Matthew Yglesias (December 11, 2007) - Should The Patriots Go For It? (Sports)

Also, Bill Belichick, Bob Kraft, Tom Brady, etc., have already won the Super Bowl! Three times! Who cares about a 4th when you could become immortal?

Posted by right | December 11, 2007 2:33 PM

At this point, going 16-0 is a piece of cake. Seeing if they can go 19-0 is where the drama will be.

Posted by Jim W | December 11, 2007 2:34 PM

A 15-0 team playing its last game, by contrast, is something every football fan in the country will want to see.

But, alas, won't be able to, since the game will be on the NFL Network (not Fox or CBS or ESPN), which hardly anyone in the country gets.

Sorry to you folks down in DC.

Posted by Al | December 11, 2007 2:37 PM

The Super Bowl is more important than risking much on a win in Week 17. You may well feel that the Super Bowl is more showbiz extravaganza than a sporting event, but that's not the view among professional football players.

It's all academic, though-- having the first string in there against the Giants for a half ought to get them a big enough lead to tide them over.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | December 11, 2007 2:40 PM

I don't follow. What's the big deal in winning your first 16 games when the regular season goes for 82 games?

Posted by Petey | December 11, 2007 2:40 PM

huh? going 16-0 and not winning the super bowl is nowhere close to as good as going 15-1 and winning the super bowl.

i have no idea whether "resting" your stars helps you win the super bowl or not, but the idea that the pats have some obligation to the adrenaline-starved to go all out in the regular season if belichick thinks it will harm them in some manner in the post-season is ridiculous.

roughly a decade ago - i don't have the time to look up the details - the broncos were going for the undefeated season and the giants (whom the pats will be facing in game 16), who were having a horrible season, beat them in a temendous upset (on a late, late collins-toomer td pass). the broncos went on to win the super bowl.

i'm sure they are all much happier than they would be if they had beaten the giants but not won the super bowl.

Posted by howard | December 11, 2007 2:43 PM

Belichick has not missed an opportunity to say "screw you" to the league and its members all season. There's no way he's going to pass on the chance to make this record, particularly if doing so will make his outspoken critic Don Shula unhappy.

Posted by john o. | December 11, 2007 2:43 PM

BTW - Of course that Pats will go for it - not rest starters, not "save it" for the playoffs. But the game will be against the Giants, who in all likelihood will not have anything to play for - they will almost certainly have the top Wild Card spot locked up, and will have no chance at the division championship. Moreover, the Giants, unlike the Pats, will have a game the next week (the Pats will have a bye the first week of the playoffs).

So the question up here in NYC has been - should the Giants go all out in the game? I.e., not rest starters, play all out to win? Because obviously it is meaningless to the Giants if the Pats get the record. But there is the idea that the Pats shouldn't have a walkover in that big game.

So, what do you say, Matthew? It's obvious what the Pats should do. It is much less obvious what the Giants should do.

Posted by Al | December 11, 2007 2:46 PM

I can't believe Belichick, Brady & Co. won't make a go of it. It would be especially sweet to see them stomp on the Giants and Eli "I'm too good to play in San Diego" Manning. What a spoiled brat that kid is.

Posted by jbentley | December 11, 2007 2:47 PM

A lot of people seem to treat this as an either/or decision -either go 19-0 or win the Super Bowl. It's not like the chance of sustaining injury while playing the last three games is 100%. In all likelihood, the Patriots won't be adversely affected at all by playing their starters to go 16-0. Moreover, speaking as a Pats fan, even if I knew the team was guaranteed to have a season-ending injury for one of their fairly important starters to go 16-0, I would still say go 16-0 because you still have a good chance of winning in the playoffs.

Posted by Josh M | December 11, 2007 2:49 PM

The culture of sports is such that, ridiculously or not, if you fail to win the championship your regular season accomplishments are irrelevant. Please remember the Seattle Mariners of 2001. If they go 16-0 and lose the Super Bowl, they will--again, absurdly or not--be remembered as the team that 'failed to live up to expectations' or the team that 'choked when it really matters'.

