Vote or Die: Will the Pats go 19-0?

Voted: No

yeah, we are still in denial about the Sox winning the World Series ;-P

Yep. Good times. I hope it's deja vu all over again.

Why all the hate, man? Hating the Patriots doesn't compensate for the fact that the Eagles suck.

And have never won a Super Bowl, by the way.

simple reason: he's stuck in Boston, and he's not a boston fan

Oh well, let him hate the Pats, while I continue to love them. Love is so much better than hate.

Enjoying the Broncos too?

Or was that just cool from 97-00?

I'll always be a Broncos fan, whether it's fun or not. Same with the Vikings, and (probably) the Patriots.

IM A COWBOY FAN AND THE EAGLES ARE DOWN NOW BUT THEY HAVE NEVER RESORTED TO CHEATING. REMEMBER PETE ROSE AND SHOE LESS JOE JACKSON I THINK THE PATS BELONG THERE WITH THEM

Anon, the CAPS lock key is beside the "A" key; do you think you could deactivate it? Anyway, it's interesting that you should mention Shoeless Joe Jackson, since he was wrongly accused of cheating.

So, Anon, the Pats don't deserve to be in the Baseball Hall of Fame.

one of my favorite fan boxes...

I think the Pats have accomplished all they've wanted to accomplish. For me, I'm just happy that the Pats won that last game. It doesn't even matter to me if they win the Superbowl or not. The worst case scenario is that they're end up being ___-1, which has only happened twice in NFL history (both before modern football; sometime in the 30s and 40s). The Miami Dolphins in '72 were definitely great, but they were 14-0 in the regular season. The Pats have already won their sweet 16th; two extra victories. Like the Red Sox this past season, if the Pats win, I'll be even happier and prouder of the team, but like the Red Sox winning the division (even bigger than that in this case), the Pats have accomplished all what I wanted them to accomplish this season.

All I want is a Super Bowl win, perfect season or not.

Of course, now they have to stay perfect to win the Super Bowl.

why would they only want 16-0? You don't think Randy "Superbowl, Homeboy" Moss wants a ring? You don't think BIll and Brady want a 4th ring? You don't think Thomas, Welker, Stallworth all came to New England to get a ring? You don't think the entire New England Franchise plays for the Lombardi Trophy? Are you serious? I'm sorry, Romi, but you are so wrong on this one.

The Patriots have accomplished next to nothing of what they want to accomplish. The #1 goal of this team is to win the Super Bowl. If this team loses in quadruple overtime on a bad penalty in the Super Bowl, then it falls behind the 11-5 2001 SB winning team, because winning the big game is 100 times more important than winning 16 regular season games.

I'm speaking on my satisfaction, FP. For me, I'm loving the fact that I'm a fan of a team who's won 3 out of the last 6 SB rings. As far as Randy Moss and Wes Welker and the rest of the new players go, I'd love to see them win a ring because they've worked hard, and of course, I know that the goal for any team any year is to play for the Lombardi trophy, but being a Pats fan for a while now, I just believe that watching my favorite team the first 16-0 team in history good enough for me. They've shown that they're the best team in the regular season already. That's just MY opinion.

Being the best team in the regular season is like getting a date with Allison Stokke. It doesn't mean much unless you close the deal.

Corey, lesson 1 of making picks: Vegas is rarely wrong. New England is getting odds that make it seem like the playoffs are already over

Now hopefully I won't die.

You hope. Don't worry, though, the Packers won't get that far anyway.

2 teams with new QBs that prevent them from gameplanning for them with a defensive strategy that has proven time and time again that teams can't keep it up for 60 minutes.

1 team that is a second tier team when their QB is in a groove, and Eli started out strong last night.

You forget that they've already dealt with Indy and Dallas, neither of which were able to stop them

You guys make me laugh. Just because they beat everyone in the regular season that automatically makes them immune to the same teams in the playoffs?

no, it doesn't. It just means that the odds are very much in their favor (in fact, vegas.com puts their odds at 1-3 [1])

A nervous laugh, no doubt.

Nervous? You talk a lot of shit just because your team got lucky against Indy in the regular season and was lucky enough to be stuck in the worst division in football. Congratulations on your undefeated regular season, but you aren't winning it all.

