Bills want to knock Pats out of playoffs

Bills want to knock Pats out of playoffs

There are 14 comments on the South Florida Sun-Sentinel story from Dec 28, 2008, titled Bills want to knock Pats out of playoffs. In it, South Florida Sun-Sentinel reports that:

Talk about your football fantasies. Josh Reed can envision nothing sweeter than the Buffalo Bills eliminating the New England Patriots from playoff contention today.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at South Florida Sun-Sentinel.

joseph

Perry, GA

#1 Dec 28, 2008
I dont expect it but wouldnt mind seeing it...
SO FLA

Pompano Beach, FL

#2 Dec 28, 2008
PATS --AFC EAST Champions at 7pm tonite.
MJC

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#3 Dec 28, 2008
Not going to happen, Dolphins lay the big goose egg this afternoon, NE division champs at 7 PM.
Homer S

United States

#4 Dec 28, 2008
Sure seems like there are a number of teams concerned about a team playing with a back up QB and, except on certain downs, nothing but back up RB's, and also missing its #1 DB.
How many other teams could have achieved such success with their bench players, let alone be in contention?
Marc

Scottsdale, AZ

#5 Dec 28, 2008
Patriots took care of their business... Jags step up and Ratginis boys trip over themselves and pull off a win.... AND ratgini is still fired... pinch me to make sure I'm not dreaming!
Losers

AOL

#6 Dec 28, 2008
Your dreaming. Pinch!

11-5 watching the playoffs from the comfort of their homes = Patriots.

I love it!!!
Marc

Scottsdale, AZ

#7 Dec 28, 2008
Well they controlled what they could and it ended at 11-5. With all the adversity brought by injury and the necessity of plugging in players where needed they did phenomenal. Long live BB and Co.
Losers

AOL

#8 Dec 28, 2008
phenomenal...11-5 and no playoffs...phenomenal
TMD

Bloomington, IN

#9 Dec 28, 2008
Homer S wrote:
Sure seems like there are a number of teams concerned about a team playing with a back up QB and, except on certain downs, nothing but back up RB's, and also missing its #1 DB.
How many other teams could have achieved such success with their bench players, let alone be in contention?
The '72 Miami Dolphins. Except, of course they won ALL of their games including the SB.

Speaking of the Phins, I believe they just knocked your Pats out of the playoff picture....
Homer S

United States

#10 Dec 28, 2008
TMD wrote:
<quoted text>
The '72 Miami Dolphins. Except, of course they won ALL of their games including the SB.
Speaking of the Phins, I believe they just knocked your Pats out of the playoff picture....
Their back-up QB was a seasoned pro, not a virtual rookie. Also, they had ALL their RB's & DB's AND in a 14 game season; not 16.
The '72 team beat only 2 teams with winning records, 8-6 each.
11-5 by the PATS back-ups is the same as the dullfins starters without going through wholesale personnel changes on and off the field. Big difference.
TMD

Bloomington, IN

#11 Dec 29, 2008
Homer S wrote:
<quoted text>
Their back-up QB was a seasoned pro, not a virtual rookie.
Virtual rookie? Cassel was drafted in 2005. He played last year, and the year before. I would hope that his development under Bellichick had surpassed that of a rookie by the beginning of the '08 season.

He, obviously, didn't have near the experience of Earl Morrall, but then Cassel has had the advantage of being in the same pro system his entire NFL career. Morrall was claimed off waivers for $100 by Miami in '72 after playing for 5 other teams in a career that appeared to be over. Morrall was the oldest QB to start and win a game in the NFL for the next 30 years.

In case this matters to this argument, in Bob Grise's third season in Miami (his first under Shula) he went 10-4 and lost in the playoffs to Oakland.

.
Also, they had ALL their RB's & DB's AND in a 14 game season; not 16.
Kiick was injured at various times during the season, and replaced by Mercury Morris, who was playing in only his second full year as a RB.

Why does it matter how many games Miami played that season? They won all 17 of them. Earl Morrall went 10-0. Besides that, there were less teams in the NFL with the talent more concentrated, and parity and mediocrity wasn't everywhere.