I don't think this is right, I don't think a team should be judged by one game, but as a Bills fan I know better than anyone that this one game will define their legacy.

Posted by Wilson | December 11, 2007 2:49 PM

A 15-0 team playing its last game, by contrast, is something every football fan in the country will want to see.

Well, this football fan would like to see a 14-1 team playing its last game.

Posted by Led | December 11, 2007 2:57 PM

al makes a good point (if only he would stick to sports) that i was raising to a patriot fan friend yesterday: will the giants go for it if it comes to it? (and it may not; unlike every other poster here, i do not regard it as a given that the pats will win the next 2 games, although certainly it's highly, highly likely.)

as it happens, i think they will: insofar as there appears to be a way to beat the pats, it seems likely that it's about mammoth pass-rush pressure from all angles (sort of like the buddy ryan bear's defense that beat the pats in the super bowl 20 years ago), which happens to be the giant's strength (although it was stronger still before kiwanuka's injury), along with a time-consuming offense (and the giants are among the better rushing teams in the league).

so "going for it" from a giant's perspective pretty much means "playing to your two strengths."

Posted by howard | December 11, 2007 2:57 PM

huh? going 16-0 and not winning the super bowl is nowhere close to as good as going 15-1 and winning the super bowl.

But Matthew's point is that there are 40 teams that have gone XX-(at least 1) and won the Super Bowl. But there is only one team that has gone XX-0 and won the Super Bowl. So going XX-0 to win the Super Bowl is a LOT more valuable than going XX-(at least 1) and winning the Super Bowl.

The question is whether, in a meaningless regular season game, to (a) increase your risk of losing in the playoffs slightly (through an injury or something) in exchange for an increased possibility of going XX-0 for the entire season, or (b) keep your risk of losing in the playoffs as low as possible in exchange for an increased risk of losing that last meaningless regular season game (a loss in which wouldn't affect the playoffs, but would ruin the chance at going XX-0).

Posted by Al | December 11, 2007 2:58 PM

Wilson may be right, but there is zero chance that the Patriots will take their foot off the gas. If they are going to lose, it will not be because they did not try and anyone who thinks otherwise is not paying attention. The owner, coaches and players on that team want to win every game by a score of as many points as possible to none.

The interesting question is will they beat the Jets by more than 7 TDs.

Posted by Peter Driscoll | December 11, 2007 3:00 PM

al, i realize that you were probably about 1 at the time (and matthew was negative 10 or so), but the undefeated dolphins did win the super bowl, although with a 14-0 record, not 16-0.

putting that aside, i get matthew's point: my rejoinder is that belichick's job is to win the super bowl. if he thinks the best way to do that is to keep up the momentum, great.

if he thinks the best way to do that is to rest key starters (and especially avoid injury risk to brady), great.

what shouldn't influence his thinking at all (and as i've noted before, coach and i were a year apart at college, and i knew him very slightly, but i've followed him closely in his football career as a result) is the desire of football fans in general to see a team go 16-0, and i'm quite certain that it won't.

Posted by howard | December 11, 2007 3:02 PM

Of course thay're going to go for it. Look at the Pats schedule for the rest of the year and playoffs:

Comically easy home game
Comically easy home game
Away game with shortest possible travel
Bye
Home
Home
Bye
Superbowl

At this point I'll be worried about rust, not rest--there's a legitimate chance to go into the playoffs without having contested a meaningful fourth quarter for a month and a half!

Posted by Jack | December 11, 2007 3:02 PM

"Of course thay're going to go for it. Look at the Pats schedule for the rest of the year and playoffs:

Comically easy home game
Comically easy home game
Away game with shortest possible travel"

That away game is being played at a stadium where Belechick was defensive coordinator for many years and for 2 Super Bowl-winning teams, and those teams won primarily on defense. Shockingly, the Pats are playing an away game but their coach knows the stadium better than the coach of the home team, and that could matter with December NYC weather. The Pats will be favored by 20 points in that game, and they'll make the spread. I went to a Giants home game this year.

