Should the Pats be running up the score on everybody in garbage time?

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I was Greg Williams, I would have used any blitz I could think of to try and get a hit on him. Nothing to purposely injure at all. But you want to play the game, fine, let's play the game. What did the Skins have to lose, getting burnt on a blitz for a TD? They scored two more TDs on them anyway.



[/ QUOTE ] If that's the case, then the Redskins should have just taken a knee when they got the ball back. You can't have it both ways.


[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?? I can blitz and try and put a lick on Brady, and I can try to score when we have the ball. What's the problem?

[ QUOTE ]
If that's the case, then the Redskins should have just taken a knee when they got the ball back. You can't have it both ways.

And I say it again, what is sending a huge blitz going to do? If it was even remotely effective, I'm sure the Redskins would have been doing it more often. You want to talk about embarrassing? What happens when you send the house and Brady gets rid of it immediately to Moss for an easy score? That would be pretty humiliating.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying be stupid about it. I'm saying, I'm willing to risk getting burnt for a TD at this point in order to try and smack Brady. I don't see where getting burnt for another TD is any more 'humiliating' then the Patriots running their regular offense, going for it on 4th downs, and scoring TDs anyway.

[kyro]

[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
If that's the case, then the Redskins should have just taken a knee when they got the ball back. You can't have it both ways.


[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?? I can blitz and try and put a lick on Brady, and I can try to score when we have the ball. What's the problem?


[/ QUOTE ]

You don't want the Pats to try to score on offense, but something tells me you wouldn't be too happy with the Redskins giving up when they got the ball.

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't want the Pats to try to score on offense, but something tells me you wouldn't be too happy with the Redskins giving up when they got the ball.

[/ QUOTE ]

When the game has reached a point when it is unequivocally over, then yeah, I think the Patriots should at least take their starting QB out, if they feel the need to keep throwing.

[NoChance]

Shall we ask Miami whether it was a good idea or not to keep Ronnie Brown in the game when it was already out of hand?

There are reasons starters don't play the entire game the final game of the pre-season.

As I Steeler fan, I beg BB to continue playing his star players all the way to the final snap every game. I honestly can't believe Patriot fans are defending this risk.

Risk vs Reward

[kyro]

[ QUOTE ]
Shall we ask Miami whether it was a good idea or not to keep Ronnie Brown in the game when it was already out of hand?

There are reasons starters don't play the entire game the final game of the pre-season.

As I Steeler fan, I beg BB to continue playing his star players all the way to the final snap every game. I honestly can't believe Patriot fans are defending this risk.

Risk vs Reward

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the reward? Another *yawn* Super Bowl?

That comment sounds super elitist, but my point is the SB is less important than it was in 2001, or 2003, or 2004.

[kyro]

west, what if bb wants to keep his starters fresh? Why should he allow them to get rusty just because their current opponent sucks?

[kyro]

also, the dolphins and rams should give up on the season because they are 0-8, have no chance at the playoffs, and don't want any of their players to suffer a career-ending injury.

[Edge34]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Shall we ask Miami whether it was a good idea or not to keep Ronnie Brown in the game when it was already out of hand?

There are reasons starters don't play the entire game the final game of the pre-season.

As I Steeler fan, I beg BB to continue playing his star players all the way to the final snap every game. I honestly can't believe Patriot fans are defending this risk.

Risk vs Reward

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the reward? Another *yawn* Super Bowl?

That comment sounds super elitist, but my point is the SB is less important than it was in 2001, or 2003, or 2004.

[/ QUOTE ]

If any team thinks the ultimate prize is anything less than the most important thing they play for, they don't deserve to win it. I don't see how it can really be any less important one year just because they've done it before.

Ask Michael Jordan if his 6th ring was any less important than his first. Ask Jonathan Papelbon if he thinks this WS was any less important than 2004. Ask KG why he wanted to go play for a team in Boston that may be weaker than the top 3 or 4 Western Conference teams when what he really did was go to a team that, with the right talent, has a much easier road to the Finals than any of the Western powers who have to beat the hell out of each other just to reach the Finals.

An undefeated season is a really nice thing to have, but unless Belichick's goal for this year is to look back, not on the titles, but be like the 72 Dolphins every year, waiting to pop the champagne, then there's something wrong there.

[splashpot]

Papelbon wasn't on the 2004 team. I also think it's reasonable to aim for higher goals than the SB if you've won as many as the Pats have.

[CharlieDontSurf]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Shall we ask Miami whether it was a good idea or not to keep Ronnie Brown in the game when it was already out of hand?

There are reasons starters don't play the entire game the final game of the pre-season.

As I Steeler fan, I beg BB to continue playing his star players all the way to the final snap every game. I honestly can't believe Patriot fans are defending this risk.

Risk vs Reward

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the reward? Another *yawn* Super Bowl?

That comment sounds super elitist, but my point is the SB is less important than it was in 2001, or 2003, or 2004.

[/ QUOTE ]

If any team thinks the ultimate prize is anything less than the most important thing they play for, they don't deserve to win it. I don't see how it can really be any less important one year just because they've done it before.

Ask Michael Jordan if his 6th ring was any less important than his first. Ask Jonathan Papelbon if he thinks this WS was any less important than 2004. Ask KG why he wanted to go play for a team in Boston that may be weaker than the top 3 or 4 Western Conference teams when what he really did was go to a team that, with the right talent, has a much easier road to the Finals than any of the Western powers who have to beat the hell out of each other just to reach the Finals.

An undefeated season is a really nice thing to have, but unless Belichick's goal for this year is to look back, not on the titles, but be like the 72 Dolphins every year, waiting to pop the champagne, then there's something wrong there.

[/ QUOTE ]

BB wants to look back and be remembered as the greatest nfl team in history

if he goes 19-0 he will be