nfl record?? the pats play 6 undefeated teams in a season

by giantssuck on Nov 23, 2009 5:24 PM EST

saints will be 6th undefeated team patriots played this season

i am sick of people saying the patriots didnt play anyone good this year ,, we have the 3rd toughest schedule this year .you kidding me? the patriots will play the 6th team undefeated this season.that should be a record no team ever played against 6 undefeated teams in a season.i dont remember any teams playing that many undefeated teams in a 16 game season.pats will be the first.go pats kick the saints ass !!!!! 35-17 pats wins

The views expressed in these FanPosts are not necessarily those of the writers or SBNation.

Tweet Comment 27 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Come on

some of those “undefeated” teams you have played are currently at .500 or below

the Bills, Falcons, Jets, Ravens and Broncos were all “undefeated” when you played them, and are now currently a combined two games under .500. You have played two teams with winning records, and are 0-2 (and one of those is Denver who is fading fast). Beat a good team, and then you can complain.

EVH+DLR=BFFr........ God I Hope So!!

by dmstorm22 on Nov 23, 2009 5:38 PM EST reply actions

Well, by that logic...

…the Jags sucked when the Colts played them. So did Miami and Arizona — they didn’t get good until later. Seattle is just lousy. You caught the Titans in the midst of a six game losing streak, the Rams during a seven game losing streak, and the 49ers during a four game losing streak. You needed luck to beat a mediocre Houston team at home and barely survived a mediocre Baltimore team that was a lot stronger when we played them. And you needed luck to beat the Pats at home, too.

So your team has only won two games against teams that have more than five wins, one against a team that was awful at the start of the season and the second against a team you needed a lucky break to beat and that you don’t think is very good at all. I guess the Colts suck, right? Because they haven’t beaten any good teams yet. I mean, that is your logic at work.

by RSNexile on Nov 23, 2009 7:13 PM EST up reply actions

All I'll say is as of today

we have played 6 teams with records .500 and above (JAX, MIA, ARZ, HOU, NE, BAL) and are 6-0 (3-0 above .500). The Pats have played 5 (ATL, BAL, DEN, MIA, IND) and are 3-2 (0-2 above .500). For anyone to say that Indy has less impressive wins is crazy.

I’m not discounting your schedule, as it has been tougher than NO or MIN, but its not all that it is cracked up to beating

BTW, all you Pats fans sound exactly like Colts fans did in 2003-4 when the Pats were “lucky” in winning all those close games. Winning close games is a skill, and Pats fans should know that better than anybody, as you rode that skill to three super bowls.

EVH+DLR=BFFr........ God I Hope So!!

by dmstorm22 on Nov 24, 2009 1:10 AM EST up reply actions

True

I give credit to Indy for beating us. It was a close game, and those kinds of games can go either way. This time it was your way, but Colts had to make the drive and beat us. They did, all credit to them for doing that.

My life has been a trivial pursuit. Trivia: where three roads meet.
The more you know, the more you know that you don't know.

by SlotMachinePlayer on Nov 24, 2009 11:08 AM EST up reply actions

Funny you should mention the "lucky" part

I’ve heard that a million times from Colts fans, and the same tune is playing over on the Saints’ blog right now. When the Pats went undefeated they didn’t play anyone, and they won four games by a tight margin of victory, so somehow those victories shouldn’t count. It’s so stupid.

Drew Brees said the other night that one thing he learned from watching the Patriots in 2007 is that every team you play, gives you their best. For some teams, it’s playing for pride or to take down the king. For other teams it’s their Super Bowl and they go all out – like the Ravens did before going on be the only team to lose to the Miami Dolphins that year.

Every single team has it’s lucky moments or calls that go their way, and the Patriots sure have had their share, but luck isn’t going to get you an undefeated season. Being in the right place at the right time, with an educated player who can take advantage of situations consistently isn’t luck – it’s hard work, preparation and skill.

Keep the faith!

by Marima on Nov 24, 2009 11:18 AM EST up reply actions

Exactly

And I’ll say it again — if it’s “luck” when the Pats do it but “skill” when the Colts do it, dmstorm22 is full of crap.

by RSNexile on Nov 24, 2009 12:08 PM EST up reply actions

You missed my point

I put “lucky” in quotes for a reason. That was the common Colts’ fans excuse. THat was all skill. Playing great in close tight games is a skil and the dynastic Pats had it to a T, and now he Colts do. It was skil when the Pats beat Houston in OT in 2003, and it is skill when we beat Frisco by 4.

