As a giants fan let me say .....

[Chavez]

Plus, if Belichick pulled his starters in the third quarter and the Giants went on to win, there would be death threats against him. So there's a practical side to it as well.

I think Lovable Coach Bill might be getting death threats these days anyway.

[Chavez]

How would it be the best ever?

Doesnt perfection=perfection?

Pats played a tougher schedule in an era with a more level playing field, PLUS won two more games to boot.

 

Also, as far as listing "great teams", many experts will rate one or two teams ahead of those Dolphins anyway.

[jjpro11]

the giants made that an awesome game and shouldnt be ashamed of anything. it was nice to see the starters in there the whole game.. that was a highly emotional game.

[Czarina]

It was a terrific game, start to finish. I think a week of stupid press build up with how the Giants were just going to roll over really fired them up.

[xtra]

Pats played a tougher schedule in an era with a more level playing field, PLUS won two more games to boot.

 

Also, as far as listing "great teams", many experts will rate one or two teams ahead of those Dolphins anyway.

 

A tougher schedule?I was 4 years old in 72 which makes it hard for me to argue that. Two more games?Saying what they did was less because they didnt have the oportunity to play 2 more games doesnt seem fair to hold against them.But to each their own.

 

Comparing teams from different eras is meaningless.Unless they actually play against each other its nothing more than guessing.

[ljbrun]

It was a very exciting game and exceeded my expectations for entertainment. It was good to see the Moss/Brady records achieved in plays that were meaningful to the outcome of the game rather than as a result of their attempts in the 2nd half of last week's game.

 

DB's all over the league must hate it when Jacobs comes into the secondary with a head of steam.

[BeeR]

come on that works for both teams....imo, the Pats had MUCH more to lose by risking their star starters then the Giants did

Which is why I would have LMFAO if Brady had gone down. More classless stupidity from BB, IMO, given the primary goal to play for stats (ie trying to go undefeated in an otherwise meaningless game).

 

Winning a Super Bowl is great, but they've already been there and done that just recently. Given all of that, willfully throwing away a chance to be the best EVER by going 19-0 is something that one absolutely cannot do.

Going 19-0 doesn't automatically qualify them as the "best ever" any more than the 72 Fins qualified by going undefeated (although they're obviously up there).

 

 

Also, as far as listing "great teams", many experts will rate one or two teams ahead of those Dolphins anyway.

Extremely few if any who know anything about past great football teams would consider the 72 Fins the greatest ever.

Edited December 30, 2007 by BeeR

[detlef]

A tougher schedule?I was 4 years old in 72 which makes it hard for me to argue that. Two more games?Saying what they did was less because they didnt have the oportunity to play 2 more games doesnt seem fair to hold against them.But to each their own.

 

Comparing teams from different eras is meaningless.Unless they actually play against each other its nothing more than guessing.

Only two teams in NFL history played an easier regular season than the 72 Dolphins. The combined winning percentage of their opponents was, like .370 or something. The Pats, on the other hand, played the #2,3,and 4 seeds in the AFC play-offs and the #1 and 5 seeds in the NFC play-offs. So I don't think people are pinning as much on the two extra games (though that should not be discounted and has much to do with why so many less teams go back to back in College Hoops since the field expanded and required teams to win 6 straight as opposed to 4) as they are that the Dolphins didn't have to win as many games against good teams. Also, if you look at the scores, it's not like they were out-classing many of their opponents despite the fact that they were not very good teams. Who knows what one of the Steelers, Niners, Cowboys, or even recent Pats teams could have done against that schedule.

 

Sort of like why Hawaii doesn't get much run for going undefeated. The perception is that there are dozens of teams that could go undefeated against that schedule.

 

None the less, undefeated is undefeated and nobody can take that away. Of course, since this is only a game, we're allowed to decide for ourselves what we're more impressed by and, considering plenty already don't think the 72 Dolphins compare to other great teams that didn't go undefeated, I doubt many will object to the 07 Pats being thought of as "more perfect" should they manage to run the table.

[Chavez]

Only two teams in NFL history played an easier regular season than the 72 Dolphins. The combined winning percentage of their opponents was, like .370 or something. The Pats, on the other hand, played the #2,3,and 4 seeds in the AFC play-offs and the #1 and 5 seeds in the NFC play-offs. So I don't think people are pinning as much on the two extra games (though that should not be discounted and has much to do with why so many less teams go back to back in College Hoops since the field expanded and required teams to win 6 straight as opposed to 4) as they are that the Dolphins didn't have to win as many games against good teams. Also, if you look at the scores, it's not like they were out-classing many of their opponents despite the fact that they were not very good teams. Who knows what one of the Steelers, Niners, Cowboys, or even recent Pats teams could have done against that schedule.

What he said.

Sort of like why Hawaii doesn't get much run for going undefeated. The perception is that there are dozens of teams that could go undefeated against that schedule.

