End of a dynasty?

[Hat Trick]

I really thought the beginning of the end was the loss in the Superbowl. From that moment to this point has been a steady slide. Definitely at a crossroads, but the dynasty ended a couple of years ago in my mind..

 

+1

[Balzac]

riiiiiiiight. It's Brady's fault. It couldn't be that Moss was NEVER open.

 

and since when did him not being open ever mean you still don't try to go to Moss? I think it was obvious to everyone, including Brady, that Moss was mailing it in yesterday.

 

I actually think that Brady is more to blame than anyone else for yesterday's loss - he was hesitant, had very little on the balls when he threw them and threw them with horrible judgment and accuracy. Granted, even the best have bad days - this is not a criticism of Brady in general. He just had a horrible, horrible game. I found myself legitimately wondering at times whether he was playing hungover (or even drunk). Some of the balls he threw were simply inexplicable. He showed no willingness at all to tuck and run - several times he had a good 10 yards of open field in front of him but opted to continue dropping back. He was just plain bad. I'm not sure that he wasn't mailing it in either . . .

 

Moss has always given the impression that he's not trying, but I really can't figure out how much there is to that. There are definitely times where he gets roughed up early off the line and just gets squirrelly thereafter - unacceptable. There are also times where he looks like he's jogging . . . but he's outrunning the d-backs (he's got an odd, lanky build that makes it easy to think he's moving slower than he actually is - I think we all forget just how fast he is). While I think that he gives up sometimes, I also think that it simply looks like he's not trying because he makes it look so easy - that's just how he plays.

[Sunday Couch Potatoe]

+1

+2

[LayLow]

It could be the end of the dynasty we knew. They can just start up another one with their slew of draft picks they have compiled

[Balzac]

+1

 

Hard to gauge but this is obviously not the same team it was in 2007 (where they were still the best team in football - they just lost in the SB as a result of a few freakish plays). The personnel is very different on both sides of the ball (more particularly on D) and the key players are all a couple years older. The Pats in 2 years will most likely look like an entirely different team. I assume Brady will still be around, but I'm not sure what other "big names" on either side of the ball will still be key players. Moss? Nope. Wilfork? Doubtful. Welker? Nope (I think he's done, by the way). I'm just hopeful that they are able to do something with all those draft picks they have, though I'm getting skeptical there as well because Pioli is gone - I think we'll be talking more and more about the impact of his loss in the years to come.

 

All that said, I think the Pats will remain a good, solid, competitive team. 9-7/10-6 that we saw last 2 years is about where I expect them to be next year. This is not a great football team anymore - it's good, but not great. They're not going to be great again anytime soon unless/until they fix the defense.

[Whiskey Pimp]

I was anticipating a different New England team after the half and that didn't happen either.

 

It seems like the Pats have not come out after the half with any decent adjustments lately. In some games they build up a lead and seem to just try to hang on. Sometimes it works and they win, sometimes it doesn't and they lose but it seems like they've lost that adjustment that allows them to keep the foot on the throats of their opponent that they used to have.

[bpwallace49]

Tom Brady is nothing without McDaniels.

 

Discuss . . .

[Duchess Jack]

somebody mentioned gameplanning to take Moss out, but the fact is you don't need to have a gameplan to take him out of the game, but rather the first quarter or half because if you can do this - he'll take care of the rest of the game for you

[Patriots]

I disagree that draftpicks will help this team. Last year they needed LBs and they passed on some very good ones in round one. In fact they traded the picks for future picks. How does that help your team win now? I know they know more about FB then me, but its hard to watch them and justify what they do sometimes.

[detlef]

Hard to gauge but this is obviously not the same team it was in 2007 (where they were still the best team in football - they just lost in the SB as a result of a few freakish plays). The personnel is very different on both sides of the ball (more particularly on D) and the key players are all a couple years older. The Pats in 2 years will most likely look like an entirely different team. I assume Brady will still be around, but I'm not sure what other "big names" on either side of the ball will still be key players. Moss? Nope. Wilfork? Doubtful. Welker? Nope (I think he's done, by the way). I'm just hopeful that they are able to do something with all those draft picks they have, though I'm getting skeptical there as well because Pioli is gone - I think we'll be talking more and more about the impact of his loss in the years to come.

