Quantcast

NFL : Pats vs Giants

LordOpie

MOTHER HEN
Oct 17, 2002
21,033
0
Denver
Some idiot on Sporting News radio says:
-- Pats should rest key players. What if they get hurt? They should focus on the playoffs cuz if they go 16-0, but then fail to win the SB, what was the point.
-- Giants should play. They have a long-term proud history and should stop the Pats from the perfect season.

Does anyone else see the inconsistency in his statements?


Everyone says, "It's all about the SB!". Well, what's after that? I think a perfect season + SB is after that. If you want to be the best team without a doubt, you push it to a higher level.

Should the Pats go for it? Should the Giants try to stop them or rest up for the Wild Card game?
 

MountainDrew

Monkey
Aug 15, 2007
471
0
Pats have everything to lose and the Giants have nothing to gain.

Giants are locked into their playoff position. If they beat the Pats, then they beat the Pats. If they lose to Tampa Bay, then beating the Pats means absolutly nothing.
 

BadDNA

hophead
Mar 31, 2006
4,168
113
Winning.
Patriots should definitely go for it. 16-0 even without the SB is an admirable accomplishment but winning the SB on top of it would just prove them to be beyond a doubt the best team.

As much as I'd love to see the Pats walk off with a perfect season, I don't think the Giants should just roll over and let them. If you're going to do that why not just forfeit? I think the Giants owe it to all their fans to play the best game they possibly can and do their best to prevent the Pats from having a 16-0 season.
 

LordOpie

MOTHER HEN
Oct 17, 2002
21,033
0
Denver
As much as I'd love to see the Pats walk off with a perfect season, I don't think the Giants should just roll over and let them. If you're going to do that why not just forfeit? I think the Giants owe it to all their fans to play the best game they possibly can and do their best to prevent the Pats from having a 16-0 season.
Does that mean you're saying the Giants should play all starters the entire game?
 

Mumbles

Monkey
Jul 17, 2002
236
0
Minneapolis, MN
the Pats should definitely go for it. they have so many awesome accomplishments they could achieve during that game - perfect season, 19 game winning streak, Brady tying or beating Manning's TD throw record, Moss tying or breaking Rice's TD reception record.

and i think the giants should as well, because they have very little to lose... aside from key players getting hurt (the New Englander in me makes an editorial comment.. "what key players :busted: "... but i'll keep that to myself ;) ) they have a chance to unthrone one of the best football teams ever to take a field.

not that they will, because it's the giants...:pirate2:
 

LordOpie

MOTHER HEN
Oct 17, 2002
21,033
0
Denver
Damn right the Giants should play all starters.

They are the last chance to spoil the asshat's perfect season.
But is it a good decision for the Giants organization?


As a football fan, I'd like to see a good game Saturday. I'd like to see the Giants try to stop the Pats... but I'll be rooting for the Pats to set all kinds of records.
 

robdamanii

OMG! <3 Tom Brady!
May 2, 2005
10,681
0
Out of my mind, back in a moment.
But is it a good decision for the Giants organization?


As a football fan, I'd like to see a good game Saturday. I'd like to see the Giants try to stop the Pats... but I'll be rooting for the Pats to set all kinds of records.
It is. It could potentially be a Superbowl matchup and it's important to take measure of each other.

I'll be praying Tom Brady breaks his leg.
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
36,463
3,228
Sleazattle
Both teams could be 1-14 or 15-0 and they still should play all their best players as hard as they can. Fans and networks shell out gajillions of dollars to watch those games. They honestly owe the paying public to play like it was a playoff game.
 

deadatbirth

Monkey
Aug 29, 2007
657
0
In a van down by the river
obviously they should go for the win regardless if they are going to be 16-0. thankfully for them, losing a game now doesnt mean anything now really.
but 16 wins in a season doesnt mean squat if you dont win the playoff games inlcuding the SB
 

Mumbles

Monkey
Jul 17, 2002
236
0
Minneapolis, MN
obviously they should go for the win regardless if they are going to be 16-0. thankfully for them, losing a game now doesnt mean anything now really.
but 16 wins in a season doesnt mean squat if you dont win the playoff games inlcuding the SB
I dont think it means "squat", its certainly not a crowning achievement for a season, because that's what the superbowl IS, but it's certainly an accomplishment to be proud of regardless. being one of TWO teams in the entire history of the sport to do it is impressive. or maybe i'm just too impressed with numbers ;)
 

jasride

Turbo Monkey
Sep 23, 2006
1,069
4
PA
I'd hate to pay regular season ticket price for preseason player performance. Buckle your chin straps and play some football.
 