 

None the less, undefeated is undefeated and nobody can take that away. .

I agree - even though I'd argue that the '07 Pats had a tougher road than the '72 Dolphins, ANY team that beats everyone who lined up across from them over a given season deserves major props. Hawaii included.

[xtra]

.

 

Sort of like why Hawaii doesn't get much run for going undefeated. The perception is that there are dozens of teams that could go undefeated against that schedule.

 

The same thing they thought about Boise State last year as well.

[detlef]

The same thing they thought about Boise State last year as well.

Once again, none of this can be argued to an absolute but that ultimately doesn't matter. Thing is, if you look at BSU's schedule last year, they looked more impressive going undefeated. Their lone regular season game vs a BCS school was a convincing 42-14 win over a Oregon St. team that ended up 10-4. Hawaii's lone BCS game was a come from behind win vs. last place Washington. Further, only 3 of BSU regular season wins were by 7 pts or less, while Hawaii has won 5 that way.

 

Lastly, the OU team that BSU beat to "silence the critics" was really not that good. They were beaten by more than 2 TDs by a good, but hardly great Texas team and had no wins against anyone who ended up in the final AP top 25.

[Chavez]

Saying what they did was less because they didnt have the oportunity to play 2 more games doesnt seem fair to hold against them.

Is 19 more than 17? It is two more opportunities to have a bad game or a bad bounce or a bad call.

[xtra]

Is 19 more than 17? It is two more opportunities to have a bad game or a bad bounce or a bad call.

It also gives the other team the opportunity to call a timeout and lose the game.

 

19 is more than 17,

but Is 0 less than 0?

 

undefeated is undefeated,youre not going to get me to say its not or say one is more impressive than the other.

Edited December 30, 2007 by xtra

[Ditkaless Wonders]

The Pats have missed the playoffs ONCE over the past seven years and have THREE rings over that timespan. Winning a Super Bowl is great, but they've already been there and done that just recently. Given all of that, willfully throwing away a chance to be the best EVER by going 19-0 is something that one absolutely cannot do.

 

Plus, if Belichick pulled his starters in the third quarter and the Giants went on to win, there would be death threats against him. So there's a practical side to it as well.

 

 

Best record by chippy cheaters and best ever are not necesarily the same thing. N.E. is a very good, classless bunch. Perhaps even the best ever, but the conversation does not end at mere won loss records, it only starts there.

[detlef]

It also gives the other team the opportunity to call a timeout and lose the game.

 

19 is more than 17,

but Is 0 less than 0?

 

undefeated is undefeated,youre not going to get me to say its not or admit one is more impressive than the other.

C'mon man. The zero is zero argument is completely valid, but that's pretty much it. Even if a team is favored and better, every time they take the field is another chance to lose. Thus, all things being equal, it is an undeniable law of probability that it is easier to win 17 straight than 19 straight. Of course, in this case, all things are not really equal. The Dolphins not only had the luxury of not having to risk their streak as many times, it seems when they did so, they were playing against inferior opponents than the Pats were.

 

So, the only thing you have to go on here is, "you never know". I mean, that's fine. Perhaps the 72 Dolphins were football's equivalent to a high jumper. When the bar's 6'10, they jump 6'10.5", when it's 7'2", they jump 7'2.5". Perhaps they would have found a way to win regardless of who they were playing. After all, style points only count for so much. However, one of the things that is fun about following sports is debating which team is better than the next. Relying on "well, you never know" as your main point is not really debating so much as it is refusing to engage in the discussion. Of course one never knows. That just doesn't make for very interesting debate.

[WaterMan]

100%-100%

 

[Pope Flick]

It also gives the other team the opportunity to call a timeout and lose the game.

 

19 is more than 17,

but Is 0 less than 0?

 

undefeated is undefeated,youre not going to get me to say its not or say one is more impressive than the other.

 

 

19 out of 19 is more impressive than 17 out of 17. TO not admit so is simply sour grapes, before you even get to the MORE debatable notions of "THe Parity Era" or this "3rd All Time Easiest Schedule" stuff that has just cropped up.

 

Also roflmao at folks like grits who try to qualify this somehow with postseason victories. We might never see a *16-0 season again. It's very impressive and both teams last night are owed thanks from US as fans that neither team rolled over and the Pats truly earned that last vic they needed.

 

We'll see how it shakes out in the postseason, but if there's any consistency in these naysayers' in this thread then they better admit that every other team is a 100% abject failure in the year of 2007 if the Pats go 19-0 because after all, what kind of success is any regular season without a SB vic, right?

[Vinatieri Is God]

Being a fan that remembers being eight years old sitting on aluminum benches at Foxboro in freexzing rain when they were getting trounced makes it all that much sweeter.

 

Congrats to the pats.

 

 

I'm with you bro.

