So the question is...Did Belichick sacrifice a Super Bowl in a quest for an undefeated season?

stevek

I say "Yes" he did.

stevek

Should have rested your starters Billy Boy when you had the chance - Your team ran out of gas!

gotsparks09

Nope.

Face it....the G-Men were simply the better team tonight. No ifs ands or buts.

1neatstuff

joestalin

Reminds me of the 04 Steelers...simply the best team in the playoffs and peaked at the right time. Chargers and Jags beat up the
Patsies but couldn't win, the Giants finished them off.

JS

sagard

Doesn't hold water. The Giants went all out that game as well. Then won four straight road games. Eli Manning getting out of that third down sack attempt before throwing it up for grabs is going to be on TV for ever.

Connecticoin

No he did not. There were 3 close calls -- unfortunately, they did not survive the 4th.

I actually am happy for the Giants -- class team and organization, well deserved win by a great coach who made a quick winner out of an expansion team.

What disappoints me the most is that Don Shula and Mercury Morris get to pop those damn Champange bottles and likely flap their gums about the only perfect NFL season until they die.

Connecticoin

<< <i>Doesn't hold water. The Giants went all out that game as well. Then won four straight road games. Eli Manning getting out of that third down sack attempt before throwing it up for grabs is going to be on TV for ever. >>



No sh*t. I cannot believe they could not make that tackle.

thegemmintman

I guess it's up for debate, but the Pats got two weeks off after week 17, two home games, and then another two weeks off before tonight.

Bosox1976

Another week of rest wouldn't have helped the Pats O-Line tonight. They were beat on the first series and the last, and most in between. Don't know why they didn't dress the third tight end and use that power running game like they did on the Chargers. I guess they really thought they could pass on the Giants.

mnolan

how many holding call tonight

stevek

Belichick played his starters even after wrapping up home field advantage in the playoffs. That was a mistake and it's not even debatable. He used up his players unnecessarily and that can't be denied. The Patriots looked flat in the playoffs and had expended just enough energy and got nicked up just enough to finally lose. Players are much, MUCH. more likely to get nicked up when they're tired, when their bodies are tired versus when they are fresher and rested.

If this situation ever happens again...coaches will and should place winning the Super Bowl ahead of an undefeated season. Belichick let his gigantic ego in a quest for an undefeated season interfere with winning the Super Bowl. Of course he thought he could have his cake and eat it to...he was wrong.



-

mnolan

but know the 72 dolphins can keep talking

gotsparks09

<< <i>Belichick played his starters even after wrapping up home field advantage in the playoffs. That was a mistake and it's not even debatable. He used up his players unnecessarily and that can't be denied. The Patriots looked flat in the playoffs and had expended just enough energy and got nicked up just enough to finally lose. Players are much, MUCH. more likely to get nicked up when they're tired, when their bodies are tired versus when they are fresher and rested.

If this situation ever happens again...coaches will and should place winning the Super Bowl ahead of an undefeated season. Belichick let his gigantic ego in a quest for an undefeated season interfere with winning the Super Bowl. Of course he thought he could have his cake and eat it to...he was wrong.



- >>




Actually, this IS debatable.

Point #1...Some would argue that a team's main objective is to WIN. If you're not playing a game to win it, then you're disgracing the integrity of your team, city, and the game itself. It's the same reason why teams who play championship series (ie - the World Series/NBA Finals), don't "wait to win it at home."

Point #2...It's often said when you give starters a week or two off, it throws off their rhythm.

SDavid

Stalin nailed it - it's all about peaking at the right time.

It's tough to sustain the same level of play when you peak in October or November; every team starts planning for you extra hard and teams around the league spend that much more time searching for your soft spots. Plus, it's only natural to get overconfident.

Bosox1976

They said the same thing about Coughlin after the Pats game and before the Tampa game - 2 injured starters, blah, blah, blah ...

rube26105

<but know the 72 dolphins can keep talking>

good they deserve it, obviously the pats didnt, i thought they would run off with it myself, glad i didnt bet ,i woulda lost!

stevek

<< <i>

<< <i>Belichick played his starters even after wrapping up home field advantage in the playoffs. That was a mistake and it's not even debatable. He used up his players unnecessarily and that can't be denied. The Patriots looked flat in the playoffs and had expended just enough energy and got nicked up just enough to finally lose. Players are much, MUCH. more likely to get nicked up when they're tired, when their bodies are tired versus when they are fresher and rested.

If this situation ever happens again...coaches will and should place winning the Super Bowl ahead of an undefeated season. Belichick let his gigantic ego in a quest for an undefeated season interfere with winning the Super Bowl. Of course he thought he could have his cake and eat it to...he was wrong.



- >>




Actually, this IS debatable.

Point #1...Some would argue that a team's main objective is to WIN. If you're not playing a game to win it, then you're disgracing the integrity of your team, city, and the game itself. It's the same reason why teams who play championship series (ie - the World Series/NBA Finals), don't "wait to win it at home."

Point #2...It's often said when you give starters a week or two off, it throws off their rhythm. >>



"A team's main objective is to WIN".....a championship, not each individual game....every sports fan knows this.....it's NOT debatable.....especially on games at the end of the regular season when home field advantage is wrapped up and nothing can be gained by winning certain games...only something can be lost due to injury. You are dead wrong on your first point.

You are wrong on your second point as well although your point here is more logical....but it is still incorrect. Brady's ankle was obviously bothering him in that game and affected his performance. Would Brady have suffered that bad ankle if he were rested? No doubt the odds would have been less of him having the ankle problem if his body was stronger, and if he would have been rested instead of going all out and playing in meaningless games, and also meaningless situations in games when the game was clearly won. Remember when Belichick was still playing Brady and the starters against the Redskins with a 50 point lead? - That was asinine and crap such as that is bad coaching - Belichick did that a number of times during the season, and no doubt in my mind in the end it cost him a Super Bowl.

You watch if this ever happens again...no NFL coach will ever again try for an undefeated season at the possible risk of losing a championship. It was bad decision making on Belichick's part - plain & simple.


-

Connecticoin

<< <i>Belichick played his starters even after wrapping up home field advantage in the playoffs. That was a mistake and it's not even debatable. He used up his players unnecessarily and that can't be denied. The Patriots looked flat in the playoffs and had expended just enough energy and got nicked up just enough to finally lose. Players are much, MUCH. more likely to get nicked up when they're tired, when their bodies are tired versus when they are fresher and rested.

If this situation ever happens again...coaches will and should place winning the Super Bowl ahead of an undefeated season. Belichick let his gigantic ego in a quest for an undefeated season interfere with winning the Super Bowl. Of course he thought he could have his cake and eat it to...he was wrong.



- >>



Bullsh*t. Ask the one-and-done Sucs about resting players.

stevek

<< <i>

<< <i>Belichick played his starters even after wrapping up home field advantage in the playoffs. That was a mistake and it's not even debatable. He used up his players unnecessarily and that can't be denied. The Patriots looked flat in the playoffs and had expended just enough energy and got nicked up just enough to finally lose. Players are much, MUCH. more likely to get nicked up when they're tired, when their bodies are tired versus when they are fresher and rested.

If this situation ever happens again...coaches will and should place winning the Super Bowl ahead of an undefeated season. Belichick let his gigantic ego in a quest for an undefeated season interfere with winning the Super Bowl. Of course he thought he could have his cake and eat it to...he was wrong.



- >>



Bullsh*t. Ask the one-and-done Sucs about resting players. >>



Apples and oranges. You're "comparing" the lowly Bucs with the powerhouse Patriots? Ridiculous. The Patriots didn't need to keep playing all out in every game to keep their rythym...especially at the end of the season...they had plenty of "rythym" and didn't need any more. If anything, Belichick could have played them for a quarter and then rested them.

So you're saying Belichick should have left the starters in, winning by 50 points in the Redskins game? That would be absolutely pathetic to think that. And Belichick left his starters in too long in a number of games.

Belichick made a major mistake here, a MAJOR mistake - and Patriots fans will realize this once the dust clears from this game and season. At some point there comes a time when it's better, MUCH better to rest players versus overworking them, and Belichick clearly crossed the line of overworking his players...and it's not even close.

Egomaniac Belichick cost his team a Super Bowl - there really isn't much doubt about it.



-

Connecticoin

Coughlin could have rested his players in Week 17 but chose not to -- and we all know how badly that turned out.

perkdog

Without reading this thread I will just answer the question right here...

NO freakin way. How could that game have any bearing on the Super Bowl? Had we lost the Divisional playoff game maybe the argument could have been made but we ran the table and stayed healthy until our 2 week layoff for the Super Bowl.


No chance