big upsets happen every playoffs ... but never against a 17-0 team and possibly the most dominate offense ever.
Well, it's never happened against a 17-0 team because there hasn't been a 17-0 team still in the play-offs until this Sunday.
The possibility of an upset, however remote, is always intriguing for fans and certainly something teams hang their hats on. It would be ludicrous to think that a team in the play-offs would go into a game with a defeatist attitude. Frankly, teams with a "there's-no-way-we-can-win" attitude wouldn't be in the play-offs in the first place.
The Patriots having the most dominant offense ever in NFL history is certainly a viable position to take. Any number of stats could be used to back up this claim.
But stats shouldn't be the sole measurement. You could also make an argument for some offenses in eras before all the rules changes made it a lot easier for receivers, QB's, and O linemen to ply their trade. If DB's could bump and run receivers all over the field like they did in the past; if QBs were fair game rather than protected species like they are now; if institutionalized holding were not allowed like it is now, there is every reason to believe teams would not be putting up the numbers like they have been in the last 20 years.
Joined: 24 Apr 2007 Posts: 581 Location: United States Country:
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 1:50 am Post subject:
shin2 wrote:
Well, it's never happened against a 17-0 team because there hasn't been a 17-0 team still in the play-offs until this Sunday.
Of course, but the fact that no team has ever been 17-0 just shows how dominant they were this year. Any # of plays could've happened against the Pats' favor, but the reality they still won all of them is a testament to their greatness.
Joined: 24 Apr 2007 Posts: 581 Location: United States Country:
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 1:59 am Post subject:
shin2 wrote:
The possibility of an upset, however remote, is always intriguing for fans and certainly something teams hang their hats on. It would be ludicrous to think that a team in the play-offs would go into a game with a defeatist attitude. Frankly, teams with a "there's-no-way-we-can-win" attitude wouldn't be in the play-offs in the first place.
I agree, the underdog team's players will always believe they have a good shot at winning. Plus, the fans should always hold out hope.... but hope is still different than the logic and the reality of the situation.
shin2 wrote:
But stats shouldn't be the sole measurement. You could also make an argument for some offenses in eras before all the rules changes made it a lot easier for receivers, QB's, and O linemen to ply their trade. If DB's could bump and run receivers all over the field like they did in the past; if QBs were fair game rather than protected species like they are now; if institutionalized holding were not allowed like it is now, there is every reason to believe teams would not be putting up the numbers like they have been in the last 20 years.
True, there are definitely more rules nowadays that favor the offense. The NFL obviously wants to see higher scoring games. So, it probably wouldn't be fair to compare a team of 2008 with a team decades ago. But, the rules always apply to every team of that year, and the Pats were far-and-away the best and took advantage of them the most.
Of course, but the fact that no team has ever been 17-0 just shows how dominant they were this year. Any # of plays could've happened against the Pats' favor, but the reality they still won all of them is a testament to their greatness.
The Pats have been indeed dominant this year. To be undefeated going into a conference championship game in the NFL is pretty mindboggling And it is a testament to their greatness.
However, if an assistant coach hadn't called timeout (which in itself was against the rule), the Ravens would have beaten New England. Fortune favored the Pats that night. So there might also be a very tiny bit of luck involved for the Patriots being undefeated.
I agree, the underdog team's players will always believe they have a good shot at winning. Plus, the fans should always hold out hope.... but hope is still different than the logic and the reality of the situation.
But it is that hope (or more accurately, belief) that enables upsets to happen.
If underdogs just went by the logic and reality of a situation, they would never go into a game thinking they would win.
Does hope/belief carry the day for underdogs? Most of the times, no. But it does happen, however infrequently, "and that's why they play the game."
True, there are definitely more rules nowadays that favor the offense. The NFL obviously wants to see higher scoring games. So, it probably wouldn't be fair to compare a team of 2008 with a team decades ago. But, the rules always apply to every team of that year, and the Pats were far-and-away the best and took advantage of them the most.
Joined: 13 Apr 2007 Posts: 12121 Location: It was fun while it lasted. Country:
Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:08 am Post subject:
Well, if the 'Bolts had been healthy offensively it might have been interesting, Pats played just well enough to win. As of right now, Giants leading 20-17 in the 3rd. Could be an upset in the making.
Joined: 19 Aug 2003 Posts: 3125 Location: S.F. Bay Area Country:
Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 12:17 pm Post subject:
Man... knock me over with a feather. The Giants?
Well... at least now the build up from the media will be about two teams, the Pats and the Giants. Instead of the Pats vs. Brett Favre. _________________
Joined: 24 Apr 2007 Posts: 581 Location: United States Country:
Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:01 pm Post subject:
My Two-cents on Sunday's results:
The Good - Thank goodness the Packers lost ... now the nation won't have to deal with 2 weeks of "Brett Favre Slurping" and gushing over how great he is, along with his life story ....
The Bad - Too bad the Patriots won ... cause now I'll have to somehow avoid 2 weeks of Belichick & Brady stories .... I can't think of two more dislikable figures in the NFL ... if you discount all the female Brady admirers
UCLA hires Norm Chow as their football team's offensive coordinator.
Yippee! That was the easy part. Now the hard part will be whether Neuheisel and Chow will be able to work together. Will Neuheisel give Chow enough freedom to run the offense? Will Chow be able to operate under any parameters Neuheisel may set?
UCLA's 2008 football season just got a lot more interesting.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Log in