J-Dubs

Monkey
Jul 10, 2006
702
0
Salem, MA
I'll preface this by saying those who hate the Pats are jealous.

They should both play their starters. This is a battle, just like any other game, and should be treated as such.
If the Eagles and Ravens showed us anything is that if you play the Pats with all you have and show some balls, then there are no guarantees. The Giants owe it to themselves to try. Besides, that fragile Eli needs to proove something to his team and city.

On the Pats side, the records do mean something. Manning's record should be in the hands of the better QB, Shula and Morris can eat a bag of smashed @-h0les, and Moss's transformation should be rewarded. There's the prize of a perfect season and a dynasty to think about too.

21 games was the streak before. Lets beat that too and set the record for most records broken.
 

I Are Baboon

Run, Forrest, Run!
Aug 6, 2001
29,242
1,708
MTB New England
It's great to see all the Patriot haters getting so fumed. I really hope the Pats go 19-0 just to see all the whining.

That said, I can't imagine the Pats will be sitting their starters. I think the starters would revolt.
 

deadatbirth

Monkey
Aug 29, 2007
657
0
In a van down by the river
I dont think it means "squat", its certainly not a crowning achievement for a season, because that's what the superbowl IS, but it's certainly an accomplishment to be proud of regardless. being one of TWO teams in the entire history of the sport to do it is impressive. or maybe i'm just too impressed with numbers ;)
what i meant was that winning 16 regular season games is great, but it doesnt mean too much if a team that is say, 13-2 like the Colts or Cowboys win the SB and didnt go undefeated in the regular season.
 

Mumbles

Monkey
Jul 17, 2002
236
0
Minneapolis, MN
It's great to see all the Patriot haters getting so fumed. I really hope the Pats go 19-0 just to see all the whining.

That said, I can't imagine the Pats will be sitting their starters. I think the starters would revolt.
i wonder what the dynamic between belichick and brady, or belichick and moss, or brady + moss is. who wears the pants, really?! :)
 

Echo

crooked smile
Jul 10, 2002
11,818
1
Slacking at work
Manning's record should be in the hands of the better QB
:rofl:

That could be the funniest thing I've heard all year. You whine about people hating on the Pats because they're jealous, then you jump right in and start hating on Peyton Manning saying he isn't a great quarterback. Where do you people come from?

Usually when there's someone that ignorant and belligerent in a football conversation, they are wearing a Steelers jacket.
 

LordOpie

MOTHER HEN
Oct 17, 2002
21,033
0
Denver
Both teams could be 1-14 or 15-0 and they still should play all their best players as hard as they can. Fans and networks shell out gajillions of dollars to watch those games. They honestly owe the paying public to play like it was a playoff game.
I disagree, because...
how's Denver's season doing? :monkeydance:
As a Denver fan, I'd much rather they play their best, but with players on the bubble or those with unknown potential. I'd rather the coaching staff test those players so have a much better idea of what they're dealing with in the off-season.

Even if that means that MN has an easy ride into the playoffs, which is a must win for them.
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
36,463
3,228
Sleazattle
:rofl:

That could be the funniest thing I've heard all year. You whine about people hating on the Pats because they're jealous, then you jump right in and start hating on Peyton Manning saying he isn't a great quarterback. Where do you people come from?

Usually when there's someone that ignorant and belligerent in a football conversation, they are wearing a Steelers jacket.

You are just too close to Pittsburgh. You should hear all the people around here predicting a Redskins superbowl win. You'd probably hear the same thing about the Bills but people that delusional are typically institutionalized.

Edit: Actually anyone wearing a football jacket is probably a douche bag.
 

LordOpie

MOTHER HEN
Oct 17, 2002
21,033
0
Denver
It's great to see all the Patriot haters getting so fumed. I really hope the Pats go 19-0 just to see all the whining.
Amen!

I was a Dolfan since birth and hated the JETS more, but still hated the Pats. Even so, I'm rooting for the Pats just cuz there are so many haters and whiners.
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
36,463
3,228
Sleazattle
I disagree, because...


As a Denver fan, I'd much rather they play their best, but with players on the bubble or those with unknown potential. I'd rather the coaching staff test those players so have a much better idea of what they're dealing with in the off-season.

Even if that means that MN has an easy ride into the playoffs, which is a must win for them.
That is what the pre season is for.

They need to play hard especially if they are playing a team that needs the game.
 

LordOpie

MOTHER HEN
Oct 17, 2002
21,033
0
Denver
That is what the pre season is for.
Except that more info before the next draft would be valuable.

They need to play hard especially if they are playing a team that needs the game.
As a football fan, I agree 100%.

But as a fan of a team, I'd rather the team do what's best for the team, league be damned.

It's like when baseball teams call up minor league players in September. Is that fair? Should their be rules in place that starters play a minimum number of minutes per game?
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
36,463
3,228
Sleazattle
Except that more info before the next draft would be valuable.


As a football fan, I agree 100%.

But as a fan of a team, I'd rather the team do what's best for the team, league be damned.

It's like when baseball teams call up minor league players in September. Is that fair? Should their be rules in place that starters play a minimum number of minutes per game?
Most teams that are out of it actually do play hard, so it isn't that much of an issue.
 

J-Dubs

Monkey
Jul 10, 2006
702
0
Salem, MA
For the record. Peyton IS a great QB. You misunderstood.
It's just that Tom Brady IS better Peyton, and being a lifelong (since 86 anyway) Pats fan, that booger pickin' goober makes too many commercials. There, I said it.
 

.Pit Steelers.

Nostradumbass
Jun 18, 2006
1,431
0
Hawaii
I think the gaints can win, as long as manning throws less then 10 passses and they just hand the ball to there 6'4 270 pound running back Brandon Jacobs all day.
 

.Pit Steelers.

Nostradumbass
Jun 18, 2006
1,431
0
Hawaii
Sure, the ultimate goal is to win the SB, but 19-0 is like doubling that accomplishment.

Let's say the Pats rest this Saturday and lose the game. Then they go on and easily roll over everyone on their way to a SB win. They will forever look back and regret not going for that perfect season. This opportunity might not ever come around again. They will go for it.

Also, I am sick of people comparing them to the '72 Dolphins. This Pats team would destroy them. As would most other modern NFL teams. With the salaries current players get (many players back then only made $13k and had to get off season jobs. With no guarantees of a high salary they probably didn't get all the best athletes or their best efforts.) free agency, and training regimes, I'd say the top 4 teams of the past 10 years could beat them (and even a few college teams). Sure the '72 team looked good because they were playing inferior opponents. College teams look good too but they would get destroyed by a modern NFL team.
Roll over everyone? Please. They should have lost to the ravens, jets, and eagles...Steelers if they had all starters.
 

jimmydean

The Official Meat of Ridemonkey
Sep 10, 2001
29,429
2,007
Portland, OR
I hate any time a team doesn't play all players. Pulling punches is weak. If you are totally kicking ass, then give the bench some playing time. But starters are called "starters" for a reason, right?
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,183
1
TN
For the record. Peyton IS a great QB. You misunderstood.
It's just that Tom Brady IS better Peyton, and being a lifelong (since 86 anyway) Pats fan, that booger pickin' goober makes too many commercials. There, I said it.
I still say Peyton is the better player. He is the best QB I've ever seen. Brady is good, but I dont think he's on Manning's level in terms of, being his own offensive coordinator, etc.