EVH+DLR=BFFr........ God I Hope So!!

by dmstorm22 on Nov 24, 2009 1:28 PM EST up reply actions

And yet you still have this ridiculous double standard

Just admit it — you can’t disclaim the Pats’ record as being a result of a weak schedule just because most of the teams that were undefeated when we played them aren’t doing too well now without simultaneously regarding the Colts’ 10-0 record as being built mostly on the backs of a bunch of lousy teams.

by RSNexile on Nov 24, 2009 6:27 PM EST up reply actions

Here is what I am proposing

the Colts have played a tougher schedule (6 games vs opponents .500 and over vs 5 for the Pats), and are 6-0 in those games while the Pats are 3-2. I won’t get into all the talk of “oh, they were great then, they sucked then”. As of today’s records, the Colts have played an equally tough schedule and are 10-0, the Pats are 7-3.

EVH+DLR=BFFr........ God I Hope So!!

by dmstorm22 on Nov 24, 2009 6:50 PM EST up reply actions

That’s the point — you played six teams with records .500 and above when you played them. We played five teams that were undefeated when we played them, with #6 coming up on Monday night. If you want to say the Pats haven’t beaten anybody good based on the records of those teams now, then the Colts have only beaten two teams that were any good based on their current records, and one of those sucked at the time you played them and the other — the Pats — you say isn’t any good.

And you’ll note that no one here is saying the Colts aren’t any good. Pats fans do know better than anyone that you don’t win 10 in a row by not being any good. We also know that luck is involved in winning close games and that the best teams manage to create good luck for themselves. That’s why we give credit to Indy where credit is due, even if they did need luck to beat us.

But you can’t have it both ways. Either the Pats deserve credit for their record when they’ve played so many undefeated teams or the Colts don’t deserve so much credit because their schedule has been pathetically weak. I know where Pats fans stand, but based on your own arguments, you’re either a hypocrite or you’re just full of crap. Which is it?

by RSNexile on Nov 24, 2009 12:07 PM EST up reply actions

Again

we have played 6 teams that are CURRENTLY (not when we played them, but TODAY) 5-5 or better and are 6-0, including three that are over .500. The Pats are 3-2 against teams that are CURRENTLY 5-5 or better, and 0-2 against teams that are above .500.

Also, I did not turn this into a Pats/Colts argument. You did.

EVH+DLR=BFFr........ God I Hope So!!

by dmstorm22 on Nov 24, 2009 1:30 PM EST up reply actions

I'd say it's a lot more important how the team is playing when you play them.

if the Pats were to lose every game the rest of the season, did that make it an easy win over a crap team in week 10?

by Ben Buchanan on Nov 24, 2009 3:27 PM EST up reply actions

If they were to lose every game

then it would be a win over a mediocre team

EVH+DLR=BFFr........ God I Hope So!!

by dmstorm22 on Nov 24, 2009 4:20 PM EST up reply actions

Again, you have a double standard

And actually, when you came in here claiming the Pats’ record was weak — and you’re a known Colts fan — you made it about Pats/Colts.

by RSNexile on Nov 24, 2009 6:28 PM EST up reply actions

What is the double standard??

I’m not saying that the Pats schedule is weak. All I started out saying was that this claim of the Pats playing all these “undefeated” teams is, while true, meaningless. Two of those teams are no longer even above .500.

Claiming the Pats schedule is weak is not making this a Colts/Pats debate. The first person to associate the Colts with this argument is you.

EVH+DLR=BFFr........ God I Hope So!!

by dmstorm22 on Nov 24, 2009 6:52 PM EST up reply actions

This made sense until

even if they did need luck to beat us.

Was there a leprechon on the Colts’ sideline that I missed? Because that one play, that one 4th and 2 play was not worth 18 points. And it wasn’t LUCK that stopped Faulk, it was Melvin Bullitt.

"I throw, you catch. It's NOT that hard!"
Peyton Manning, SNL, 2007

by peytonsthebest on Nov 25, 2009 2:04 PM EST up reply actions

And a rather useful ball spot...

Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.

by Comedic.Sans on Nov 25, 2009 4:52 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Yeah, but that wasn't luck

It was all skill by the Colts that spotted that ball.

Just like it was all skill by the Colts that made the normally surehanded Faulk bobble the ball before he got hit, without which he would have had the first down.

And there was no luck whatsoever involved in Maroney fumbling the ball for the first time in three years despite not really getting hit all that hard, and doing so just as the Pats were about to score some points that would have ended up with the Colts losing. Nope, that was all skill.

And I guess it was all skill by the Colts that knocked out the Pats best pass rushers with injuries. I guess if peytonsthebest wants to claim the Colts were trying to cause injuries that would be skill, but it would be a pretty stupid assessment of the situation. But then, it’s a pretty stupid assessment for anyone to claim that it takes no luck whatsoever to win a one-point game.

by RSNexile on Nov 26, 2009 3:05 PM EST up reply actions