NY Giants and NE Patriots

[mpare]

It's now half-time and the Patriots are in a real battle, the outcome of which is far from certain. If the Giants keep playing as they've been doing, they could prevent the Pats from going undefeated. I would not have believed this possible.

[Ginker]

Its been a good game so far.

[Weazl]

Very good - Go Giants Go!!!

[hoolio]

Goes right back to Moss after a tough drop... Couple Records on that pass?

[Weazl]

These guys are hella good .....

[mpare]

That was quite a game, and quite a victory for the Pats.

[Pinshark]

Great game! The Pats are simply amazing.

[hoolio]

If the Eli Manning from the first 1/2 shows up in the playoffs, and Shockey comes back, the Giants might make a good run in the NFC.

[Hacker]

16-0 Baby first time ever since they went to a 16 game regular season!!

[sillywilly]

there are teams that don't win that many games in 3 years!!! Amazing season. I think they are in for a dog fight (insert vick joke) PIT, SD or INDY. They were likly play two of these three teams.

Then in the finals they will face DAL, GB or the giants I think... So many teams that can stop them.. I hope they win it all but it would be nice to see GB get one more.

[fundonny]

Even a 16-0 regular season will be meaningless unless they win it all. I don't think they will personally. Much better teams then Giants in the AFC playoffs!

[EDSGOLF]

Great game. Now the Pats have even more pressure to win the SB.

[mpare]

It is difficult to see why a 16-0 regular season record would be meaningless unless you simply don't like the Patriots. In your case, it is obvious that you don't like either the team or their coach. Obviously, winning the SB would make their season even more exceptional, but losing the SB (which I don't think they will do) would not make their accomplishments inconsequential.

Do you have a team that you think can beat them or are you picking the field? For my part, I'd like to see the Patriots and the Colts playing in the SB again this year.

Even a 16-0 regular season will be meaningless unless they win it all. I don't think they will personally. Much better teams then Giants in the AFC playoffs!

[nhwott5]

well first off, the pats and the colts can not play in the SB, same confernce so that is impossible,
now yes the 16-0 is a great feet, but if they do not run the table in the playoffs, well it dfoes somewhat become meaningless, you are not a "great" team unless you win the playoffs. that is where legends are made and dynasties are created. not in the regular season.

having said this, i think they will win it all, but it will ceratainly be interesting and quite a fight to do so

is the fins had not gone 17-0 and won the bowl, would they be as great? i doubt it

[jonf]

It is difficult to see why a 16-0 regular season record would be meaningless unless you simply don't like the Patriots. In your case, it is obvious that you don't like either the team or their coach. Obviously, winning the SB would make their season even more exceptional, but losing the SB (which I don't think they will do) would not make their accomplishments inconsequential.

Do you have a team that you think can beat them or are you picking the field? For my part, I'd like to see the Patriots and the Colts playing in the SB again this year.

I have to agree completely with Donny. 16-0 is great, but it's meaningless if they don't win the big one. As a member of the 72 Dolphins said yesterday...they still have a long way to go to get to that level...the exhibition season is over...now the real season begins. It's a nice accomplishment, but I think every man in the Patriots locker room will agree that it means nothing if they can't win the Superbowl. You play for championships, not records.

[sensfan63]

well first off, the pats and the colts can not play in the SB, same confernce so that is impossible,
now yes the 16-0 is a great feet, but if they do not run the table in the playoffs, well it dfoes somewhat become meaningless, you are not a "great" team unless you win the playoffs. that is where legends are made and dynasties are created. not in the regular season.

having said this, i think they will win it all, but it will ceratainly be interesting and quite a fight to do so

is the fins had not gone 17-0 and won the bowl, would they be as great? i doubt it

In my opinion, and in the opinion of many many others, the Patriots are already legendary with their 3 Super Bowls in 4 years, in this new "salary cap era." They are THE dynasty of the 21st century, so far. I'm not sure how anyone could say any different.

Therefore the perfect 16-0 regular season of 2007 is just another accomplishment for a team that has many...

[fundonny]

I agree they have (had) a little dynasty thing going on, but a 16-0 season isn't any different then 10-6 if you don't win the Super Bowl.

In my opinion, and in the opinion of many many others, the Patriots are already legendary with their 3 Super Bowls in 4 years, in this new "salary cap era." They are THE dynasty of the 21st century, so far. I'm not sure how anyone could say any different.

Therefore the perfect 16-0 regular season of 2007 is just another accomplishment for a team that has many...

[spackler]

The Super Bowl is the big picture, and the Pats know that, but 16-0 is a big accomplishment. It's never been done before, and the teams they beat just make it that much more impressive. The other division champs in the AFC, depending on the current game, another AFC wild card team, plus the NFC 1 seed, and two NFC wild card teams. That's 7 playoff teams if the Browns make it. They didn't play any creampuff schedule and they still dominated. People will remember it even if they don't win the Super Bowl.

[mpare]

You're right, but that is the SB I'd like to see. In my mind they are the two best teams in the NFL. But we'll only know that after the game has been played.

well first off, the pats and the colts can not play in the SB, same confernce so that is impossible ..

[Indio]

I am not a fooltball fan and very seldome watch even the SB but I tell you, this run to 16-0 run sure got my attention. I don't care what sport it is in, a perfect season, with the era of caps and highly paid players is no insignificant feat.

