Will any team ever go undefeated again?
Grinch
season is so long, it's too many games to win.
But now the top teams actually *don't want to win* their last games.
The Colts we saw throw in the towel on the rest of the season while
14-0 and still winning against us -- and yesterday lost by 23 points
... to the Bills.
The Saints started off 13-0, yesterday they started Mark Brunell at QB
while losing their third straight to close 13-3.
A little while back I saw Bill Cowher -- who I'd imagine would be an
"old school" coach if anybody still is -- discussing this and saying
it was *good* for the Saints and Colts to lose like this because the
"undefeated" thing is a distraction best gotten rid of. Teams focus
better going into the playoffs if they are coming off a loss or two,
he said.
Sheeze ...
There's a lot of talk these days about going to an 18-game season.
Just imagine.
If they do that, the whole last month of the season will be like this.
Really, there would be two sessions of exhibition games each year. The
first would be the two pre-season games where the coaches all use
generic game plans to keep from giving secrets away, and only play
their subs and depth players to keep there top players from being hurt
... the next would be the last two-to-four games of the regular
season, in which the coaches of all the playoff teams all use generic
game plans to keep from giving secrets away, and only play their subs
and depth players to keep there top players from being hurt.
Between the top teams throwing in the towel on the rest of the regular
season and the bottom teams who have nothing left to play for throwing
in the towel on everything (see: Giants) for two more games, the whole
last month of the season would be a mess.
16 games is enough.
MuahMan
16 games or 18 games season. The Patriots went undefeated with ease.
Granted they are best team in NFL history....
Michael
I think ditching two pre-season games and adding two regular season
games would be a good thing. There would probably be teams that
clinch early and take their foot off the gas, and there would be teams
that are finished with nothing to play for.. Still... There would be a
whole slew of teams fighting down to the wire like this year with
Jets, Steelerts, Broncos, Fish, Texans, Jags.. etc... More ball = More
fun. My question with it is injury. By the time an 18 game season is
over there will be 12.5 % more injuries, some of them serious. You
could make a statistical argument that players now have a 12.5%
greater chance of getting injured over the season.
Glenn Greenstein
This whole thing about teams not wanting to give plays away is so
laughable. Like there isn't enough film to watch.
Glenn Greenstein
18-1 is undefeated? Hey, I know a kid in Bosnia that thinks the Pats
are undefeated.
Ray O'Hara
"Glenn Greenstein" <lex...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:51942fb5-50c8-4a29...@q41g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
=================================================================
everybody up here knows 16-0 is hollow.
damn, they should have stopped blitzing, sheli wasn't getting rattled.damn
but what the Dolts did was just plain wrong, and if they lose in the POs
there will be a lot of repercussions in Indy.
in an ironic way this year's Dolts have achieved a type of immortality
losing now will cement it.
Ian White
Less is more.
More games <> more *competitive* games. Also with expansion, there's
more and more talk of a UK-based franchise. As a UK-based fan, I'd love
this, but as a football fan I can only see this as bad. The current 32
team structure and rolling schedule has perfect symmetry. Everyone gets
to play every other team over 4 years despite their records. Top teams
play other top teams more often, yes, crap teams play crap teams more
often, but the theory is they're competitive games.
No, I like the current league structure and season length.
--
Ian
Harlan Lachman
Good post Ray. I actually agree. Personally, I hope we beat Cincy and
given a reprieve by the Colts, ice them out of the Playoffs too. Not
only are we only in the playoffs thanks to them, we got a taste of
beating them so we may have some hope as opposed to having to play a
perfect team.
That would be the nail in the coffin you so well describe.
Harlan
Michael
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
i think given the ultimate appeal of football and the nfl, there will
be teams based in europe. probably the uk first and may be germany
and france. with super sonic trans oceanic flight due to make a come
back, you can get from the east coast of the united states to the uk
in 3.5 hours with the last generation of sst aircraft. probably
faster with the stuff on the drawing board.
as far as interupting the flow of things and watering down the stable,
you had a lot of the same stuff being said prior to the afl merger.
Glenn Greenstein
> "Glenn Greenstein" <lexa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Yeah, Tell Brady's broken ribs and finger and Welkers knee it was just
wrong.
Glenn Greenstein
> In article <hhvvcj$ql...@news.eternal-september.org>,> > "Glenn Greenstein" <lexa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Actually Harlan it's too early to predict who we will play. For us to
draw the Colts, the Pats have to beat the Ravens and i'd say there is
as much of a chance they do that as there is they lose. If the Pats do
lose, we get the Chargers.
I would actually prefer to play the Colts.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
I admit that the Pats had little to play for, but Brady and Welker
could have broken their asses slipping on soap in the shower. The
Colts on the other hand, made the biggest blunder in history by
pulling their starters on the verge of immortality. It pissed off
their players and screwed up their mojo. They are going down. If the
Jets dont beat them for real in round two then the Chargers will in
the championship game. They are a marked team now and not for
perfection either.
Johnctx
It is a scary thought that I actually look fwd to Ray's posts.
:)
MuahMan
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2007/
According to this site and every other one I've been to it shows the
Patriots going 16-0 during the 2007 season.
