History says no SB if we lose to Indy!

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from bubbakilla. Show bubbakilla's posts

    History says no SB if we lose to Indy!

    I just looked at the numbers for the past few years. since 2001, a requisite for going to the SB has required us beating indy in the regular season. In no year have we lost to them and still made it to the promised land/holy grail. same with indy to a degree. they beat us in 06 and we all know who won it all that year. 
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from choircontrarian. Show choircontrarian's posts

    Re: History says no SB if we lose to Indy!

    i agree with this sentiment. the facts are very clear on this. plus it becomes a confidence and emotional issue. all things being close to equal, i have yet to see indy beat the pats. 06, we were handicapped at WR and it was a fluke in how they came bak and pulled it out. last year, pats shot self uncharacteristically in foot and of course, no BRADY. i just do not see how indy wins. if they do, pats can kiss the SB away, even if they somehow can beat NO... not the same thing. BTW, i see indy losing again in 2 weeks to baltimore and possibly to the broncs also. even if pats lose its last game to houston, with tiebreaker, we will win homefield throughout the playoffs. i think this year, its essential for the pats to get that bye and homefield to maximize the odds in its favor like in 07.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Physics. Show Physics's posts

    Re: History says no SB if we lose to Indy!

    In Response to History says no SB if we lose to Indy!:
    [QUOTE]I just looked at the numbers for the past few years. since 2001, a requisite for going to the SB has required us beating indy in the regular season. In no year have we lost to them and still made it to the promised land/holy grail. same with indy to a degree. they beat us in 06 and we all know who won it all that year. 
    Posted by bubbakilla[/QUOTE]

    This is all pointless. What else was similar with those Super Bowl years?... oh yeah, The Pats had first round playoff byes... "History" also has suggested that teams that lost these sorts of 'key' match-ups have gone on and beat said teams in the playoffs or it was all irrelvant, too, as you note with the Colts in 2006 (though even that took a huge comeback on their part) ... e.g., it is all a matter of picking your spots, for example: 

    Pats losing to the Rams, beating them in the Super Bowl.

    Pats losing to Steelers before beating Steelers in 2004.

    Steelers 2005, losing to Colts, Bengals, before beating Bengals, Colts in playoffs...

    Giants 2007, beating the Pats after losing to them. Also same with Green Bay and Dallas in the playoffs as well, with Dallas beating them not once, but twice.

    I'm just pointing out that the most important factor is making it to the playoffs. And, similarly, one could argue that just giving the Pats a bye makes it that much more likely they reach the super bowl, and that one is just obvious as it is an extra bye week and one fewer game.   
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Physics. Show Physics's posts

    Re: History says no SB if we lose to Indy!

    In Response to Re: History says no SB if we lose to Indy!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to History says no SB if we lose to Indy! :  
    Posted by Physics[/QUOTE]

    With that all said, losing to either Indy or Saints and especially to both seems to make it that much less likely the Pats would obtain a first round bye. I don't believe in a 'home-field' advantage other than the one at a place like Foxboro due to the extreme elements. Nevertheless, I don't think that would really 'change' a game too much against a team like Denver, the Steelers. Home field track certainly sides with Indy and NO (in a superbowl if they reach it). I'm guessing the 5th/6th seed at current is a team like San Diego, loser of Steelers/Bengals, Ravens. I'm not really convinced if I'm the Pats I want to have to have an extra game against a Ravens, Chargers or Steelers-type team as a good path to a Super Bowl.  These are all solid teams that should be able to walk into Foxboro and put up a good game snow or no snow.   
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from choircontrarian. Show choircontrarian's posts

    Re: History says no SB if we lose to Indy!

