Jacksonville seems like a team that could give the Patriots a run for their money. They have a strong defensive line and if the weather is terrible they can still move the ball on the ground.
I would agree that the Pats are the best team in the NFL. So let's speculate for a second. If they do lose, however it happens, do you really think that journalists will not talk about the drive for 16 costing them in the post season? Doesn't mean it would be right. But how do they avoid the subject? They've been blabbering about it all year long. There's a difference between avoiding the subject and pointing to the 16-0 regular season as the reason why they lost in the playoffs. Granted, there really is no speculation too baseless or thought too insipid for the slow-news-day types to bring it up, but in order to make hay out of it, they'd have to point to something that happened during those 16 games that somehow cost the Patriots the playoffs...and what are they going to point to, exactly? Sammy Morris? Someone will bring it up, no doubt, but they're just not going to get any mileage out of it, because there's nothing to it. There's also this to consider: a perfect season as such means nothing in the playoffs, but your record does count for something. Specifically, until game 14 was won, the Patriots were still playing for home field advantage, which I think is worth a lot. Once your playoff spot is assured, is it the intelligent coaching decision to not try and gain home field advantage? Also, effort expended does not necessarily equal injuries sustained. The mental and physical toll expended in going 16-0 might have left the team exhausted. So would you not have logically expected to see this "exhaustion" show up in the 16th game? I don't recall any signs of it. And Belichick is notorious for putting as little info on the team's IR report as possible. It's entirely possible that there are injuries that we're not aware of. Possible, but I don't think it's likely. I'm basing that on all the close-ups we saw of Tony Romo's thumb. When a key player shows signs of favoring a body part on the field, there's a lot of focus and speculation, and there hasn't been any of that, even as the starters had very high percentage playing times. Belichick does indeed play 'em close, but I really don't think it's there. And what's with the inevitable[sic]? I googled it. It's spelled correctly. Yeah, that was a reference to usage, not misspelling. You spoke of an "inevitable media backlash", meaning that if the Patriots fail to win the Super Bowl, the media will -- not may, will -- react in a certain way. I think that remains to be seen; hence, it's not inevitable.
Wow, that's amazingly pedantic, given "inevitability" lies in the mind of the speaker. You don't get to decide it for someone else any more than they do for you, yet the word still gets used. If the Pats lose at all, there are a zillion stories pre-made for hack sportswriters to mail in and most of them will revolve around: 1. Was it worth 16-0? 2. Did they burn out early due to pressure? 3. Is a team really "one for the ages" when they didn't even win the trophy as best team? To me, in all but the most extraordinary circumstances, "[sic]" is the Internet equivalent of "Fuck you".
Wow, that's amazingly pedantic, given "inevitability" lies in the mind of the speaker. Er...really? It seems like an absolute term. Inevitable = unavoidable = it is going to happen...not so? ...or maybe you just meant to say, "to me, 'inevitability' is the internet equivalent of 'it wouldn't surprise me if it happened'."
There's also this to consider: a perfect season as such means nothing in the playoffs, but your record does count for something. Specifically, until game 14 was won, the Patriots were still playing for home field advantage, which I think is worth a lot. Once your playoff spot is assured, is it the intelligent coaching decision to not try and gain home field advantage? I understand the logic behind your reasoning but this is about what the Media will do. I'm not sure logic applies when we discuss the media. So would you not have logically expected to see this "exhaustion" show up in the 16th game? I don't recall any signs of it. Maybe it's the effort in the 16th game that could lead to the exhaustion in the playoffs. If they were 14-1, do you really think they would have chased down the Giants? Granted, there really is no speculation too baseless or thought too insipid for the slow-news-day types to bring it up, but in order to make hay out of it, they'd have to point to something that happened during those 16 games that somehow cost the Patriots the playoffs And that's where we differ. The media have made the 16-0 achievement the single biggest story of the NFL this year. That alone is reason enough for them to hammer away at 16-0 if they do lose. I wouldn't bet against the Pats. But I would bet on the media reaction if they lose. Or what Yerfatma said (except the part about the [sic] = fuck you. I just think the usage was incorrect.)
I understand the logic behind your reasoning but this is about what the Media will do. I'm not sure logic applies when we discuss the media. Fair 'nuff. Maybe it's the effort in the 16th game that could lead to the exhaustion in the playoffs. If they were 14-1, do you really think they would have chased down the Giants? I'm not sure. I'm trying (and failing) to think of a game in the Belichick/Brady era where they really "played it safe". I've known plenty of times when they sat or limited the play of a starter who was recovering from an injury, but I can't think of a time when they sat a starter just to avoid the possibility of an injury. And that's where we differ. The media have made the 16-0 achievement the single biggest story of the NFL this year. That alone is reason enough for them to hammer away at 16-0 if they do lose. I suppose. Anyway, I'm hoping we won't get a chance to find out.