.
The '72 team beat only 2 teams with winning records, 8-6 each.
If you include the playoffs, Miami beat 7 teams with winning records:

Cleveland (10-4)
Pittsburgh (11-3)
Washington (11-3)
KC (8-6)
Minnesota (7-7)
NYJ (7-7)
NYG (8-6)

They may not have had the toughest schedule, but they had many tough games against some of the greatest QBs ever. The Dolphins played Len Dawson, John Hadl, Fran Tarkenton, Joe Namath, Norm Snead, and Terry bradshaw. They were the dominant team in the NFL.

Cassel and the '08 Pats have played the easiest schedule in the NFL:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story...

.
11-5 by the PATS back-ups is the same as the dullfins starters without going through wholesale personnel changes on and off the field. Big difference.
Where have you been? The Dolphins have gone through MASSIVE changes on and off the field this year. New GM, new coach, new QB, new DTs, completely new system! Despite all this, we're not talking about the '08 Phins. You're question was:
How many other teams could have achieved such success with their bench players, let alone be in contention?
Although this year's Ravens (11-5) and Falcons (11-5), both playing true rookie QBs, could make strong cases, my answer was the '72 Dolphins. I could also add the '59 Packers with first year starter Bart Starr. He took the Packers to the NFL championship game where they lost to the Eagles.
Homer S

United States

#12 Dec 29, 2008
TMD wrote:
<quoted text>
Virtual rookie? Cassel was drafted in 2005. He played last year, and the year before. I would hope that his development under Bellichick had surpassed that of a rookie by the beginning of the '08 season.
He, obviously, didn't have near the experience of Earl Morrall, but then Cassel has had the advantage of being in the same pro system his entire NFL career. Morrall was claimed off waivers for $100 by Miami in '72 after playing for 5 other teams in a career that appeared to be over. Morrall was the oldest QB to start and win a game in the NFL for the next 30 years.
In case this matters to this argument, in Bob Grise's third season in Miami (his first under Shula) he went 10-4 and lost in the playoffs to Oakland.
.
<quoted text>
Kiick was injured at various times during the season, and replaced by Mercury Morris, who was playing in only his second full year as a RB.
Why does it matter how many games Miami played that season? They won all 17 of them. Earl Morrall went 10-0. Besides that, there were less teams in the NFL with the talent more concentrated, and parity and mediocrity wasn't everywhere.
.
<quoted text>
If you include the playoffs, Miami beat 7 teams with winning records:
Cleveland (10-4)
Pittsburgh (11-3)
Washington (11-3)
KC (8-6)
Minnesota (7-7)
NYJ (7-7)
NYG (8-6)
They may not have had the toughest schedule, but they had many tough games against some of the greatest QBs ever. The Dolphins played Len Dawson, John Hadl, Fran Tarkenton, Joe Namath, Norm Snead, and Terry bradshaw. They were the dominant team in the NFL.
Cassel and the '08 Pats have played the easiest schedule in the NFL:
http://www.nfl.com/news/story...
.
<quoted text>
Where have you been? The Dolphins have gone through MASSIVE changes on and off the field this year. New GM, new coach, new QB, new DTs, completely new system! Despite all this, we're not talking about the '08 Phins. You're question was:
<quoted text>
Although this year's Ravens (11-5) and Falcons (11-5), both playing true rookie QBs, could make strong cases, my answer was the '72 Dolphins. I could also add the '59 Packers with first year starter Bart Starr. He took the Packers to the NFL championship game where they lost to the Eagles.
Cassel had never played a full season and played a 16 game season minus 2 starting RB's. Earl had years of experience and Morris, by your own words, was not a rookie RB.
Your fuzzy math is showing when you say that 7-7 denotes winning records.
The Packers? An old lady in a wheel chair could have done well there. 2 all pro RB's, 2 all pro tight ends, an all pro pulling guard and an all pro center. Of course Vince Lombardi had a little something to do with their success as well<sar).
In short, you've lost track of my main point. The Patriots played the ENTIRE 16 game season with many back-ups at key positions, on O & D, and still finished 11-5.
Football Historian

Santa Barbara, CA

#13 Dec 29, 2008
Homer S wrote:
<quoted text>
Cassel had never played a full season and played a 16 game season minus 2 starting RB's. Earl had years of experience and Morris, by your own words, was not a rookie RB.
Your fuzzy math is showing when you say that 7-7 denotes winning records.
The Packers? An old lady in a wheel chair could have done well there. 2 all pro RB's, 2 all pro tight ends, an all pro pulling guard and an all pro center. Of course Vince Lombardi had a little something to do with their success as well<sar).
In short, you've lost track of my main point. The Patriots played the ENTIRE 16 game season with many back-ups at key positions, on O & D, and still finished 11-5.
I see you haven't denied the Patriots had a soft schedule in 2008.

