Its nuts how good these bastards are. Consistently. Year after year. I hate them. 2010 - 12-4 2009 - 10-6 2008 - 11-5 2007 - 16-0 2006 - 12-4 2005 - 10-6 2004 - 14-2 2003 - 14-2 2002 - 9-7 2001 - 11-5
Oh I know. I thought there was more behind this thread but this works. You kind of get to the point where you can't hate them, you kind of just follow what they are doing and try to pick up on it.
They have a franchise QB and a QB friendly system that makes it easier to plug in back-ups and not lose too much. Also having that franchise guy lets you develop your back-up QBs so they're more ready when called upon.
They draft above avg, they coach well, they cheat well, there is no outside interference causing headlines, they never "lose" in the trades they make, their front office is remarkable.....it isnt really mindblogging actually how they have stayed this good for a long period of time....Christ their owner even ended the lockout.... they do everything well the exact opposite of what Miami does, and it shows....
They have a friendly system throughout. A lot of their players are plug and play. That's because they stick to their core and just evolve from it to adapt to the players they have at that time. Look at their offense. It never really changes despite what some believe. It just adapts. They're still running the same stuff from when Weis was there. They stick to what they know and sometimes, coaches don't do that which is why they get the kick in the ***.
IMO what BB figured out since his time in Cleveland is that offense is all about spacing. You identify the spaces in the defense and expand them with formations and route patterns. (Of course he also got lucky with the Brady draft). When you do a good job of spreading the D, it makes the QB's reads easier and allows average athletes to be great players. Too many offenses just tend to rely on one man beating the other as the sole basis for success. You still have to beat your guy, but having more room gives you an advantage that makes that more likely.
Was it luck or was it a case of knowing exactly what type of player fit that system..?? I mean look at even Cassell, he came in did very well in that system, and it landed them a 1st rounder....Is Cassell the Patriot or the Chief Cassell......would Brady be as good if he was on say Miami??
The thing about Bill is, almost rarely does he make a bad decision on the field. He had a slight burp a couple years back when people were questioning him, but he's the greatest (at least best active) game day coach in the league. Also he trains his players constantly about "situations" always testing him. That's why his players also make the best decisions while on the field. Split second smart decisions. When's the last time you remember a Patriot making a very dumb decision during a game? It happens but not often.
That's what I was going to say too. You know that Dan Connolly squib kick return is something they practice every week and have so for years now?
Cassel did pretty well last season in KC. The Pats have a system, but they do very well at developing players. Brady would be fine NOW on another team, but when he first came in the league, probably not. And yes, I am sure some of that credit goes to Weiss. last year's stats. Matt Cassel TDS 27 INT 7 YDS 3,116 RTG 93.0
Drafting Brady was lucky. Cassell is a QB they developed and used in a QB friendly system as I just explained in my earlier post in this thread.
Colts are even better in the regular season. Granted, the Pats have two more titles and where their nemesis for awhile, but that ended 5 years ago and they are still quite impressive. 2010 - 10-6 2009 - 14-2 2008 - 12-4 2007 - 13-3 2006 - 12-4 2005 - 14-2 2004 - 12-4 2003 - 12-4 2002 - 10-6 2001 - 6-10 2000 - 10-6 1999 - 13-3 Those are the two best IMO.
The colts are the atlanta braves of the NFL. If I had to rank em, in terms of overall success, it's a tie between the Patriots and Steelers (patsies early 2000's and continued excellence, Steelers more recent success but consistency as well) I know second place is first place loser, but they were still a Tryee impossible catch away from 19-0. Everything worked out perfectly for us (dolphin fans) on that last drive. Assante drops an INT. Manning gets away from a hand on his jersey. Tryee makes that catch. 99 out of 100 pats are perfect. Lucky for us all the stars fell perfectly I still remember losing my voice for about 20 seconds on that drive from screaming.
I can't put them up there with PIT and IND. Since they stopped video taping they haven't had much playoff success. They've also had trouble in the draft since Pioli left, and have resorted to going after castaway veterans. They have a great HC and a great QB, but until they get their front office in order, I don't think they can get back to their previous level.
The 2007 Super Bowl loss made me feel better about the Patriots success. And I don't nearly hate as much as I hate the Jets now.