Posted by blah | December 11, 2007 3:12 PM

Prediction:

The Pats will win up thru the AFC Championship game where they'll lose to the Indianapolis Colts.

Described in the past as "loathsome" by one blogger, the Colts will avenge their regular season loss to the Pats and move on to the Super Bowl for a matchup with the truly loathsome Cowboys.

Posted by Curt M | December 11, 2007 3:12 PM

ok, i just did a little refresher: the season was 1998.

the broncos were defending super bowl champs.

they had won their last 5 games in 1997 (counting the post-season) and their first 13 in 1998.

the giants were 5-8 and had a combination of danny kannel and kent graham (i wrongly remembered collins being there already) at qb.

the broncos were huge favorites.

they scored to take a 16-13 lead with just over 2 minutes to go.

and yet somehow, graham led the giants down the field and hit toomer for a 37-yard TD with under a minute to go to win.

which isn't to say the jets are going to beat the pats, or whoever follows them, or the giants, but it is to say to those who assume that it's a done deal that it ain't:

http://www.armchairgm.com/A_Look_Back_at_Giants_vs._Broncos_(Week_15,_1998)_-_Undefeated_Patriots_Beware%3F

Posted by howard | December 11, 2007 3:15 PM

It just seems unethical to me for a team to fill a stadium with people who paid $100 and more, then not try one's best to win.

If the Pats want to forfeit one or more of their last games, and refund the advanced/season ticket purchases, I guess I'd be alright with that.

Posted by kth | December 11, 2007 3:16 PM

If the game's outcome can't affect the Giant's playoff spot, I would look for them to field a preseason-caliber game plan against the Pats. After all, they might be playing them again in February; why let them videotape your defensive signals?

Posted by mark | December 11, 2007 3:18 PM

I think there would be a nice symmetry to the Patriots being the first ever 16-0 team, with their division rival Dolphins--previously the only franchise to go undefeated--becoming the first ever 0-16 team...

...especially if Brady blows out his knee throwing the touchdown pass that puts the Patriots up 42-7 against the Giants. Then the Colts stomp the Pats up in Foxborough and defend their title.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | December 11, 2007 3:26 PM

The argument that going undefeated is meaningless is truly comical. Yes, it is far less meaningful if they don't win the superbowl, but its not either or. Its certainly meaningful enough for a team with 3 recent superbowls to risk injury going for it.

If I were a Patriot fan, I would only be worried about one thing: over the course of this season, the Patriots have turned into enemy no. 1. You can argue that this was justified or not, but the fact remains that 1) the Red Sox are quite popular nationally and 2) the Colts did not engender nearly this kind of dislike when they nearly went undefeated, so its probably the team's fault. Regardless, developing animosity among the other teams can be a bad thing, particularly a team like the Giants. Remember the kind of effort the Pats got from the Eagles and the Ravens? Here's the Pats nightmare scenario: Brady dropping back to throw his 4th TD pass to Moss and getting dropped by an ACL tearing hit to the knee from a pissed off Michael Strahan. It could take him out for this year and the next. Going undefeated is worth it. Pissing off the entire league while doing it was unduly risky in my opinion. Only time will tell whether the Pats suffer for it.

Posted by mpowell | December 11, 2007 3:29 PM

"The Pats will win up thru the AFC Championship game where they'll lose to the Indianapolis Colts. "

Interestingly, Indianapolis' home field conditions probably suit the Patriots more than the Colts this year. A blinding snowstorm in Foxboro would probably help the Colts.

It's as if 2 years ago, the Colts decided they needed a team that could win in Foxboro in January, then after last year the Pats decided to build a team that would win in a dome.

Posted by Njorl | December 11, 2007 3:33 PM

mpowell, i'm fascinated: since injury to brady is the critical matter for the patriots, why do you think that going undefeated but losing brady is better than going 15-1, have brady ready for the post-season, and winning a 4th super bowl?

i don't think going undefeated is meaingless, but i don't think there is anyone in pro football who would choose going undefeated in the regular season over winning the super bowl. why do you?

