ESPN sets new standard for premature analysis. Talk of undefeated NE - Page 2

kyro · #1 09-20-2007, 11:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think I watched the same thing. The exact question was: Which is more likely, a 0-16 team or 16-0 team? A fairly legit filler question.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Giants and the Pats are working on answering the question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do the Falcons get a game against a high school team?

Jack Bando · #2 09-20-2007, 04:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The season is 2 weeks old and ESPN just led off NFL by asking if the Pats can go undefeated. Even for ESPN, this is astonishingly absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still think in early 06 when they were declaring the USC team the best ever and having polls of USC vs former champs every day was more absurd, especially since they lost the bowl game a few days later.

prohornblower · #3 09-20-2007, 04:21 PM

Yeah but nobody knew yet that Vince had healing powers.

johnnylovescandy · #4 09-20-2007, 04:33 PM

Not so absurd. ESPN said the same about Red Sox at 2-0...

pvn · #5 09-20-2007, 05:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The season is 2 weeks old and ESPN just led off NFL by asking if the Pats can go undefeated. Even for ESPN, this is astonishingly absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess you missed their preseason Notre Dame analysis.

bernie · #6 09-20-2007, 11:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The season is 2 weeks old and ESPN just led off NFL by asking if the Pats can go undefeated. Even for ESPN, this is astonishingly absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this more along the lines of maintaining their standards?

Since when has ESPN raised the bar from the gutter they've been in?

b

Jbrochu · #7 09-21-2007, 12:38 PM

ESPN is not alone. Half the analysts on the talk shows (radio and TV) in Boston are predicting an undefeated season as well. These are pretty much the same analysts that declared the Yankees dead and gave the Red Sox the division way back in May.

My guess assuming they stay healthy is 14-2.

chev9 · #8 09-21-2007, 01:34 PM

Some of the teams being mentioned here as problems are hilarious. I don't know what everyone else sees in Baltimore, but I think they suck. Same with Cincy. Philly, Washington, Dallas...whole NFC East division is awful.

They're going 19-0 straight up and against the spread. I'm starting with $10 this week on them and parlaying it until I'll be able to pay for my Super Bowl trip and put $150K in the bank.

TheNoodleMan · #9 09-21-2007, 01:45 PM

The 2003 Pats went 14-2. They lost to the 6-10 Bills and the 5-11 Redskins.

The 2004 Pats went 14-2. They lost to the 15-1 Steelers and the 4-12 Dolphins.

Its not just the good teams that they have to worry about. They are very likely to slip up and blow a game to a crappy team along the way.

Kneel B4 Zod · #10 09-21-2007, 01:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The 2003 Pats went 14-2. They lost to the 6-10 Bills and the 5-11 Redskins.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, but both those games were early in the season, when the team wasn't near 'midseason form'

[ QUOTE ]
The 2004 Pats went 14-2. They lost to the 15-1 Steelers and the 4-12 Dolphins.

[/ QUOTE ]

that was an excellent steelers team. and the dolphins were cheating ! [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

I agree in principle that it's not just the good teams you need to worry about. but, I think the Pats are better in this regards than most good teams. In Pro Football Prospectus this year they had a little feature called "Do Trap Games Exist?". a trap game was defined as playing a sub .500 team sandwiched between 2 better than .500 teams. in general, teams played as expected, but Belichiks teams were even better: they were 17-0 in "trap agames". I suspect his obsessive approach to "1 game at a team" has something to do with this.