This^^ Do I believe that the Pats are a great football team? Yes. However, with their proven cheating I can't help but ask myself, "how much did it help them"? Was the cheating enough for 3 extra point in 3 Super Bowls? I would think it's likely. And if it didn't help, why do it in the first place? All of this crap about other teams do it too, blah, blah, blah...Doesn't matter. The Pats were caught cheating and the fine/penalties alone prove how much of an advantage the NFL thought it gave them. Then...tuck rule anyone? So, I just can't help but put an * by their Super Bowl wins. Granted they've been consistent in the regular season since, but as some have written they have failed to win it all. As for their HC and QB, I do believe that BB is probably the best at getting the most out of a player and his defensive schemes are second to none. However, I can't call Brady a "great" QB. IMO the "greats" are people who could have shined on any team. P. Manning, Marino, Unitas, Graham are a few that come right to mind, but Brady? Nah, he's a hardworking, smart QB that has had the luck of being on teams with great defenses and a great organization behind him. Out of his 11 years in the league (yes, only 9 seasons of play) he's had two "great" seasons. The rest of his seasons, including the Pats Super Bowl winning seasons, he's had a QBR, on average, in the mid to high 80's. Good, yes, great, no. And if it weren't for the 2007 season of him throwing the ball for TD's while up by 35 points with 2 minutes to go in the game he doesn't get his 50 TD's. Hell, P. Manning sat out nearly 2 full games when he threw 49, and Marino sat down a few times too when he got his 48. (Not to mention how much harder it was 27 years ago to throw in this league due to the rules). I like to use PFR's "Similar Players" chart to get a quick glimpse at how good or great a player is. This stat that they've developed includes a players numbers, length playing, etc. etc., and then compare them to all the other players in the position over the last 50 years or so. Here are the QB's that Brady is similar too: [TABLE="class: sortable stats_table"] [TR="class: hl"] [TD="align: right"][/TD] [TD="align: left"]Drew Brees, Roger Staubach*, Trent Green, Kurt Warner, Randall Cunningham, Donovan McNabb, Jeff Garcia, Rich Gannon, Mark Brunell, Bert Jones Other than Staubach, who on this list is HoF worthy? Maybe Brees and maybe McNabb. So he's as good as 3 other HoF QB's out of 10. Now, look at Marino's similar QB's: [TABLE="class: sortable stats_table"] [TR] [TD="align: right"][/TD] [TD="align: left"]John Elway*, Fran Tarkenton*, Johnny Unitas*, Brett Favre, Joe Montana*, Ken Anderson, Warren Moon*, Dan Fouts*, Peyton Manning, Terry Bradshaw* Every single QB here is either in the HoF or sure bets to be in the HoF when they are eligible, sans Ken Anderson. And any of you guys who remember Anderson would agree that he SHOULD be in the Hall. The guy was a fantasic QB. That's 9 out of 10 if you don't count Ken. Now, if Brady plays another 5 years and has 4-5 more seasons like he did last year or in 2007, yes, I may bump him up to the "great" level, but until then he's a good QB, who most definitely works hard and has brains, but who is more lucky than talented. [/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] [/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE]
This is another reason they are good.....they know when to get rid of players.....BB has a "get rid of washed up player" sonar in his head...
I'm not sure I would include Indy among the great franchises. With NE and Pitt, they can win even when their QB goes down. I would guess that most of the consistent success that Indy has had is attributed to one player, Peyton. If they lost him for the season I'm guessing they win 4 or 5 games. NE lost Brady and they won 11. Pitt lost Ben for four games and they still won 3 out of 4. Now don't get me wrong, Indy clearly has had a ton of success over the last decade. I'm talking about whether they have one of those great systematic approaches that lets them be good regardless of the players like NE and Pitt have demonstrated.
Wait a minute. You say luck, then you quote a rule. Which one is it Stringer, I would say 18-1 is pretty good. What success has indy had except one year? Pats 4 Super bowls, 3 wins. Indy 2-1. I don't see how Indy is even in the same discussion. Steelers have been 4 times as well. Indy has been knocked out in the first game 07, 08, and 10. I don't buy the cheating for one bit. 2007 dispels all that.
Dispel? Why risk a draft pick and that much money to do something that doesn't make a difference? The cheating tarnished their Super Bowls. Once it stopped, no more Championships. Sent from my PB99400 using Tapatalk
I really hate to defend the Patriots but their "cheating" was simply them videotaping the games from the wrong place. Teams were allowed to videotape from the stands and boxes but not the field. Attributing that to the reason they won Superbowls sounds like sour grapes.
Why were they videotaping from the wrong place? The only reason I could think of would be if you're stealing signals.
It doesnt dispel anything. They won 3 in 4 years, and they haven't won one since. They're certainly one of the best teams in the league, so of course they can make the Super Bowl. But I have a hard time believing they are good enough to win 3 in 4 years.
If so it clearly didn't make much of a difference because they won 18 straight games the following season. Stating that as the reason they haven't won anymore Super Bowls is pretty illogical.
Why would them not videotaping hurt their chances of winning a Super Bowl but not a regular season game? How is it any different? They were a very good team that also got a little lucky. It happens in sports. Correlation does not mean causation.
Again, why risk what they did if they didn't gain anything? I've written that I believe the Pats are a great organization and team. However, do you think what they did gave them a 3 point advantage in 3 different Super Bowls? Sure seems like it, because since they were caught they haevn't been good enough to win a Super Bowl by 3 points. Regardless of their 18 and NOOOOOOOOOOOO season, they haven't won a Championship ever since the NFL took away a 1st round draft pick and fined both BB and Kraft a total of $1 million. Which, BTW, is the harshest penalty ever given to an NFL team.
The reason that they haven't won any superbowls in awhile is that Charlie and Romeo left, i think that had more of a factor than anything. Also, video taping signals during a game hardly gives you an advantage during the game. It's not much different than having someone watch and write them down or a person on second base watching the catcher and pitcher signals during a baseball game. Who in their right mind will say that teams don't watch other teams signals throughout a game to try to get an edge? Nah, never in the history of pro sports has this been done, Oh my God I can't imagine, what has the world come too! It is just sour grapes. The 72 dolphins played a season against only two teams with winning records (8-6) and a total schedule winning pertcentage of .396. Plop a big ol * next to that year too? Nope, regardless, it's still a feat that needs to be recognized and was well deserved. I would have a hard time believing that Shula didn't have someone reporting to him about signals or other stuff. Why do you think coach's cover their mouths with their playbook when they call plays in the mic? Hmm might be cause people are watching.
I still don't understand the issue with the taping. Everyone craps on the Patriots for doing it, but the Steelers taped every game and they are the darlings of the NFL and the standard. And if you don't believe me that they taped and charted signals, go ask Bill Cowher because I listened to him on radio and he said it was exactly that. He said hes done it before, hes had his guys do it before, he even said that there have been multiple times in which the opposition KNEW they were being taped and would wave to the camera. It happens, all the time. The Patriots got busted because of Mangini whining but it happens throughout the league. Cowher said he'd have guys on the sideline, in the sideline crowd or in the press box.
http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/s...23/jimmy-johnson-thinks-spygate-is-overblown/ http://espn.go.com/blog/afceast/post/_/id/10084/cowher-patriots-are-team-of-decade