[vincesanity82]

The Sun-Sentinel's Dave Hyde asks a seemingly ridiculous question: Is it harder to go 16-0 or 0-16? My instincts tell me that winning for 16 consecutive weeks is a much tougher proposition -- Don Shula, the last coach to pull it off (over 14 weeks, though), agrees with me -- but Hyde offers an interesting counterexample:

Going winless is a tougher historical feat. The 1976 Tampa Bay Bucs, the only team to do it, had all the benefits of being an expansion team. They didn't have years of drafting, stabs at free agency, a salary cap or a parity-laden schedule to help in the way these Dolphins do.

You need years of mismanagement to lose every game in today's NFL, as well as pockets of bad luck. The Dolphins might give it a run. You would think they would be on the field one of these Sundays when the other team just loses.

What's Harder to Pull Off: 16-0 or 0-16? - FanHouse - AOL Sports Blog

[Gotham Dark Knight]

I see the logic...but the game is played one at a time and losing is always easier than winning...

[Lefty Noob]

Yeah, Goth's right. If a team really wanted to go 0-16, it'd be easy.

Winning every single game you play, never having an off day or making enough mistakes to lose? That takes a ton of effort and a little luck.

[simple simon]

0-16 seems easier to me ....... let's say youre 14-0, the pressure is enormous and you may have an injury or something

if you get to 0-14 i think it is more possible a player (or players) may just stop trying

[Bette]

Originally Posted by simple simon

0-16 seems easier to me .... let's say youre 14-0, the pressure is enormous and you may have an injury or something

if you get to 0-14 i think it is more possible a player (or players) may just stop trying

Tell that to the team that is fighting for their lives.

[legend]

Both are equally hard, as I believe just one team has done each. The difference perhaps is one team is trying to do it while one is not. I have always found it harder to achieve those things that I wanted to than those I didn't.

[NASCAR Gnome]

I voted for 16-0 being the tougher of the two feats.

Now, going 16-0 is totally WORTHLESS if you can't take it all the way to the Superbowl and win it! Fortunately for the Dolphins, they won the Superbowl so they have that distinction but who cares if you go perfect in the regular season and NOT win the SB? What good would that be to have your record-tying feat noted in the record books but with an asterisk?

Hands-down though, it's probably much tougher to be perfect winning than losing!

[bears9]

It is easy to lose game, but it's easy to win 16-0 is harder

[NASCAR Gnome]

Originally Posted by bears9

It is easy to lose game, but it's easy to win 16-0 is harder

Yeah, but how easy would it be to lose the game when you are actually playing to win it???

I'm arguing that you lose the game without throwing the match, which is not only wrong in the spirit of competition, but illegal!

[simple simon]

Originally Posted by NASCAR Gnome

Yeah, but how easy would it be to lose the game when you are actually playing to win it???

I'm arguing that you lose the game without throwing the match, which is not only wrong in the spirit of competition, but illegal!

well im not saying players would be actively throwing games, just they may not play as hard at 0-14 because their hearts arent in it anymore

[Lefty Noob]

Originally Posted by NASCAR Gnome

Yeah, but how easy would it be to lose the game when you are actually playing to win it???

I'm arguing that you lose the game without throwing the match, which is not only wrong in the spirit of competition, but illegal!

Don't know if it's illegal... I mean, didn't the Celtics pretty much admit to throwing games last year to improve their lottery position?

[Bette]

Guess we have to define what we mean by harder here. No doubt, if you arent particularly playing for the win, playing for the 0-16 is easier. I was thinking more of along the lines of what's more difficult for the team to do. If you are playing for the win, then losing is harder to do.
Make sense??? Not really. But then again, this is one of those questions.

[Lefty Noob]

Originally Posted by Bette

Guess we have to define what we mean by harder here. No doubt, if you arent particularly playing for the win, playing for the 0-16 is easier. I was thinking more of along the lines of what's more difficult for the team to do. If you are playing for the win, then losing is harder to do.
Make sense??? Not really. But then again, this is one of those questions.

Even if a team has the best intentions, losing drains you. It's hard to get motivated when you're 0-12, 0-13, so I still believe going winless is easier.

[Bette]

Originally Posted by Lefty Noob

Even if a team has the best intentions, losing drains you. It's hard to get motivated when you're 0-12, 0-13, so I still believe going winless is easier.

What? It's easier to face another game when you are 0-12, then when you are 12-0?
You realize this is one of the things where we are going around and around in a circle????????????????????????

[simple simon]

Originally Posted by Bette

What? It's easier to face another game when you are 0-12, then when you are 12-0?
You realize this is one of the things where we are going around and around in a circle????????????????????????

i think the prime examples here are Randy Moss and this seasons Dolphins

Moss may be the example of a player that, when he was with the Raiders, he had just had enough of losing ...... call his character into question all you like i dont see it relevant here ... i see him as an example of a potentially game changing star that just lost interest

this years Dolphins ..... they lost Trent Green and Ronnie Brown and traded away Chambers, so obviously those things alone will make winning tougher .... now what if at 14-0 or so Jason Taylor and/or Zach Thomas get so sick of losing that they lose interest in the game a la Randy Moss