Posted by howard | December 11, 2007 3:36 PM

All this 16-0 talk is irrelevant -- it's 19-0 that makes an undefeated season, and an undefeated season implicitly contains a Super Bowl win. But, obviously, to get to 19-0, you have to get to 16-0.

I think it's pretty clear that Belicheck is operating from one of two positions, or possibly some combination of the two. One, he wants this team to go down as the best ever and he's going to make that argument statistically, at the very least (again, this implies a Super Bowl win). Two, he wants to embarrass the rest of the league. Maybe it's tapegate, maybe it's the tough loss to end the season last year, but the guy's got a chip on this shoulder. The simple fact of the matter is that any coach whose only concern was winning the Super Bowl wouldn't put Tom Brady back into the fourth-quarter of a mid-season game with a three-touchdown lead. And even if for some reason he did that, Brady wouldn't be throwing.

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | December 11, 2007 3:36 PM

These guys have three rings: I say go for it and god speed.

Posted by Kiki | December 11, 2007 3:42 PM

A detail: there is money on the table at the Super Bowl.

Posted by Bill Gardner | December 11, 2007 3:45 PM

Interestingly, Indianapolis' home field conditions probably suit the Patriots more than the Colts this year. A blinding snowstorm in Foxboro would probably help the Colts.
More interestingly, the game will be in Foxboro. Even more, more interestingly, the greatest player in the game will be the one with four rings-- Adam Veneteri, kicking where he won so many games for the Pats.

Posted by Peter Driscoll | December 11, 2007 3:49 PM

"A detail: there is money on the table at the Super Bowl. "

I believe that most players get less for winning the Super Bowl than they do for regular season games, which they don't even have to win.

Posted by Njorl | December 11, 2007 3:51 PM

I think there would be a nice symmetry to the Patriots being the first ever 16-0 team, with their division rival Dolphins--previously the only franchise to go undefeated--becoming the first ever 0-16 team...

this is a pretty key point. game 15 against miami will probably be the toughest game for them.

miami has absolutely nothing to lose and a lot to gain. beating the pats redeems an entirely embarrassing season for them. first, it prevents them from the ignominy of an 0-16 season. second, it preserves the dolphin's record as the only perfect season. third it puts them in the history books -- you probably don't remember much about the seasons that most teams had in 1985, but you must remember the bears and therefore remember that it was miami that beat them.

Posted by b1ff | December 11, 2007 3:52 PM

I'm more worried about the 1st week bye, as it could potentially mess with their flow and ice the PATS. Why stop the steam roller and start it up again?

Posted by Pats | December 11, 2007 3:53 PM

Interestingly, Indianapolis' home field conditions probably suit the Patriots more than the Colts this year. A blinding snowstorm in Foxboro would probably help the Colts.

The Patriots are much less well suited for warm, indoor play than the Colts. They very nearly prevailed over Indy last year (what a game!), and it seems to me the obvious difference was the advantage the Colts enjoyed by being more accustomed to the warm, 70ish conditions inside that infernal dome. I mean, the Pats' defense had nothing left in the fourth quarter against an insanely potent Colts offense. Anyway, having home field advantage means a lot to New England -- at least it does when compared to playing in Indianapolis (not so much for other venues). Plus, although this could change, Indy seems to be more banged up than New England. I don't think many New England fans want to face Indy in the playoffs -- they're clearly the best of the rest in the AFC -- but this is a year of destiny for Tom Terrific and Coach Evil.

I think the question re: the Giants game is, is there a possibility resting your starters hurts your chances in the playoffs. Remember, New England has a bye week. Do your keys guys lose sharpness and does conditioning deteriorate by giving them, let's see, about a twenty day hiatus between games? The smart thing would be for Belichick to try to get a large lead in the first half and then rest Brady and Co. And anyway, there's that little matter of getting by the Jets and Dolphins, too. Any given Sunday and all that...

