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!
With the Cincy game being flexed they will not have the benefit of a running score to keep up with while they play. Belichick has had chances to rest Brady and the gang before and has not done it. 2003, 2004 and 2007 all come to mind. Obviously not knowing how his mind works but I feel he believes in playing well heading into the playoffs is more important than rest. This was the best they have played in quite a while. They face another good team this week and a win in Houston would give the team a lot of confidence.They have something to play for (3rd vs. 4th) which could potentially - although not likely - allow them to host an additional home game if everything breaks just right for them. OTOH, they won't have a bye week, so the rest could benefit their players and there's always the injury concerns that can be avoided by having your stars on the bench. Is there enough motivation for them to start everyone and have them play a full game?
He did it in 2005. They had a shot at the 3 seed by winning in week 17, but he pulled a lot of the starters, including Brady, with the game still in doubt, and they ended up losing the game and getting the 4 seed.
Plus, you GOTTA think he wants nothing more than to go into Indy and beat them. That will stop the "4th & 2" talk forever.
It's common knowledge the Patriots WANTED to lose that game so they could play the Jaguars (who they had never had a problem manhandling) as opposed to the Steelers. I'm not sure that game proves much of anything, as other than that game the Pats have normally played their starters for almost the entire game in the last few weeks of the season.
NE does for now, but it's a razor thin one based on stength of opponents' schedule and is not a lock to stay that way from what I can tell.
I thought it was more so they could get the 1 seed, Indy (whom they always beat back then) in the second round instead of the 2 seed, Denver (whom they almost always lose to). Of course, that went to #### when the 6 seeded Steelers beat the Bengals, and the Pats got the Broncos, who smoked them as usual.It's common knowledge the Patriots WANTED to lose that game so they could play the Jaguars (who they had never had a problem manhandling) as opposed to the Steelers. I'm not sure that game proves much of anything, as other than that game the Pats have normally played their starters for almost the entire game in the last few weeks of the season.He did it in 2005. They had a shot at the 3 seed by winning in week 17, but he pulled a lot of the starters, including Brady, with the game still in doubt, and they ended up losing the game and getting the 4 seed.
A man with 5 super bowl rings as a coach doesn't lose sleep over what people think of a decision to go for it on 4th down in a regular season game.Plus, you GOTTA think he wants nothing more than to go into Indy and beat them. That will stop the "4th & 2" talk forever.He did it in 2005. They had a shot at the 3 seed by winning in week 17, but he pulled a lot of the starters, including Brady, with the game still in doubt, and they ended up losing the game and getting the 4 seed.
A man with 5 super bowl rings as a coach doesn't lose sleep over what people think of a decision to go for it on 4th down in a regular season game.Plus, you GOTTA think he wants nothing more than to go into Indy and beat them. That will stop the "4th & 2" talk forever.
I think without question the Pats players play next week, especially on the defensive side. Houston has a very good offense and it will be a good test for the defense as they prepare to play either SD or Indy in the playoffs.
They are a near-lock for the 3 seed if the Bengals sit their starters vs. at the Jets.
So 3 plays 6, 4 plays 5 in the wildcard. Assuming the 3 and 4 win, then 1 plays 4 and 3 plays 2. This means NE would have to beat SD in SD. I don't see that happening.
I don't think you are giving the Pats enough credit - I can easily see them winning a divisional round game regardless of who they play.
I wouldn't completely rule it out. Four years ago, I didn't think it would happen either.
I'm more afraid of the Colts playing SD than I am of them playing NE.Plus, you GOTTA think he wants nothing more than to go into Indy and beat them. That will stop the "4th & 2" talk forever.He did it in 2005. They had a shot at the 3 seed by winning in week 17, but he pulled a lot of the starters, including Brady, with the game still in doubt, and they ended up losing the game and getting the 4 seed.
I think it was stupid of the Colts to rest players, and I think it would be stupid of NE to do so...
They only care about getting equal action on each side, though. The more accurate statement is that they expect the betting public to believe the Patriots will be playing starters.Leroy Hoard said:
Obviously, the Bears win means one of these can NOT happen and the Bengals still get the tiebreaker.I'm wondering, when you did this, did you assume both lost or both won? I ask because both losing means the Patriots get an extra win from the Jets. If you did not, then both teams losing means Cincy is back to needing ALL of those scenerios you listed.Assuming both the Pats and Bengals lose next week, the Bengals could still get the #3 seed. But, this would have to happen (assuming the Vikings kill the Bears tonight):Colts beat the BillsBrowns beat the JagsSaints beat the PanthersSeahawks beat the TitansSteelers beat the DolphinsPackers beat the CardsChiefs beat the BroncosRavens beat the RaidersWith all of that, the strength of victory goes like thisats: Bills X2 (10), Jets (9), Fins (7), Ravens (9), Jags (7), Titans (7), Falcons (9), Bucs (3), Panthers (7) = 68 winsBengals Pit X2 (18), Ravens X2 (18), Browns X2 (10), Chiefs (4), Packers (11), Bears (6), Lions (2) = 69 wins
Pretty good feat considering he missed a couple games earlier in the season. Hated to see the Dolphins let him go. Just one of many putrid personnel decisions.What's with the new attitude towards breaking records, anyway? Are teams/players not supposed to aim at a mark?
As well as the Chargers are playing, I'd rather face them instead of the Colts. So yes, I'd rather have the 3rd seed.
I'd think if given the choice, Belichick would rather travel to Indy than SD.
Thanks David, I am fortunate enough to have the unfortunate task of figuring out who will play and who will sit in my week 17 championship. I have Brady, and this information is valuable. I don't like week 17 championships, but that's what the rules were when I joined the league, so I will play with those rules, it's the only one of my three leagues that has a week 17 championship, so I'll deal. I will probably pick up Garrard or Matt Moore just in case, but it looks like I can roll with Brady this weekend.
Other the the 2005 finale against Miami as I outlined above, what other game was there when the Pats benched their starters for more than the last 5 minutes of a game where there wasn't already 40 something points scored.NE will more than likely rest guys that would have been questionable or doubtful to play and start (and keep playing) those that were healthy or probable. They finally have gotten on a slight roll, so why would they want to ruin their mojo by throwing in the towel for a week?
SD has a long history of being New England's post-season #####.
When have they had this little to play for? 2008-trying to make playoffs2007-going for 16-02006-trying for bye 2005-rested players as you said
IIRC . . .2006 - Colts were up big early and the Pats could not earn a bye . . . left starters in and racked up 40 against TEN2004 - Already earned a bye and could not earn #1 seed . . . left starters in for 21-7 win over SF2003 - Already earned #1 seed . . . left starters in for 31-0 pasting of BUFThe Pats wanted to lose in 2005 against MIA, and I don't see what benefit they have in losing this year.
The Chargers wish that they had a long of history of postseason anything. As it is, the Chargers have only lost to them twice recently. Their previous postseason matchup was in 1963. The Chargers won that one 51-10 to take the AFL championship.
David, as mentioned earlier, do you think they will be force feeding Welker (more than usual) to try to get him the single-season reception record?
oooh, I didn't look it up to verify, but OWNED if the last post season matchup was really in '63
When they were the Boston Patriots, no less. The Chargers don't even have a history beating the New England Patriots in the post-season. I believe that's the Chargers' only league title, too.