 

All that said, I think the Pats will remain a good, solid, competitive team. 9-7/10-6 that we saw last 2 years is about where I expect them to be next year. This is not a great football team anymore - it's good, but not great. They're not going to be great again anytime soon unless/until they fix the defense.

Werd. Some dude goes up and glues the ball to the side of his helmet, stopping the Pats from achieving a historic feat and that was the beginning of the end? Nope, that team was one of the greatest teams every to play and proved it all season long. The Giants just happened to dial up the perfect game and they still needed to pull it out of their ass at the end.

 

That team could call it's shot and make it, every week but one. This one has to pick it's spots and hope that they're up to it when they do. Again, that's the difference between a dynasty team in it's prime and one on the other side of the curve.

[Deathpig]

What killed the Patriots was the 'point of emphasis' debacle after the 2004 season. When they weren't allowed to play their early-90's Knicks thugball on defense in the playoffs it was over. The same was true to some degree of Carolina (they committed felonies on the Phillies WRs in the playoffs in 2004) but they don't have the same aura as the Patriots so no one remembers or cares.

 

In playoff games before 2005, defenses could get away with mugging people and not get called. Some day maybe I'll put together a montage of uncalled penalties from those games (illegal hands to the face, illegal contact, pass interference, late hits, offensive holding, defensive holding etc.) that the shrewd teams-- not just the Patriots, mind you-- were getting away with because the coaches knew they weren't going to be called. You still see shades of it, but now it seems so much more egregious (see also, Steelers vs. Seahawks or the more recent Packers vs. Cardinals).

 

It has nothing to do with Seymour or Brushci or Vrabel or anything else. It has to do with linebackers not being allowed to ride piggyback on tight ends or cornerbacks putting wide receivers in armbars without being penalized and being able to take passing teams completely out of their game through, essentially, shady and illegal defensive practices that were 'allowed' because the officials wanted to 'let the players play'.

Edited January 11, 2010 by Deathpig

[rattsass]

Werd. Some dude goes up and glues the ball to the side of his helmet, stopping the Pats from achieving a historic feat and that was the beginning of the end? Nope, that team was one of the greatest teams every to play and proved it all season long. The Giants just happened to dial up the perfect game and they still needed to pull it out of their ass at the end.

You know that at that moment when the Patriots were proven "mortal" by the Giants, things changed for the Patriots. They are still good. Probably will be good. But if we are talking DYNASTY - this is the second year in a row they will ne nowhere near the Superbowl. How many years do they get to sit out and have the term dynasty intact? Does this really look like a team built to compete with the changes taking place in the league right now? This version of the plug n play team got absolutely manhandled by the Ravens. Is that the Patriots dynasty team? Open thine eyes. Still good. Not great. Not looking great for next year either as constructed.

 

The miracle catch in the Superbowl proved they were not invincible. The march to mediocrity started right then.

[Ursa Majoris]

If fan interest is any gauge, there could be some troubled times ahead for the Patriots. They struggled to sell tickets for a wild-card game, as many fans generally saw no point in investing in what ultimately would be a lost cause, with a Patriots' victory sending them to San Diego in the divisional round. There were plenty of empty seats, a rarity for any game, let alone a playoff contest, at Gillette Stadium.

 

This is symptomatic of a complacent "fan" base and hopefully, they'll get more of what they deserve. Nothing. What have you done for me today? Bah, pathetic.

[cdrudge]

He showed no willingness at all to tuck and run - several times he had a good 10 yards of open field in front of him but opted to continue dropping back. He was just plain bad.

I remember several of those plays just thinking why doesn't he run. He might not have been able to get a first down, but he would be a whole lot closer then an in completion or a sack. One of them I believe was near the goal line even.