    In Response to Re: History says no SB if we lose to Indy!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: History says no SB if we lose to Indy! : With that all said, losing to either Indy or Saints and especially to both seems to make it that much less likely the Pats would obtain a first round bye. I don't believe in a 'home-field' advantage other than the one at a place like Foxboro due to the extreme elements. Nevertheless, I don't think that would really 'change' a game too much against a team like Denver, the Steelers. Home field track certainly sides with Indy and NO (in a superbowl if they reach it). I'm guessing the 5th/6th seed at current is a team like San Diego, loser of Steelers/Bengals, Ravens. I'm not really convinced if I'm the Pats I want to have to have an extra game against a Ravens, Chargers or Steelers-type team as a good path to a Super Bowl.  These are all solid teams that should be able to walk into Foxboro and put up a good game snow or no snow.   
    Posted by Physics[/QUOTE]steelers.. yep. can can see them coming up to fxboro and competg in playoffs. ravens or chargers? absolutely not. same with prickly manning. he aint coming to foxboro and winning a playoff game esp if its under 40 degrees, rainy or windy. going on the road for these pats will be an issue. NO could not win in NE if they had to go there. guess the indy thing is more about it being a measuring stick thing and when we play them.. talkg november usually. u often are what u are by then. these 2 know each other so well and fact they only play once makes it very telling. they show off each other's weaknesses in a way others simply cant esp on defense with brady and manning pulling the triggers on offense. both teams are #1 and 2respectively for allowg the fewest points in the league. very tellling. cant just b a coincidence when its workd out so perfectly for all these years... perhps if bob sanders and freeney were both out and both were able to come bak perfectly healthy for the playoffs u may have a point, if the pats were to shred their defense. both teams pretty much are what they will be for the rest of the year. more about buildg or losing confidence for your side or your future opponents in terms of how they view u.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonPatriots. Show BostonPatriots's posts

    Re: History says no SB if we lose to Indy!

    The only reason we need to beat Indy is that we are starting to approach the two year mark since we last beat a "playoff quality" team...despite our 11-5 record last year we lost all of our quality match-ups (I can't put the Fish in this group, who we did beat once, as they were essentially backed into the playoff by beating the Pats early in the year).  And this year it has yet to happen (i.e. I don't think any of the teams we have defeated to this point are playoff bound teams).  I have a more confidence we can get over this hump with TB at QB, and we will see Sunday.  However, if the other cylinders don't start to fire in big games then the Pats will be the 2009 version of the Fish...one-and-done.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from krismk. Show krismk's posts

    Re: History says no SB if we lose to Indy!

    I think they have to beat either Indy or NO in the next 3 weeks...Indy being more valuable.  Losing both puts the division back into play.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Paul_K. Show Paul_K's posts

    Re: History says no SB if we lose to Indy!

    History says that when Bill Belichick meets a team for the second time in one season, he generally beats them, often badly.

    Exception:  Giants, and that was a close call.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Macrawn. Show Macrawn's posts

    Re: History says no SB if we lose to Indy!

    In Response to Re: History says no SB if we lose to Indy!:
    [QUOTE]History says that when Bill Belichick meets a team for the second time in one season, he generally beats them, often badly. Exception:  Giants, and that was a close call.
    Posted by Paul_K[/QUOTE]

    Now that stat has statistical value and support over the long term. The indy stat has none. I'd actually say that if the Pats lose this one, a playoff rematch will tip in their favor. 
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from choircontrarian. Show choircontrarian's posts

    Re: History says no SB if we lose to Indy!

    In Response to Re: History says no SB if we lose to Indy!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: History says no SB if we lose to Indy! : Now that stat has statistical value and support over the long term. The indy stat has none. I'd actually say that if the Pats lose this one, a playoff rematch will tip in their favor. 
    Posted by Macrawn[/QUOTE]statistics say when bel has beaten INDY once in regular season, he has gone on to also beat them up in the playoffs. this has lots of statistical value in relation to indy SPECIFICALLY, not necessarily to others generally... got it? 
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Wizardsjag. Show Wizardsjag's posts

    Re: History says no SB if we lose to Indy!

    History also says both #1 seeds won't be making a trip to this years Super Bowl. You have to go all the way back to 1993 when two #1 seeds hooked up in the big game.