Posted by Jasper | December 11, 2007 3:57 PM

Vinatieri was once a great kicker, but after shanking a 29-yard potential game winner this season he's lost some of that luster.

I'd still rather the game be in the Dome. The Colts beat "the greatest team ever" there for 55 minutes without Marvin Harrison. New England has looked unbeatable at home. But Indy has run the ball more effectively than NE this season and stopped the run at least as well. The ideal neutral-field conditions for the Colts against the Patriots would probably be a Nor'easter.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | December 11, 2007 4:00 PM

njorl, last year, each colt got $73K, which is modest if you're tom brady and more than you get per game if you're at the minimum salary for your number of years in the league. i don't know how the pats salary structure breaks out, but they famously don't overpay....

the bears, btw, got $38K each, which still beats the minimum until you've been in the league about 5-6 years....

Posted by howard | December 11, 2007 4:05 PM

I think the Pats will go 16-0 but not 19-0, besides for me:

NE Patriots = Duke basketball

Posted by jenn | December 11, 2007 4:16 PM

"game 15 against miami will probably be the toughest game for them. .... you probably don't remember much about the seasons that most teams had in 1985, but you must remember the bears and therefore remember that it was miami that beat them."

Yes, but those Dan Marino-led Miami Dolphins were good. Beating the Bears was an upset, but Marino was one year removed from throwing 48 TDs and a Super Bowl birth in 1985. The 2007 Miami Dolphins, on the other hand, are historically bad. They have rolled over and shown no fight against every team they've played. The Patriots could crush them with their backups. Most likely, you are exactly and perfectly wrong. It will be one of their easiest games.

As for Henley's piece, the main problem is that very few sports talk show hosts or media members are saying anything like the "Patriots realize that the real prize isn't going undefeated, it's winning the Super Bowl." Indeed, virtually everyone is arguing just the opposite: that they should absolutely try to go undefeated. He's making the same point as everyone else while patting himself on the back for his intellectual superiority. Stupid. (I don't hold Matt to the same standard since he knows nothing about football.)

As Al points out, the Giants will probably have nothing to play for in Week 17, meaning the Pats can play their starters for three quarters, then rest them with the win well in hand. Which is great news for the Pats, even if it disappoints the lucky NFL Network subscribers who want a tight game. Finishing the season with the hated-but-awful Jets, followed by the beyond putrid Dolphins, a Giants team with the wild card sewed up, and a bye week is pretty much the perfect scenario for going undefeated in the playoffs.

They can have their cake and eat it too.

Posted by owenz | December 11, 2007 4:22 PM

do people here really think players on the rest of the teams feel anything like the patriot-hate that FANS of the rest of the teams feel? I very much doubt it.......

Posted by metalpetic | December 11, 2007 4:35 PM

The Giants will play to win, for at least one reason: Tom Coughlin's job isn't exactly secure, after last year's second half of the season breakdown. The Giants also will stand a good chance of winning. The key will be to dominate time-of-possession to keep NE's offense off the field. The Giants have the players to do that, if they fire on all cylinders.

Posted by Fred | December 11, 2007 4:36 PM

do people here really think players on the rest of the teams feel anything like the patriot-hate that FANS of the rest of the teams feel? I very much doubt it.......

It sure looked like the Ravens were feeling it last week.

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | December 11, 2007 4:48 PM

"njorl, last year, each colt got $73K, which is modest if you're tom brady and more than you get per game if you're at the minimum salary for your number of years in the league."

That is less than the mean NFL pay /16, which is just under $100k. However, most guys make less than the mean, so I guess they'll go out and win a Superbowl if the opportunity arises.

Technically, I bet very few players make $73k per game. Peyton Manning makes only about $40k per game. He did make $35 million though, just for signing his name.

Posted by Njorl | December 11, 2007 4:52 PM

It isn't about the fans and what they want to see. This is PROFESSIONAL football. I suspect that both the Pats and the Giants will play everyone who wouldn't profit from the rest. Anyone who's dinged up but would play in a game that mattered will sit. The others will play about a half or so just to keep sharp. Maybe if the game is in the balance late some key people will play a bit longer, but taking any greater risk than that would get a coach fired.