[Chavez]

We'll see how it shakes out in the postseason, but if there's any consistency in these naysayers' in this thread then they better admit that every other team is a 100% abject failure in the year of 2007 if the Pats go 19-0 because after all, what kind of success is any regular season without a SB vic, right?

The odd thing about the situation the Pats are in is that they've done something NO team has ever done before - something that one would have to say is MORE difficult than winning a SB, because let's face it, some team HAS to win the SB every year.

 

But if they go *16-0 regular season and then go 0-1 in the playoffs, it will all be invalidated. Is that fair? Probably not so much. But that's the way it is.

[xtra]

C'mon man. The zero is zero argument is completely valid, but that's pretty much it. Even if a team is favored and better, every time they take the field is another chance to lose. Thus, all things being equal, it is an undeniable law of probability that it is easier to win 17 straight than 19 straight. Of course, in this case, all things are not really equal. The Dolphins not only had the luxury of not having to risk their streak as many times, it seems when they did so, they were playing against inferior opponents than the Pats were.

Ok,its less of an accomplishment because the Dolphins didnt have the opportunity to play 19 games.

Edited December 30, 2007 by xtra

[Grits and Shins]

Is it difficult to go *16-0, certainly.

 

But next week all teams are 0-0 and every game is an elimination game.

 

If NE is anything less than 3-0 in the playoffs then it means nothing. There isn't a single player or team in the league that would take a *16-0 season in lieu of a SB ring. Whenever the *16-0 season is brought up (no doubt by NE fans) the response will be ... "so what the Cowboys won the SB that year".

[detlef]

Is it difficult to go **16-0, certainly.

 

But next week all teams are 0-0 and every game is an elimination game.

 

If NE is anything less than 3-0 in the playoffs then it means nothing. There isn't a single player or team in the league that would take a **16-0 season in lieu of a SB ring. Whenever the **16-0 season is brought up (no doubt by NE fans) the response will be ... "so what the Cowboys won the SB that year".

I don't think anyone is saying that players would rather be *16-0 in the regular season than win the SB. However, it's not an either or situation. The way some of you all talk about risking their players last night implied it's a forgone conclusion that somebody is going to get hurt. I can assure you that they'd rather be 19-0 than win it all and be 18-1 and you can't be 19-0 without being *16-0 first.

 

I think the speculation that *16-0 is somehow more special than winning it all is simply a commentary on the uniqueness of the feat. As has been said. Every year somebody wins the SB and it's not like NE has been deprived that honor. At some point, you want to push the envelope of achievement, going 19-0 is certainly that and was, thus, worth playing all their guys last night to do.

[detlef]

OK, that's pretty funny. A "*" is automatically added to Sixteen-0 by the filter.

[MTSuper7]

A few thoughts on the subject:

 

1) Didn't the Giants lose their starting center (O'Hara) for the game? Not sure the prognosis, but if he can't play next weekend at Tampa, that is a pretty big blow. I remember some thread talking about how NFL players voted that center is the second most important position after QB.

 

2) It seems like that Pats had more pressure on them than the '72 Dolphins to go undefeated. Just taking a logical approach here, but the Pats had the precedent to live up to, a larger media presence in a larger, richer NFL, and (it can't be denied) more difficult games against very good playoff teams.

 

3) **16-0 is an accomplishment to be remembered, no matter what happens in the playoffs. However, the "greatest team ever" argument goes away completely if they don't win the SB.

Edited December 30, 2007 by MTSuper7

[Grits and Shins]

I don't think anyone is saying that players would rather be **16-0 in the regular season than win the SB. However, it's not an either or situation. The way some of you all talk about risking their players last night implied it's a forgone conclusion that somebody is going to get hurt. I can assure you that they'd rather be 19-0 than win it all and be 18-1 and you can't be 19-0 without being **16-0 first.

 

I think the speculation that **16-0 is somehow more special than winning it all is simply a commentary on the uniqueness of the feat. As has been said. Every year somebody wins the SB and it's not like NE has been deprived that honor. At some point, you want to push the envelope of achievement, going 19-0 is certainly that and was, thus, worth playing all their guys last night to do.

 

Certainly I understand why the Patriots played their starters ... they are gunning for 19-0. Certainly they took a risk that somebody would get injured in a game that counts for nothing other than being a potential stepping stone to a historical accomplishment (19-0). So the Pats took just another step toward a historical year ... should they falter on any of the next 3 steps then their season is just another footnote and not that big of a deal (much like the two Chicago teams that went undefeated in the regular season and came up short in the playoff).

 

The Giants, on the other hand, had ZERO reason to risk injuries to their key players. Nobody was injured and they played a very good game so it is a no harm, no foul situation. But had Burress or Jacobs or Strahan or any number of other key players been injured and unavailable for the playoffs Giants fans would be screaming bloody murder this morning.