it looked like Brady, Moss, etc. were giving up on the game.

 

[KarmaPolice]

As a Moss owner, I would have preferred some garbage time numbers but...

Most of you guys are full of crap and only see the world through homer colored glasses.

I've watched the NFL for 40 years and that game was over. It's not just the time on the clock but the full context of the game; momentum, injuries, what is/isn't working in the game plan, location, etc. Certainly not a "must win" situation for NE and not worth the risk of injury for the slimmest of chances at pulling out a win. It's just a basic NFL coaching decision.

Why does everyone insist on making every small issue into something monumental?

Exactly. Patriots hadn't done much of anything in the 2nd half. As far as the last question - because it's the Patriots and Belichick. Most of the country finds both irritating to begin with.

 

[phthalatemagic]

You and the poster before you have a lot to learn about laughing at New England sports fans. Next time, try to prod them gently instead of shutting them down completely. You'll find that the resulting hilarity is second-to-none.

Nah.. you can say anything to them. Pain them in a corner, and they'll just turn around and break the wall behind them and say "Aha!"

 

[AB in DC]

People are still talking about this???

Two weeks ago, people criticized BB for doing something no other coach would do.

Now people criticize BB for doing something any other coach would do.

Really, what's the point?

 

[Wrigley]

People are still talking about this???

Two weeks ago, people criticized BB for doing something no other coach would do.

Now people criticize BB for doing something any other coach would do.

Really, what's the point?

Not any other coach

 

[fantasizing]

I'm not going to be all that critical of a coach and a QB who have been to 4 super bowls this decade, and won 3 of them.

The probability of scoring 3 TDs with a few minutes left is extremely small.

The probability of Brady getting hurt on some random play is much higher than the probability of the Pats scoring 3 TDs.

Belichek was playing the odds. You can't fault a guy for playing the odds.

 

[KoolKat]

these threads are hilarious because the concerned citizens crying about the game not being over with 5 minutes still to play, and a once in a lifetime comeback still on the table, are the exact same goofs who were crying that brady should've been pulled with 12 minutes to play in those '07 games because those games were over.

I never once criticized BB for running up the score, reason being that you should not stop playing till it is impossible to lose. This is completely different. He threw in the towel while his team still had a punchers chance.