Posted by CJColucci | December 11, 2007 4:53 PM

njorl, i used 16 games as well in thinking about this, but i wonder if, in fact, the nfl thinks about this as 20 (16 + 4 preseason). do you have any idea?

Posted by howard | December 11, 2007 5:04 PM

"njorl, i used 16 games as well in thinking about this, but i wonder if, in fact, the nfl thinks about this as 20 (16 + 4 preseason). do you have any idea?"

No idea. The best way to find out is to see how much money a player loses for suspensions. It isn't worth bothering though.

Posted by Njorl | December 11, 2007 5:12 PM

you bet few players make $73k/game? do some math -- $73k/game is only $1.16 million/annum. and you think peyton's salary is only $640k/annum? please, he makes more than $10 million/annum.

Posted by dj superflat | December 11, 2007 5:15 PM

New England has already won a few Super Bowls in the last several seasons, so they are set up like no other team to say the hell with it we're going undefeated.

I'd probably go for it anyway, even if I wasn't the Patriots, but I would understand why a team like the Bills would play it safer.

Given the chance, you go for history, why the heck not?

Posted by Jimm | December 11, 2007 5:19 PM

dj superflat, i assumed that what njorl was talking about is that a lot of the players at the high end of the salary scale get their big bucks in the form of a signing bonus, which isn't really a per-game paycheck.

jimm, there are 3 teams in history with 5 super bowl titles; don't you think the pats are going for history by going for title 4, which is the one you have to win before you have a shot at title 5?

Posted by howard | December 11, 2007 5:43 PM

Please remember the Seattle Mariners of 2001.

Different post-season scenario.

this is a pretty key point. game 15 against miami will probably be the toughest game for them.

Absolutely. It's also the one with the greatest risk of spiteful injuries. You could honestly see the second-stringers being sent out for the Pats in this one.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | December 11, 2007 5:46 PM

They should go for it, if no other reason, than to shut up the idiots from the '72 Dolphins team.

Posted by Eric | December 11, 2007 5:54 PM

Granted, $73K barely buys a semester at Middlebury... but some of these guys may also have post-season incentives in their contracts. I doubt any thought to ask for a bonus if the team goes 16-0.

Posted by Bill Gardner | December 11, 2007 5:59 PM

I doubt the game against the Dolphins is the one to be concerned about as far as a key injury is concerned. There is very bad blood in NY though.
Pats players are playing for their own honor but largely in honor of their coach, who was "exposed" by Jet's coach Eric Mangini in the first game of this season. A move that many believe sent the Pats on a tirade, leaving every team on their schedule half-buried in the turf just to make the point that the integrity of the rings they have is not to be questioned. There is sour history between the Patriots and the Jets that began when Parcells left the Pats to coach the Jets. Recent events have only risen the stink between these teams to a new level. If the Jets were any good, it would be a quality rivalry. But to the point... if a cheap shot is coming, its coming on Sunday.

Mangini and friends have been walking on eggshells this week in a way that is almost cowardly. In everything that Mangini has said, I only hear echoes of, "Please don't kill us too badly, Bill."

When Brady throws a 65-yard TD pass early in the 3rd quarter to bring their lead to 56-0, there might be a cheap shot coming.

I think the Phins have gotten used to sucking enough that a late hit just with intent to injure isn't worth it.

Posted by 4015 red delicious | December 11, 2007 6:25 PM

Peter Driscoll wrote: "Even more, more interestingly, the greatest player in the game will be the one with four rings-- Adam Veneteri, kicking where he won so many games for the Pats."

I have to assume you were drunk, high, or dating a field goal kicker when you wrote that. And that if he were actually the greatest player you'd know how to spell his name.

The Patriots will go for 16-0 in the last game because they want to. This nonsense about the injury risk to Brady is just silly. The Pats' offensive line pass protects as well as any line in the league. Their defense is significantly better than the Giant defense, too.