How anyone can say it means nothing unless they do not win the SB baffles me but hey, to each his/her own

[Hacker]

I agree they have (had) a little dynasty thing going on, but a 16-0 season isn't any different then 10-6 if you don't win the Super Bowl.

Come on now Donny you're not being analytical there.

What do you think the Vegas odds are for a team going 16-0 in the regular season versus winning the super bowl?? We both know that the odds of going 16-0 are astronomically larger than winning a Super Bowl.

Someone wins the Super Bowl every year. A perfect regular season happens once every 35 years and in the salary cap era I think it will be a lot longer before we see another one.

[fundonny]

If they don't win the Super Bowl, who would you say is the better team when history sees it? The 85 Bears that went 18-1 with the Super Bowl or the 2007 Pats that (if they lose) go 16-1 or 17-1 or 18-1?

Yes, they'll go down as the SECOND team to have a perfect regular season, but if they lose they won't be a perfect team.

Come on now Donny you're not being analytical there.

What do you think the Vegas odds are for a team going 16-0 in the regular season versus winning the super bowl?? We both know that the odds of going 16-0 are astronomically larger than winning a Super Bowl.

Someone wins the Super Bowl every year. A perfect regular season happens once every 35 years and in the salary cap era I think it will be a lot longer before we see another one.

[fundonny]

Just to inform, the Pats played 6 playoff teams. Indy played 7 I believe. Indy also played more teams with a .500 or better record. And Indy's division was the toughest in football while the Pats was the easiest. Just showing that Indy had a tougher road to 13-3.

The Super Bowl is the big picture, and the Pats know that, but 16-0 is a big accomplishment. It's never been done before, and the teams they beat just make it that much more impressive. The other division champs in the AFC, depending on the current game, another AFC wild card team, plus the NFC 1 seed, and two NFC wild card teams. That's 7 playoff teams if the Browns make it. They didn't play any creampuff schedule and they still dominated. People will remember it even if they don't win the Super Bowl.

[spackler]

Just to inform, the Pats played 6 playoff teams. Indy played 7 I believe. Indy also played more teams with a .500 or better record. And Indy's division was the toughest in football while the Pats was the easiest. Just showing that Indy had a tougher road to 13-3.

Like I said, it depended on the outcome of the Colts-Titans game. Indy's division was the toughest, but they also got to play the NFC south and the AFC west while NE got to play the NFC east and AFC north, much tougher division respectively. Anyway, we're talking mousefarts here. The Pats did not have an easy road to 16-0 and they beat every top team in the NFL, with the exception of the Jags and the Pack, to get there.

[mpare]

You're right. Indy did not have an easy schedule, but neither did New England. Both played 7 teams with winning records. If I'm not mistaken, Cleveland was the one team in that category that the Pats played that did not get into the playoffs.

Just to inform, the Pats played 6 playoff teams. Indy played 7 I believe. Indy also played more teams with a .500 or better record. And Indy's division was the toughest in football while the Pats was the easiest. Just showing that Indy had a tougher road to 13-3.

[Hacker]

If they don't win the Super Bowl, who would you say is the better team when history sees it? The 85 Bears that went 18-1 with the Super Bowl or the 2007 Pats that (if they lose) go 16-1 or 17-1 or 18-1?

Yes, they'll go down as the SECOND team to have a perfect regular season, but if they lose they won't be a perfect team.

Donny, my point is that a perfect 16-0 regular season is a hellofa lot different than a run of the mill 10-6 season.

A 16-0 regular season has never been done before.

........and the first team to have a perfect regular season but lose in the play-offs didn't play 16 games (as you know).

[fundonny]

They could only play what the schedule gave them Hack, and they ran it all the way to the big ring they wear on their fingers. That's the feat.

And the more I think about dynasties, the more I believe there have only been three in my lifetime (or close to my lifetime). The UCLA dynasty, the Boston Celtic dynasty, and the Chicago Bull dynasty. Maybe basketball isn't comparable, but they did set a lofty standard.

[Hacker]

They could only play what the schedule gave them Hack, and they ran it all the way to the big ring they wear on their fingers. That's the feat.

And the more I think about dynasties, the more I believe there have only been three in my lifetime (or close to my lifetime). The UCLA dynasty, the Boston Celtic dynasty, and the Chicago Bull dynasty. Maybe basketball isn't comparable, but they did set a lofty standard.

OK, so 3 World Championships (with a possiblilty of a fourth) PLUS a perfect, never been accomplished before 16-0 regular season all within the span of 6 years in a salary capped sport doesn't qualify as a dynasty??

You're tough Donny

What about the Edmonton Eskimos' 6 Championships in 8 years, including 5 in a row??

or the New York Islanders 4 consecutive Stanley Cups in the 80's

or the Oilers winning 5 cups in 7 years in the 80's

how about Canada's World Jr. Domination??

[fundonny]

I associate a dynasty with absolute no question domination. Guess I'm a tough critic.

[mpare]

You must be young, since you didn't include the Montreal Canadiens' dynasty. Between 1951 and 1960 they made the finals every year and won 6 Stanley Cups, including 5 straight between 1956 and 1960. If that's not a dynasty, I don't know what is.

I should have added the New York Yankees, whom I did not root for as a youngster, but loved to hate. From 1947 to 1964 they played in the World Series 15 times, winning 10 times. That is an astounding record.

I associate a dynasty with absolute no question domination. Guess I'm a tough critic.