Lucky? Is Tom Brady engineering another brilliant comeback lucky? Was John Elway's 98-yard Drive against Cleveland luck, too?

How exactly did they get lucky against Indy?

Yes, the AFC East was dreadful, but how were these teams:

Indianapolis, Dallas, Washington, New York Giants, Pittsburgh, San Diego.

The Patriots beat the 2, 3, and 4 seeds of the AFC playoffs; as well as the 1, 5, and 6 seeds of the NFC playoffs.

But yeah, it was luck, and an easy schedule.

shit, you don't think your packers are lucky? It's the NFL Corey, luck is the name of the game. You have 16 games to put yourself in the top 12.

No, the Packers were not lucky. You want to talk about a quarterback's brilliance? How about a supposed washed up Brett Favre orchestrating a 13-3 record with the youngest team in the NFL? You guys have Randy Moss, other than that, you have a good, not great, quarterback.

good, not great. right. That's why he threw 50 TD passes. That's why he's got 3 rings. That's why he's had multiple seasons with over 4000 yards passing. That's why a good QB in Daunte Culpepper at the time couldn't get into the super bowl with Moss. That's why with the previous greatest offense in history, they didn't make the super bowl with Moss. That's why Oakland continued to fail with Moss. That's why brady can play thread the needle all game long. Becuase he's good, not great... Bs. The Denver game was luck. Overtime is luck. the NFL is luck. Playing an easier schedule is luck. GB didn't have to play half of the playoff field. GB didn't have to play Indy in Indy.

Yeah Core. Don't you think you're underrating Brady just a little? Not everything is about Randy Moss.

Daunte Culpepper is not a good quarterback, and the only reason he was considered good was because of Moss. Culpepper would do nothing but throw jump balls to Moss (remind you of someone?). It is always about Randy Moss. Put him on the Colts or Packers and he catches 30 touchdowns.

Corey, I think you're overstating the larger impact of Moss. Without Moss, Brady doesn't set any records, but he and the Patriots have been great pre-Moss. Brady won a pair of Super Bowl MVPs with Troy Brown as his #1 target. He led a team to the AFC title game with Reche Caldwell as his go to guy. Remember Deion Branch? All of a sudden, without Brady, he's not that great, is he? You make it seem as though Brady was a mediocre QB until Moss came along. Do you think Montana wasn't that good because he had Jerry Rice? How about Peyton and Harrison?

Really, Corey? And that's why Tom Brady never amounted to anything before Randy Moss came, huh? Four AFC Championship games, three Super Bowls rings, two SB MVP awards, a Sportsman of the Year Award, a playoff record of 12-2, and numerous fourth-quarter rallies never really happened, right?

Don't forget that Brett Favre wouldn't be very good if it wasn't for all those defensive backs that have caught his passes over the years ;-)

And I'm still curious about this "lucky" win against Indianapolis.

Well, take a look at who Brett Favre has had for his wide receivers. A great receiver makes any quarterback look better, and vice versa. But you wouldn't put Robert Brooks or Antonio Freeman or Bill Schroeder in any Hall of Fame talk would you? You never saw Tom Brady throw 39 touchdown passes when Reche Caldwell or Deion Branch was there did you? I'd put them on about the same level as Brooks and Freeman.

Brady's been blessed by also having great defenses keep him on the field, giving him the ability to perform. So did Trent Dilfer, whoopty shit. Rex Grossman made it to a Super Bowl too. Tom Brady was just good enough to win a couple while his defense did most of the work. Now that he's got some targets on offense, everyone thinks he's Zeus and his right arm's a fackin' thunderbolt. Give me a break.

Give your egos a rest. You boys have had enough for one night.

Yeah, Nappy, all those interceptions and he's still the winningest QB of all time. They must've made huge differences in those games, huh?

No, it's just that everybody can now see what he's capable with a great receiving corps, just like Peyton Manning has always had. And no, Tom Brady didn't throw 39 TDs in one year, but he did win three Super Bowls, and Brett Favre didn't. And it wasn't because of a great defense, either. The Patriots defense will never be mentioned alongside the '85 Bears or the 2000 Baltimore Ravens.

He's the winningest QB because he's played longer than most others have, in a pass-oriented offense. John Elway still has the NFL's all-time best winning percentage.

Oops, I meant that Brett Favre's passing numbers come from playing in a pass-oriented offense, not his victories.

How the hell did this turn into a Brett Favre vs. Tom Brady debate?

Corey started it...

Yet it's still been mentioned as one of the top defenses in the league for this entire decade. You're making excuses to put Brady up on an unjustified pedestal. The guy didn't throw for more than 28 touchdowns in a season before Moss came along and never had a quarterback rating of more than 92.6.

It's certainly good, don't get me wrong, but by the same time in Favre's career he had thrice surpassed the 92.6 rating mark, including a 99.5 in 1995 and passed for 30+ touchdowns five of his first eight seasons.

You want your MVP, give it to No. 81 if you're going to give it to any Patriot.

I apparently underrated Tom Brady, so I was trying to prove my point.

Brett Favre played a lot longer? John Elway: 16 seasons. Brett Favre: 17 seasons. And you can barely call his time in Atlanta a full season. Are you going to next try to demean Brett Favre for staying healthy for every game since 1992?

Joe Montana is really that great in the area of statistics, either. Stats are only part of the equation.

I'm not demeaning him, I just think it's absurd to put him in the discussion with John Elway, Joe Montana, or Johnny Unitas. If he wins another Super Bowl or two before he retires, I'll change my mind.

Oops, Joe Montana ISN'T really that great in the area of statistics.

This is where the Favre thing got started:

Corey called the Patriots lucky, FP said that the Packers are also lucky, so Corey responded thusly:

"No, the Packers were not lucky. You want to talk about a quarterback's brilliance? How about a supposed washed up Brett Favre orchestrating a 13-3 record with the youngest team in the NFL? You guys have Randy Moss, other than that, you have a good, not great, quarterback."

The thing is, nobody was talking about "a quarterback's brilliance" until Corey brought up Favre out of left field.

And as far as the Brady vs. Favre debate, let's wait and see until Tom has had a full career until making that comparison. But I will add this to the fire: Brady has a better career QB rating, and a better TD to INT ratio. Does that mean Brady is better? No. It means that they're two kinds of QBs. Favre is the gunslinger and Brady is more of a mechanic.

Yeah, the other part of the equation you're talking about is who you have around you. Dan Marino didn't have a lot around him, that's why he never won a Super Bowl. John Elway never won a Super Bowl until he had a good nucleus of players (most important of whom is Terrell Davis) around him. Peyton Manning, again, great players around him. Even Brett Favre is only as good as the people around him, which is the only reason he never went to more Super Bowls. John Elway only has two rings, but you still want Favre to win two more to be in the same sentence as Elway? You're ridiculous.

No, but John Elway got his team to three Super Bowls with mostly anonymous receivers who never made the Pro Bowl, and running backs like Sammy Winder and Steve Sewell. The fact that Elway even got a team like that to the Super Bowl is astounding.

Um, hello? Edgar Bennett? Dorsey Levens? Antonio Freeman? Derrick fackin' Mayes? What Hall of Fame are they in? Pop Warner? Don't forget, Elway had an extremely talented tight end by the name of Shannon Sharpe. You may have heard of him.

Yes, I have heard of Shannon Sharpe, and he came along later. Antonio Freeman happened to one of the NFL's leading receivers in the mid-90s.

And why do you suppose that is? And why do you suppose when he went to Philadelphia he didn't amount to jack? Freeman made only one Pro Bowl appearance too, and that was after the Super Bowl years. He didn't even reach 1,000 yards in 1996, the year the Packers won it.

I'll give you that, but he was still better than any of Elway's receivers of the late '80s. He would probably be on the same level as Deion Branch. Brett Favre has been great throughout most of his career, but not John Elway great or Joe Montana great.

Corey, you're being an idiot.

An average QB could lead a two minnute comback in the Super Bowl as a rookie against the Greatest Show on Turf with David Patten and Troy Brown as his recievers. Right.

An average QB could bring his team to the AFC Championship game, and had it not been for an exhausted defense that broke down in the middle of the game, and a poor coaching decision by Belichick (Putting Eric Alexander in at LB) would have been in the Super Bowl with Reche Caldwell and Jabar Gaffney as his two top recievers. Caldwell only held his job as a starter b/c San Deigo had/has no good recievers. Gaffney had been cut by the Texans and Eagles already that year.

Look at the 04 Colts: 4 HOF Olineman. A Pro Bowl RB. A HOF WR and a would be HOF WR if he wasn't stuck behind Harrison. An above average TE.

07 Pats: Matt Light is his backside guard, and regularly needs help to protect against the blitz. Logan Mankins is a 2-3 year player who's probably their best starter on the Oline. Maroney is good, but he's barely starting to get into it. Watson has hands worth crap. He does have 3 amazing WRs. Think about the differences. Peyton had more time to pass, and team couldn't Nickel and Dime him all day b/c he had a threat in the run game.

No, it really doesn't remind me of someone. Welker actually gets more balls than Moss (check the stats if you don't believe me). Two words: 98 Vikings. a then HOF WR, a rookie who will end up in the HOF, and a good QB. The offense sets records, and Moss sets a rookie record, but no QB records.

Also, Brady is likely to win the MVP. Usually, MVP's are Great players, hence them being the MVP.

As for Culpepper, he was a good QB when he was with Moss.

It's not luck, they wouldn't pull the trigger because Moss was too big of a risk to take without renegotiating his Contract. Moss wouldn't do that for anyone but the Patriots.

On the whole Favre-Montana-Elway thing, I'd go Montana 1, then it's take your pick. I personally would pick Favre, but that's because I have seen him more.

They just play the lowest-seeded team left.

New England plays the lowest seed remaining in the divisional round

Alright, that was what I thought, but I wasn't sure.

If the 6th seeded Titans win, they will play the Patriots. If the Chargers win, then the Pats will play the winner of the Pittsburgh/Jacksonville game.

No team lacks weakness, Romi. The Pats linebackers are old, Maroney can't carry an offense for even one series, Watson sucks, I could go on and on. I don't think anyone is saying that the Patriots aren't mortal. The question isn't whether or not they can be killed. The question is "WILL they be killed?"

Yes, and I agree with you Rawbeezeitz. Every team has a "weakness" or "disadvantage", but no team has been able to pull off a victory against the Pats knowing that they have disadvantages. And yes, I believe that's what every New England football fan is asking right now: WILL they be killed.

If you know me, and if you read any of the Red Sox live blogs, you'll know that I am a pessimistic person when it comes to my team, and that I always think about the worst case scenario. The worst case scenario in this case is that the Pats will go 16-1 and immediately get eliminated.

They have been doing OK for the last couple games... yep, just ok. They were scoreless last week in the 2nd half against the Dolphins, one of the worst teams in recent memory. They almost lost against the Giants (think about it, if it wasn't for that interception, the Giants would've probably won with that touchdown in the last minute or so).

All I'm saying is that things don't always go our way. The Pats might overlook a team and end up losing, which I'm sure is not what anyone wants.

Sorry for posting twice.

That should've been a reply. My bad.

The reference to Brady's brilliance came from your claim that the Pats' victory over the Colts was luck. I then wondered what other quarterbacking feats of history were also pure luck.

Oh I dunno, Kordell Stewart's hail mary to beat Michigan? Flutie to Phelan?

Brady wasn't exactly throwing Hail Marys in that game.

And about this whole luck thing, the Patriots' entire season is luck. Luck because Ted Thompson didn't pull the trigger on the Moss trade.

This point was already addressed. Tom Brady is still a superstar with or without Randy Moss.

I THINK THE PATS PLAYERS AND COACHES ARE SENDING A BAD MESSAGE TO THE YOUTH OF THIS COUNTRY. ITS OK TO CHEAT AND WHEN YOU GET CAUGHT JUST KEEP ON CHEATING! AND PLEASE DON'T TELL ME THEY WERE NOT CHEATING! NO ONE GIVES UP CASH AND DRAFT PICKS IF THEY ARE INNOCENT!!!LOSERS

You're a loser, Mr. Anonymous.

Is your real name Jamel, by the way? Or is it Kenrick Thomas?

That's the way I do it, too. I try not to get too far ahead; just take it one game at a time.

Well, in that case, yes, they'll win this next game. :)