Eli's a bit of a moron and Tom Coughlin's scrotum gets so tight during big games that he turns soprano. 16-0 will be easy.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 11, 2007 7:32 PM

I would pay significant amounts of money to avoid 19-0. ESPN would move from Bristol to Foxboro for the rest of eternity.

Posted by Klug | December 11, 2007 9:47 PM

It makes sense to make a run for it. Remember when the Colts locked up home-field early, but then rested their starters for 3 weeks (2 games + bye)? When they came out in the first playoff game, they were rusty and they lost. There is a bye week after week 17 for the Pats, so unless guys are really banged up they should be playing.

Posted by JordanT | December 11, 2007 9:59 PM

"Eli's a bit of a moron"

Morons don't ace the Wonderlic test. Eli is under-rated, and has been able to step up his game on occasion to Peyton levels. Remember last year when the Giants faced the Colts? The Giants lost a close one, but Eli's stats were as good as Peyton's.

Posted by Fred | December 11, 2007 10:19 PM

Believe me, if anybody wants to think that Miami can rise from utter futility to beat the Patriots and end their losing streak while preserving the perfect season for '72 and protecting the number 1 draft pick in 08, it's me. But they can't. Miami plays the Pats well historically. Miami beat them once last year. Brady has a 3-4 record at Miami. Too bad the game is in Foxboro. In 1985, the Dolphins played the Bears in the Orange Bowl on Monday Night Football. Dan Marino threw for over 5,000 yards and 48 TDs and took Miami to the Super Bowl the year before. That was a was a very good team that beat the Bears. In 2007, there is no hope with this team on the road in the cold against the Patriots. The question is how high will the spread get? I think the spread on the Pats-Jets game is around 24. It's the largest spread since 1993 Niners-Bengals.

Posted by Just Karl | December 11, 2007 11:38 PM

Let me inject 3 words into the conversation:

"2001 Seattle Mariners."

Remember them? Set the AL record for most wins in a season? 116 wins?!?!?!?

Of course you don't remember them. Nobody remembers them, because they got gobsmacked by the Yankees in the ALCS.

To suggest that 16-0 is more important than a Super Bowl title is, frankly, insane. Would anybody lionize, let alone remember, the 1972 Dolphins if they had lost the Super Bowl, or even earlier in the playoffs? Of course not. Good heavens, this is a league where a coach who took his team to 14-2 was fired for a lack of playoff performance!

Of course, going 16-0 and winning the Super Bowl aren't necessarily related, in either direction. But if the Pats do go 16-0 and do *not* win the big one, they most certainly will not be hailed as the greatest team ever. The same sportswriters/casters who portray 16-0 as some mythical totem of sainthood will be the first ones to turn on them and portray the Pats as chokers, as one of the "could-have-beens." 16-0? Sic Transit Gloria. Win the big game. Anything else is just window dressing.

Posted by Brian Disco Snell | December 11, 2007 11:55 PM

Fred quotes and writes: ""Eli's a bit of a moron"

Morons don't ace the Wonderlic test. Eli is under-rated, and has been able to step up his game on occasion to Peyton levels. Remember last year when the Giants faced the Colts? The Giants lost a close one, but Eli's stats were as good as Peyton's."

On the field, Eli's a moron. Don't give me one game, that's simply stupid. Look at his career stats - he's the definition of mediocre.

The only thing I'll grant you is that I don't think Tom Coughlin helps Eli at all in terms of development. The guy's a talent killer.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 12, 2007 12:11 AM

"On the field, Eli's a moron. Don't give me one game, that's simply stupid. Look at his career stats - he's the definition of mediocre."

Eli's record is better than Peyton's was at this stage of his career. The kid's a solid quarterback. And he hasn't had the weapons Peyton had: Eli's leading deep threat (Plaxico) has been playing on a sprained ankle all year, TE Shockey consistently plays below his rep, WR Toomer is like 50 years old, and 3rd WR/Santana Moss's brother is all speed and no hands.