The "0" means no losses. No losses means "undefeated" I can't believe
I have to explain this to you. Can you point to another team with the
same regular season record since they've been playing 16 games?
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
think we'd be better off with the chargers... their offense can be
screwed up by the jets defense. almost impossible to screw up the
colts. super simple offense worked to perfection. very hard to take
away all of manning's options on any given play. also.. lots of the
passing routs that they use are ones that make it almost impossible
for a cover guy to stop so long as the rout is perfect and the timing
and pass from the qb is perfect. They are almost perfect at executing
most every time. if you pressure you give manning more options... if
you cover you give him more time to pick his best option...
MZ
It's not about the plays. It's about the gameplan.
Johnctx
It's both. They see a team do something & they may remember where a
team may be going on that play. Like the Colts smothering the reverse
last week vs. the Jets.
The game plan is important but by week 18 how many have you run through?
How many more, besides a minor wrinkle, do you throw in? You
certainly don't toss what works just because you have done it before.
Glenn Greenstein
from someone who says the Jets have never won an NFL championship of
any kind.
Let it be known here, now and forever the Pats SB wins and other
lesser championships don't mean anything. All that matters is the
regular season. The Pats are no more important in the post season than
the Jets because you can win 16 regular season games and get knocked
out in the first round and that will be good enough.
Glenn Greenstein
Mark, it's about tendencies if you really want to get down to it.
Glenn Greenstein
I think it was Chuckie who said on MNF that once the season starts the
game plans on O don't really change that much. You install stuff your
players run well and you leave it up to them to execute that.
Sometimes you may flip a formation or add in a wrinkle or two for
something you see you can take advantage of, but 90% of it stays the
same.
MZ
Game plans change dramatically based on the defense you're playing. You
may not add that many plays, but you sure as hell will change the ones
you run in the game based on the opponent. For example, the Chargers
played the Pats a few years ago and came in running off tackle all day
long trying to get the ILBs to move laterally and force the OLBs to fail
at sealing off the edge. It was one of the smarter gameplans against
the Pats that I remember. They didn't do the same thing against, say,
the Ravens.
And this stuff is even more prominent on the other side of the ball.
The one thing a defense can seldom afford to be is too predictable.
If teams knew what the opposition was going to throw at them, there
wouldn't be any need for in-game adjustments. Maybe Mangini agreed with
you. :)
MZ
Everybody's talking about the top teams tanking the final games. But
nobody's talking about the bottom teams tanking the final games (eg.
putting in their rookie QBs, giving players a last chance to 'prove it',
etc). Isn't that why the Raiders put Jamarcus back in?
What about keeping it at 16 games but expand the playoff pool? Like
this... Allow 8 teams from each conference into the playoffs. The four
division winners get home field vs. the four other teams in order of
seed. This year, I think it would look like...
Broncos at Colts
Texans at Chargers
Ravens at Patriots
Jets at Bengals
This would have the effect of keeping mediocre teams in it longer, which
would keep some of them from tanking the end of the season.
Anyway, I only support 18 game seasons if they split the conferences
(old AL/NL style...) and allow all the teams in the conference to play
each other each year. Then head-to-head would have more relevance in
tiebreaker scenarios. You reserve interconference play for just the
preseason and super bowl.
Glenn Greenstein
Just repeating what a SB winning coach said.I sort of agree with it
though. You want to do what you do best in every game but you also
want to try to disguise it. I agree on D you have to try to take away
what they do so it's different every week.
Glenn Greenstein
I support an 18 game season for the mere fact that the last preseaon
game is a freaking pony show for guys getting cut.
Johnctx
I know the Ravens 3-4 is not identical to the Pats, but why not? Is it
because the Ravens are so aggressive?
>
> And this stuff is even more prominent on the other side of the ball. The
> one thing a defense can seldom afford to be is too predictable.
I am not saying to not have a game plan but teams have to prepare for 13
different teams in a season w/o the play offs not 60. I am sure that is
one big benefit of the wildcat especially against the Bengals as opposed
to the Bills, Fins, Pats who have seen it every day in practice or at
least 4 times in a game.
>
> If teams knew what the opposition was going to throw at them, there
> wouldn't be any need for in-game adjustments. Maybe Mangini agreed with
> you. :)
Mangini had a little bit of a run at the end, maybe he is learning?
naaaaaaaah
Johnctx
I like it.
>
> This would have the effect of keeping mediocre teams in it longer, which
> would keep some of them from tanking the end of the season.
>
> Anyway, I only support 18 game seasons if they split the conferences
> (old AL/NL style...) and allow all the teams in the conference to play
> each other each year. Then head-to-head would have more relevance in
> tiebreaker scenarios. You reserve interconference play for just the
> preseason and super bowl.
I like that as well that everyone has different schedules is unfair..
MZ
IIRC, the particular example I'm thinking of was when Banta-Cain was at
ROLB during his first stint and they had ILB issues (I think Vrabel was
inside). I was at the game, but I forget exactly what made the Pats
vulnerable. I do remember McNeill beating up Seymour all day though,
which was a rarity.
Johnctx
Thanks, i was wondering if it was chance to learn something.
Jottland
> Granted they are best team in NFL history....
The Giants kicked the living shit out of them...Patriots were too
soft....wasn't it fun seeing Brady on his back all night?