    I think if the Pats can get their red zone offense clicking in the next few weeks for the rest of the season and if the defense can keep teams to a 14 point average the 2nd half of the season we might not need homefield to get to the Super Bowl. Win or lose next weekend.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from gmbill. Show gmbill's posts

    Re: History says no SB if we lose to Indy!

    In Response to History says no SB if we lose to Indy!:
    [QUOTE]I just looked at the numbers for the past few years. since 2001, a requisite for going to the SB has required us beating indy in the regular season. In no year have we lost to them and still made it to the promised land/holy grail. same with indy to a degree. they beat us in 06 and we all know who won it all that year. 
    Posted by bubbakilla[/QUOTE]

    Good things we are not historians! We make history. History of the Pats said for many years before BB and TB we sucked. That History does not count now, we made new history and will make it again this week and this year.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from RETROP. Show RETROP's posts

    Re: History says no SB if we lose to Indy!

    In Response to Re: History says no SB if we lose to Indy!:
    [QUOTE]The only reason we need to beat Indy is that we are starting to approach the two year mark since we last beat a "playoff quality" team...despite our 11-5 record last year we lost all of our quality match-ups (I can't put the Fish in this group, who we did beat once, as they were essentially backed into the playoff by beating the Pats early in the year).  And this year it has yet to happen (i.e. I don't think any of the teams we have defeated to this point are playoff bound teams).  I have a more confidence we can get over this hump with TB at QB, and we will see Sunday.  However, if the other cylinders don't start to fire in big games then the Pats will be the 2009 version of the Fish...one-and-done.
    Posted by BostonPatriots[/QUOTE]

    BoPa,
    In this sea of insanity, your post stands out.  Otherwise, all I would say is that the easy road for the Steelers to SB Polamalu (43) is to get a match up along the way with the Patriots.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonPatriots. Show BostonPatriots's posts

    Re: History says no SB if we lose to Indy!

    In Response to Re: History says no SB if we lose to Indy!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: History says no SB if we lose to Indy! : BoPa, In this sea of insanity, your post stands out.  Otherwise, all I would say is that the easy road for the Steelers to SB Polamalu (43) is to get a match up along the way with the Patriots.
    Posted by RETROP[/QUOTE]

    Thanks?  But I'm not so sure about that easy road you speak of...
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from K-max. Show K-max's posts

    Re: History says no SB if we lose to Indy!

    In Response to Re: History says no SB if we lose to Indy!:
    [QUOTE]The only reason we need to beat Indy is that we are starting to approach the two year mark since we last beat a "playoff quality" team...despite our 11-5 record last year we lost all of our quality match-ups (I can't put the Fish in this group, who we did beat once, as they were essentially backed into the playoff by beating the Pats early in the year).  And this year it has yet to happen (i.e. I don't think any of the teams we have defeated to this point are playoff bound teams).  I have a more confidence we can get over this hump with TB at QB, and we will see Sunday.  However, if the other cylinders don't start to fire in big games then the Pats will be the 2009 version of the Fish...one-and-done.
    Posted by BostonPatriots[/QUOTE]

    BP, Atlanta is currently sitting pretty for at least a wild card.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonPatriots. Show BostonPatriots's posts

    Re: History says no SB if we lose to Indy!

    In Response to Re: History says no SB if we lose to Indy!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: History says no SB if we lose to Indy! : BP, Atlanta is currently sitting pretty for at least a wild card.
    Posted by K-max[/QUOTE]

    Atlanta - if thats all we've got I don't get much comfort...they have lost to all of their quality opponents, have played a weak schedule in a weak conference and are lead by a good but young and inexperienced QB....18 months and counting IMO
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from MaritimePatsFan. Show MaritimePatsFan's posts

    Re: History says no SB if we lose to Indy!

    Everything on this thread is ridiculous. We won the SB the years we beat Indy in the regular season because we had the best team in the NFL that year. So if I started a thread on here where the title said:

    "History says no SB if we don't have the best team."

    or

    "History says we will win the game if we score more points."

    What would you think? The only difference is the way the title is worded. We are both stating the obvious, one just in a more roundabout way than the other.
     

Share