Eli's stats aren't pretty this year, but some of his best stat days have come in losing efforts (e.g., the first loss to Dallas where he through 4 TD passes to 1 INT). The week before last was more impressive, IMO, with him pulling a hot streak at the end of the fourth quarter.

Posted by Fred | December 12, 2007 12:34 AM

Look at his career stats - he's the definition of mediocre.

His career stats? He's one win away from his third straight playoff season, something the team hasn't done since 1986. Also, if the Giants clinch in week 14 it will be their earliest clinching since at least 1993. This from a team that lost its best offensive player from its 8-8 squad last year. Hell, SI picked them to finish last in the division.

That's the bottom line.

Posted by Thlayli | December 12, 2007 12:43 AM

boy, how did we get to eli? oh well: his career stats demonstrate that he's a decent qb, but not (thus far) worth the price the giants paid for him (although it's still not - quite - too late).

his biggest problem isn't that he's a "moron," whatever that's supposed to mean: his biggest problem is that he's not as accurate a passer as he should be, but, as Fred notes, it would help if plaxico didn't have a bad ankle and he had a reliable third receiver....

is he good enough to beat the pats? hell, as i noted up above, kent graham was good enough to beat the broncos after they'd won 18 straight games and a super bowl (and before they won another).

are the giants good enough to beat the pats? given that they have given up the 3 most 40+ yard passing plays in the league despite leading the league in sacks, it's unlikely, but that's why they play 'em on the field....

Posted by howard | December 12, 2007 1:13 AM

er, "3rd most 40+ yard passing plays," not "3 most."

Posted by howard | December 12, 2007 1:15 AM

Everyone remembers the 2001 Seattle Mariners, even if they are remembered as a sign of futility, everyone rememembers them and they get talked about ALL the time. By contrast - who remembers the WS Champs 2003 Marlins? No one. Who remembers the 1987 Twins? Who remembers the 2002 Tampa Bay Buccaneers? Winning a championship quickly fades, it's the bigger than life attempts that count, even if failure. The 1986 Red Sox are better remembered than countless world series champs. So are the early 1990s Bills.

Posted by Vanya | December 12, 2007 1:54 AM

Damn, vanya beat me to it. 100% correct.

Posted by Barbar | December 12, 2007 8:15 AM

Actually there are two more interesting questions than "should the 15-0 Pats play all out?"

1) What will the NFL do about televising this game?

2) Should the Giants play all out?

wrt 1, there is no way fans are going to blame Time-Warner or ComCast for not making this game available to them.

wrt 2, the Giants benefit much more greatly from resting Burress than the Pats do from resting anybody. They have a game the following week, and will never be home, so their record doesn't really matter.

Posted by jayackroyd | December 12, 2007 8:55 AM

Al makes a great point. And the answer to his question is no, there is not a chance on this earth that the giants will be playing all of their starters in that last game. They have lost in the first round of the playoffs for the past two years. It is much more important to them that they have a healthy team and finally win a playoff game than it is that they beat the Patriots.

Posted by giantsfan | December 12, 2007 1:18 PM

Doesnt matter Colts win big in AFC Championship
and Cinderfella Brady must leave the Ball. Ha Ha HA, because there is justice in this world

Posted by Dee | December 12, 2007 1:55 PM

Speaking of politics, if Belichick had been in charge of Shock and Awe, they'd be in the third year of lighting the annual Christmas tree in Baghdad. All the talk about the guy's obsessions, hatreds, grudges, etc. is amusing. If you're really paying attention you know that the guy just lives for winning football games...the more the better...and the bigger the wins even better. Think of him as Hugh Hefner in a hoodie...19-0 would be like a night with twins, triplets, double-jointed gymnasts, the Williams sisters, the Cowboy cheerleaders, and Brad Pitt's wife.

Posted by V4Velveeta | December 12, 2007 3:04 PM

Should The Patriots Go For It?

Comments (69)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories