Rare side of Belichick: Addresses Hernandez story...

[GoPats]

 

In the interest of fairness, David Letterman's commentary on the 2007 SB, an Indianapolis native, still makes me LOL to this day...Trust me, Dave's goofy charm still holds up... I finally found it on You Tube!

 

 

 

Never saw this, it was great... "after a while, everyone wanted to see them get their *** kicked."

 

LOL...

[amfootball]

how do you keep missing what I'm saying? I don't understand it.

You keep blending resting starters with what I was saying about the Pats. I'm not saying they should have been resting their starters. I'm saying that rest or no rest, it hasn't worked out for the Pats just as much as it hasn't worked for the Colts since both of their respective SBs. So the argument that rest kills, doesn't hold water. Because we rested guys got to a SB and lost. The Pats played it out, then got to the SB and lost. No way proved to be more effective.

What does kill is playing a team that's better than you on any given Sunday.

The front office tried to outsmart themselves, as people who call themselves experts tend to do. It had nothing to do with fear, that doesn't even make sense. Why would the front office be afraid of winning two more games? They wouldn't. But they did have a philosophy that you rest starters when you have nothing to play for. So they stuck with that for better or worse.

I would have liked for them to go for it, but I'm not going to sit here ignorant to other trains of thought, and pretend I don't understand why they rested players.

I didn't miss what you are saying. You are misunderstanding me. You are only looking at 2007 and 2009 and making a claim based on those two seasons that resting starters or not didn't matter in those seasons because the Pats and Colts both lost their respective SBs. I am saying that if you look at the playoff history between the two teams since 2000, the Patriots philolosphy has worked much better to the tune of 3 rings, 5 SBs appearances and 7 conference champ games. The Colts on the other hand have a bevy of one and done's during that same span and many of those seasons they chose to rest their guys at the end. In 2006 when they were forced to play their starters until the end because they were a wild card, they won the SB.

 

When I talked about fear regarding 2009, I was referencing mgmt being afraid players would get injured. What is ironic is that Manning has never missed a game except for when he had neck surgery so it seemed even more baffling that they would not go for it. But my larger point is not the winning of the SB perse but the fact that they had a chance at immortality which rarely comes by twice and mgmt passed it up.

 

As another poster said, I consider the Pats 16-0 season a much bigger achievement than any of their SBs. Every year a team wins the SB, no other team has ever had an undefeated regular 16 game season.

[House]

I didn't miss what you are saying. You are misunderstanding me. You are only looking at 2007 and 2009 and making a claim based on those two seasons that resting starters or not didn't matter in those seasons because the Pats and Colts both lost their respective SBs. I am saying that if you look at the playoff history between the two teams since 2000, the Patriots philolosphy has worked much better to the tune of 3 rings, 5 SBs appearances and 7 conference champ games. The Colts on the other hand have a bevy of one and done's during that same span and many of those seasons they chose to rest their guys at the end. In 2006 when they were forced to play their starters until the end because they were a wild card, they won the SB.

When I talked about fear regarding 2009, I was referencing mgmt being afraid players would get injured. What is ironic is that Manning has never missed a game except for when he had neck surgery so it seemed even more baffling that they would not go for it. But my larger point is not the winning of the SB perse but the fact that they had a chance at immortality which rarely comes by twice and mgmt passed it up.

As another poster said, I consider the Pats 16-0 season a much bigger achievement than any of their SBs. Every year a team wins the SB, no other team has ever had an undefeated regular 16 game season.

No I am not misunderstanding you because I'm only talking about the two approaches since they last won SBs, and how rest vs no rest is overrated lol. Your trying to compare who's team has had overall better success, which I am not.

The Pats post season success has been because their team has been better than the other teams, not because they decided to rest or not rest starters in meaningless games. Because their approach from the early 2000's has been the exact same, but hasnt redulted in any more SBs.

Same for the Colts their success, and lack of success in many instances can't be simplified down resting starters when given the chance. Because we had no rest in the 2010 season and still got bounced from the playoffs.

Hence why I compared the two could have been perfect seasons. Because its a testament to being beat by better teams.

The Pats "approach" has been be the better team lol. The Colts had many deficiencies in Peyton's prime, and we payed for it consistently when the game slows down in the postseason.

I wouldn't personally wouldn't give a rip if we went 16-0 and lost the Superbowl, because its the same outcome. SB or bust as far as I'm concerned. Records that have to be quantified don't really do it for me .

[southwest1]

Never saw this, it was great... "after a while, everyone wanted to see them get their *** kicked."

 

LOL...

That's why I like you GoPats...You can roll with the punches & take 2007 in stride. Yes, I know as a NE fan that sting of defeat never completely disappears...You're alright buddy! 

 

My favorite part is when Paul Shaffer's band members in the horn section raise their hand about flipping the bird to Bill Belichick. It's actually a sign of respect because NY Giants fans knew how dangerous Tom Brady & the Grey Hoodie truly are..."Oh no, maybe there's a way NE will still win in the last minute. " I know I was thinking that very thing with Tom's final hail mary to Randy Moss. I can't lie GoPats because the Patriots offense was a machine in 2007. Like the terminator darn near impossible to stop. NY got lucky thanks to the zebra not blowing Eli's throw dead to David Tyree. 

 

Crazy antics where the host includes the band members in slapstick humor always reminds me of when Johnny Carson on The Tonight Show did outlandish stuff with Doc Severinsen as kid I guess. Great stuff man! 

[southwest1]

Remember when Wes Welker tore his ACL in that meaningless week 17 game in 2009?

Yup, I sure do Dustin. That was such an odd, non contact injury. I felt so sorry for Wes being carted off with a towel over his head. It must have hurt like hades. I wouldn't wish that outcome on anybody. Even a Cowboys WR & everyone on this site knows how much I deplore & despise the Dallas Cowboys man...

[southwest1]

The other thing that sticks in my head about that David Letterman video on the 2007 SB results is this: Eli Manning's development as a QB. At the start of his career in the "Big Apple," all 4 boroughs were ready to tar & feather Peyton's baby brother for good. Like Dave said, "Nobody at the Dallas stadium knew who he was" & they had no desire to claim him or sing his praises either & now Eli is a "made man" & won't ever have to buy dinner out in the Bronx or anywhere else again. Now Peyton is in Eli's shadow too. 

 

I'm gonna be honest here. SW1 was a little worried how my NE friends would perceive the line: "After awhile everybody wanted to see them get their cabooses kicked" but I was hoping that I built up enough cache & credibility to get a free pass on that joke. Besides, my friends know how much I respect their team & organizational leadership. And the media & fans outside of Foxboro are kind of ironic. First they marvel at your winning percentage & then they are ticked off that their team isn't doing it & then they want that almost perfect season record torn to shreds on the biggest stage in sports with the entire world watching. 

 

That perfect regular season record is pretty amazing. I just wish that either the Patriots or Colts could take the "America's Team" label away from Jerry Jones & give it to a squad that can actually win Playoff games in this decade & this century. It really ticks me off the media love Dallas gets for proving nothing except that they know how to lose for a sustained period of longevity anyway. 

[southwest1]

Yup, if I ever burn my bridges in INDY, SW1 knows I can claim football asylum in Patriots Country just like Edward Snowden. The signatures of Gopats, VL, Flying Elvis, amfootball, Yehoodi, Snowglobe, JJ, TAPLOOK, & JerodMayo51 will also serve as my diplomatic approval from Vladimir Putin AKA BB & Robert Kraft. Ha! Ha! Thanks guys! 

 

A person always needs a backup contingency plan right? Just Kidding! INDY is my team, but NE is in my top 3 favorite NFL squads to watch on TV.

[amfootball]

No I am not misunderstanding you because I'm only talking about the two approaches since they last won SBs, and how rest vs no rest is overrated lol. Your trying to compare who's team has had overall better success, which I am not.

The Pats post season success has been because their team has been better than the other teams, not because they decided to rest or not rest starters in meaningless games. Because their approach from the early 2000's has been the exact same, but hasnt redulted in any more SBs.

Same for the Colts their success, and lack of success in many instances can't be simplified down resting starters when given the chance. Because we had no rest in the 2010 season and still got bounced from the playoffs.

Hence why I compared the two could have been perfect seasons. Because its a testament to being beat by better teams.

The Pats "approach" has been be the better team lol. The Colts had many deficiencies in Peyton's prime, and we payed for it consistently when the game slows down in the postseason.

I wouldn't personally wouldn't give a rip if we went 16-0 and lost the Superbowl, because its the same outcome. SB or bust as far as I'm concerned. Records that have to be quantified don't really do it for me .

Ok, then we have a difference of opinion. I think a few of those Colts teams from the 2000's were better than the teams they played in the playoffs but because players were rested at the end of the season, they came out flat or out of sync. I believe Manning had eight one and done's with the Colts and five of them were when the Colts were at home as the favorite so I do not see those losses as the Colts being inferior or simply getting beat on any given Sunday. The resting of players factored in and I think many fans in Indy feel the same. Hopefully some will chime in. But I respect your opinion. We just differ.

 

In terms of the 16-0 season vs. winning a SB, I think if the Pats had never won a championship I may feel differently but I would never trade that season in for anything. It sure stunk to lose the final game but the season was historical on so many levels from the winning streak to the offensive points records and single season records by Brady and Moss. SI named that team, the team of the decade for the 2000's even though it did not finish as champs. I am a fan of the game and watching a season like was so special even though it did not end the way we had hoped.