How did they fare against playoff teams this season?

They beat Miami and Arizona. Arizona finished at 9-7 and was 6-0 within their weak division. And a puny 3-7 outside their division. Shows how weak Arizona actually is and how playing that division helped all AFC East teams.

The Patriots lost to Indianapolis...Pittsburgh...Mi ami and San Diego.

The bottom line is they had a 2-4 record against playoff teams and in three of those defeats they were completely dominated in every phase of the game by scores of 38-13, 30-10 and 33-10.

Having a 9-1 record against also rans and a lousy 2-4 record against playoff teams is nothing to crow about.....

As for injuries, every team has them. Get over it.
TMD

Bloomington, IN

#14 Dec 29, 2008
Homer S wrote:
<quoted text>
Cassel had never played a full season and played a 16 game season minus 2 starting RB's.
And, as I said (and you ignored) they played the easiest schedule in the NFL.

.
Earl had years of experience and Morris, by your own words, was not a rookie RB.
Based on your logic, every team in the league should be killing themselves to get Testaverde and Flutie on their rosters.

Earl Morrall was the oldest QB who had EVER played and won a game in the NFL. He hadn't started a game in YEARS and was on waivers.

Morris had NEVER been a starter when he was asked to shoulder the load in '72. He was primarily a punt and kick-off return specialist.

.
Your fuzzy math is showing when you say that 7-7 denotes winning records.
There is nothing fuzzy about calling a .500 record a winning record. I don't know an NFL analyst who doesn't. Do you? Regardless, of the teams they beat that were 7-7, the Jets lost twice and Minnesota lost once during the regular season to Miami, otherwise they would both have had records better than 7-7.

.
The Packers? An old lady in a wheel chair could have done well there. 2 all pro RB's, 2 all pro tight ends, an all pro pulling guard and an all pro center. Of course, Vince Lombardi had a little something to do with their success as well<sar).
The '59-'60 season was Lombardi's first in GB and ended as the first winning season in GB since '47. GB was not feared by ANYONE before then. The HOF players you're referring to either were not there yet, or were rookies or 2nd year players in '59. The previous coach was fired because he didn't win with those guys.

Besides all that, Pats fans are constantly trying to prove that Bellichick is one of the greatest coaches, ever. Well, are you trying to say that he is NOT an HOF coach, and that he had no hand in the Pats 11-5 season? Are you saying that Cassel did this all by himself?

.
In short, you've lost track of my main point. The Patriots played the ENTIRE 16 game season with many back-ups at key positions, on O & D, and still finished 11-5.
I haven't lost track of your main point. You've lost track of the post I was originally responding to.

You asked what other teams could have been as successful as the Pats have this year with their backups. My contention is that:

a) the Pats had a VERY easy schedule and going 11-5 against it is no great feat, and
b) the Ravens and the Falcons have done even better, as did the '72 Dolphins and the '59-'60 Packers.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Matt Cassel Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Teddy Bridgewater's future debated in ESPN roun... (Jul '15) Dec '15 Fart news 19
News Jerry Jones thinks Romo has 4-5 years left (Dec '15) Dec '15 Fart news 2
News Bills 'pull out the stops' for former Vikings f... (Mar '15) Mar '15 The Bill Pill 3
News 2014 NFL mock draft: Vikings select Teddy Bridg... (Apr '14) Dec '14 The Fart Father 15
News Get On The Vikings Bandwagon (Jun '14) Dec '14 Explosive Diarrhea 60
News Vikings Fall to 4-7, Where Can We Point The Fin... (Nov '14) Nov '14 Larry 6
News Ready Or Not, It's Teddy Time In Minnesota (Sep '14) Oct '14 Laughing Bear Fan 58
More from around the web