SF409ers Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 which is still +1 Even better!!! Another beer please Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 which is still +1 Not in Excel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazysight Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 Yeah, Pats killed them in Dallas, but somehow Dallas will prevail at the Superbowl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 The SEC teams beat each other up week in and week out. You think NE could go into Baton Rouge at night and win? They'd wilt there and between the hedges at UGA, or before the Crimson TIde. The SEC is the class of the football world. NE would probably squeak by Vandy, Ole Miss, and MSU and be lucky to beat anyone else. Put Brady in The Swamp and watch him wilt like lettuce in the Gainesville sun. However, we know the Pats would roll right thru the Big 10--even with Cassell at QB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 If they played in the SEC they'd have 3 losses by now. Put your money on them and ride the wave Well, I did yesterday and lost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pig devilz Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 NO, Dallas gets their ass kicked in the Fiesta Bowl Fixed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 (edited) I'd love to see NE go 15-0. Then despite having HF throughout the playoffs locked up, Belichek starts Brady against the Giants in an effort to acheive the perfect season & Brady gets an injury that sidelines him for the next 3 weeks. I'm not one to tempt bad juju, but that would be some serious poetic justice. Than again, if NE were to go undefeated that would end all the assinine reports of the '72 Phins players uncorking the champaigne. That's a pretty close call which I'd rather see less, and undefeated Pats team that isn't close to the best in NFL history (just like the '72 MIA team) which would be relentlessly heralded as the best ever or a continuation of that nauseating MIA ritual. Edited November 5, 2007 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 I'd love to see NE go 15-0. Then despite having HF throughout the playoffs locked up, Belichek starts Brady against the Giants in an effort to acheive the perfect season & Brady gets an injury that sidelines him for the next 3 weeks. I'm not one to tempt bad juju, but that would be some serious poetic justice. Than again, if NE were to go undefeated that would end all the assinine reports of the '72 Phins players uncorking the champaigne. That's a pretty close call which I'd rather see less, and undefeated Pats team that isn't close to the best in NFL history (just like the '72 MIA team) which would be relentlessly heralded as the best ever or a continuation of that nauseating MIA ritual. What makes you think this team isn't close to being the best in NFL history? As a long time Niners fan, I saw some great ones. Certainly Steelers and Cowboys fans can point to a few as well. Hell, 85 Bears, the Packers of the 60s, one could go on. However, I really don't see what about these teams is soooo much better than this year's Pats if at all. Of course, I can only speak for anything after the mid 70s since I wasn't old enough to see the others. However, they're destroying teams they should beat and they just beat the undefeated SB champs. I guess I miss how that doesn't make them a great team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 What makes you think this team isn't close to being the best in NFL history? As a long time Niners fan, I saw some great ones. Certainly Steelers and Cowboys fans can point to a few as well. Hell, 85 Bears, the Packers of the 60s, one could go on. However, I really don't see what about these teams is soooo much better than this year's Pats if at all. Of course, I can only speak for anything after the mid 70s since I wasn't old enough to see the others. However, they're destroying teams they should beat and they just beat the undefeated SB champs. I guess I miss how that doesn't make them a great team. This is a very good team. It could be a great team, maybe on the top 10 list once the season is over. But I can think of half a dozen teams off the top of my head in the past 30 years that would win better than 50% of head-to-head matchups with '07 Pats starting with the '89 9ers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazysight Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 (edited) I say yes, the Patriots do go undefeated barring an injury to Brady. They already played the toughest part of their regular season schedule beating Dallas in Dallas and Indy in Indy. They've played over 1/2 of their regular season games already, and the only other competitive team they have left, Pittsburgh, is going to have to come to N.E. So I believe they do it. The only exception would be if they decide to sit their starters week 17 in New York. Edited November 5, 2007 by Crazysight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt770 Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 The game @ NYG week 17 looks really intriguiing. My guess is they will still be undefeated to that point, and the game will mean a LOT more to the Gints, at least in terms of playoff seeding and homefield advantage. Most teams in the Pats' position would play the starters for half a quarter and be on the plane back home by halftime, but the Pats have 3 recent titles and have a chance to accomplish something more difficult than winning a SB. I would be willing to bet that Brady and Belicheat privately want the undefeated season at least as much as another championship. And Brady wants to shatter the single-season TD record. The egos on these guys is off the charts, they want people to talk about more stats and records than simply the championships. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 This is a very good team. It could be a great team, maybe on the top 10 list once the season is over. But I can think of half a dozen teams off the top of my head in the past 30 years that would win better than 50% of head-to-head matchups with '07 Pats starting with the '89 9ers. I think that is far too random and theoretical to be used as the basis for an argument that they "aren't close to being the best". 72 Dolphins? From what I understand, they sort of piece-mealed their way through that season. I looked up their schedule and saw that they won four of those games by 4 or less points. Again, I was like 4 when this was going down but I've heard from plenty of people that this was not a great team, just a team that managed to keep winning. On another note, why was the AFC Championship played in Pittsburgh as it appears from the link? How does an undefeated team not get home field? 72 Dolphins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 On another note, why was the AFC Championship played in Pittsburgh as it appears from the link? How does an undefeated team not get home field? 72 Dolphins At that time home field was set by a pre-determined rotation of divisions. And the then AFC Central was tops on the list that year. Shortly after this, the rules were changed to give home field to the teams with the best regular-season records. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 I think that is far too random and theoretical to be used as the basis for an argument that they "aren't close to being the best". The whole argument is wholey subjective. There's no way to physically match the '89 9ers vs the '85 Bears vs the '79 Steelers vs the '07 Pats. What exactly did you expect? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 (edited) The whole argument is wholey subjective. There's no way to physically match the '89 9ers vs the '85 Bears vs the '79 Steelers vs the '07 Pats. What exactly did you expect? Dude, I'm not the one claiming "they're not even close". That would be you. You've simply proven my point. There's really no way to say if they're any better or worse than those teams, so you have to give them the benefit of the doubt. They're taking on all comers this season and have proven themselves to be a pretty f'ing great team. If this Pats team goes 19-0, I do not think that they should have to endure the same crap the 72 Dolphins have about doing it with mirrors. Seriously, you can't dog a team for running up the score and say that they're not all that great at the same time. Edited November 5, 2007 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 so you have to give them the benefit of the doubt. No, I don't. You may, but that doesn't bind me in any way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 The whole argument is wholey subjective. There's no way to physically match the '89 9ers vs the '85 Bears vs the '79 Steelers vs the '07 Pats. What exactly did you expect? Especially considering that the players now are just flat out bigger and faster. It's not a fair comparison any way it's made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 (edited) No, I don't. You may, but that doesn't bind me in any way. No, you don't have to give them the benefit of the doubt. However, you are the one claiming they're "not close to being the best team". So, it is fair to assume that you have something to back that up. However, when I claimed that there's really no way to say the '89 Niners, for instance (don't forget, I'm even a Niner fan) because there's nothing but speculation to back that up, you basically agreed. Remember, I'm not the one making any claims here. I'm not saying the Patriots are the best team of all time if they go 19-0. I'm just saying that your comment that they, like the 72 Dolphins would be yet another team that is nowhere near the best, is rather foolish given the facts (and lack of facts) before us. Mind you, I would be just as quick to point out to someone saying that the '07 Patriots are certainly the best team of all time is basing his argument on the same faulty crap you are. I think, as long as a team goes undefeated and does so in a somewhat dominant manner (which they are doing), anyone saying they have no claim to the best of all time doesn't have much to stand on. Edited November 5, 2007 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 No, you don't have to give them the benefit of the doubt. However, you are the one claiming they're "not close to being the best team". So, it is fair to assume that you have something to back that up. So you want me to prove my opinion, even though I have already stated that this issue is 100% subjective? How exactly would you expect me to go about doing that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 I think, as long as a team goes undefeated and does so in a somewhat dominant manner (which they are doing), anyone saying they have no claim to the best of all time doesn't have much to stand on. I think you're wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 That's a pretty close call which I'd rather see less, and undefeated Pats team that isn't close to the best in NFL history (just like the '72 MIA team) which would be relentlessly heralded as the best ever or a continuation of that nauseating MIA ritual. Just to refresh. You pretty much came out with a rather bold claim and are now backpedaling with this subjective opinion story. So you want me to prove my opinion, even though I have already stated that this issue is 100% subjective? How exactly would you expect me to go about doing that? I don't expect you to prove your point because I don't think you can. However, that doesn't mean that I shouldn't call you on your BS. I mean, we come here to discuss and debate football. What good is it if someone throws something out like that with nothing more to back it up than 'Cause I said so. Certainly you have something. You claim to be able to think of a half dozen teams off the top of your head. Keep in mind, nobody here is claiming that this team is already the best of all time. Everyone is saying, "We might be seeing the best team ever". That is, provided they run the table which might mean beating Pitt then Indy twice. What are you going to point to that suggests they've lucked their way to this. After all, there's plenty to point to that suggests they're about as good a team as you will find. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 You know, we might be seeing the best team ever. There, I said it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 Just to refresh. You pretty much came out with a rather bold claim and are now backpedaling with this subjective opinion story. I don't expect you to prove your point because I don't think you can. However, that doesn't mean that I shouldn't call you on your BS. I mean, we come here to discuss and debate football. What good is it if someone throws something out like that with nothing more to back it up than 'Cause I said so. So it is your position that anytime any Huddlers has an opinion that they have to preface it with language such as, "I don't have any facts to completely substantiate this, but in my opinion..." or "I have watched football for several decades, and even though I don't have statistics that can prove this statement beyond any doubt I believe that..."? Or are you just prolonging this so that you can whine about NE not getting enough respect that much more? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 So it is your position that anytime any Huddlers has an opinion that they have to preface it with language such as, "I don't have any facts to completely substantiate this, but in my opinion..." or "I have watched football for several decades, and even though I don't have statistics that can prove this statement beyond any doubt I believe that..."? Or are you just prolonging this so that you can whine about NE not getting enough respect that much more? Well now, that's an interesting stance, now I'm a NE apologist. I would guess there's a few NE fans around here who would find that odd. Feel free to say what you want. Keep in mind, however, that when the beginning and end of your argument is, "Well that's just how I feel", that's not going to carry much water. Perhaps these other teams were playing at a time when the league was deeper (thought that would be odd considering the fact that none of the teams typically mentioned existed during salary cap era). Perhaps the other good top teams were stronger. Of course, it's week 9 and there are 3 teams with only one loss, so that seems a bit iffy at best. I can't believe how much you've gotten your panties in a twist just because somebody has the nerve to expect you to back up a claim that you've provided not a shred of evidence to support. That's really it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 I can't believe how much you've gotten your panties in a twist just because somebody has the nerve to expect you to back up a claim that you've provided not a shred of evidence to support. That's really it. I have freely admitted that any comparison between teams that played different seasons is nothing but pure conjecture. Only an idiot would think otherwise (present company not excepted). It's mildly amusing that you ask for proof of something for which no possible proof can be offered. I might add that your position that a people "have to give them the benefit of the doubt" - your words - is apparently above your own standard of having to provide absolute proof of a statement before posting it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.