 

I wonder if any of that goes back to his knee surgery and hesitant to put his knees at risk again or not trusting them completely. I'm not criticizing his reluctance if that was the case. Just wondering if that is an explanation, not an excuse.

[Jackass]

This is symptomatic of a complacent "fan" base and hopefully, they'll get more of what they deserve. Nothing. What have you done for me today? Bah, pathetic.

 

No different than any city in america, really, except for maybe cities like Green Bay where there are no competing forms of entertainment other than cheese rolling.

[Jackass]

I remember several of those plays just thinking why doesn't he run. He might not have been able to get a first down, but he would be a whole lot closer then an in completion or a sack. One of them I believe was near the goal line even.

 

I wonder if any of that goes back to his knee surgery and hesitant to put his knees at risk again or not trusting them completely. I'm not criticizing his reluctance if that was the case. Just wondering if that is an explanation, not an excuse.

 

maybe the knee injury. he's had other injuries all year too.

[Big John]

No different than any city in america, really, except for maybe cities like Green Bay where there are no competing forms of entertainment other than cheese rolling.

Your term for bowling?

[Balzac]

It seems like the Pats have not come out after the half with any decent adjustments lately. In some games they build up a lead and seem to just try to hang on. Sometimes it works and they win, sometimes it doesn't and they lose but it seems like they've lost that adjustment that allows them to keep the foot on the throats of their opponent that they used to have.

 

Their only adjustment Sunday was to continue to run the same draw play to Kevin Faulk. Pssst! It's not working!

[Balzac]

Tom Brady is nothing without McDaniels.

 

Discuss . . .

 

He was pretty good before McDaniels was calling the shots . . .

[Balzac]

I disagree that draftpicks will help this team. Last year they needed LBs and they passed on some very good ones in round one. In fact they traded the picks for future picks. How does that help your team win now? I know they know more about FB then me, but its hard to watch them and justify what they do sometimes.

 

So the fact that they used their picks to prepare for the future in prior drafts means that they don't know how to use them to play for the now if they need to? They haven''t needed to make immediate impact picks in prior years, so they didn't. I think you'll see a slightly different drafting strategy this time around. They very badly need to draft a defensive stopper.

[Balzac]

What killed the Patriots was the 'point of emphasis' debacle after the 2004 season. When they weren't allowed to play their early-90's Knicks thugball on defense in the playoffs it was over.

 

Really? They made it to the SB and lost on a freak play where David Tyree soaked his hat in Krazy Glu. You're going to say that their inability to win that year was because they couldn't play D the same way they were permitted to in years past? They were easily the best team in football and lost on a circus play. It happens.

 

If you ask me, it was "over" the second Brady went down last season - these days, teams can't stay cohesive enough to retain any semblance of dominance while they wait 2 years for their franchise QB to get back up to snuff.

Edited January 12, 2010 by Balzac

[Deathpig]

Yes, I'm really going to say that.

 

Why did they make the SB in 2007? Offense. They couldn't rely on their dink and dunk offense of their Super Bowl dynasty team to carry them anymore given the changes to the rules. They had to now win with offense, not with defense.

 

Philly and New England made a living in the early part of the decade on playing dink and dunk passing offense with good defenses and special teams to control time of possession and set up short fields. When the defense couldn't set the offense up they had to rethink the offense. New England got Welker and Moss and had a season trying to rewrite most seasonal offense records and THAT is why they made the Super Bowl.

 

I'm not saying that the 'point of emphasis' debacle suddenly made them a bad team. I'm saying it killed their dynasty because they were built to win under a set of assumptions that got changed. It took them two years to change, and when they got back... but again, it took an historic season to do so.

 

But the 2007 Patriots are not really part of the Patriots 'dynasty' of the early 2000's. It's a completely different team with a completely different MO, and it's not clear that they are a Super Bowl winning team going forward given a lot of the issues that are now starting to arise.

 

Alternatively, you could say the Patirots dynasty ended when they got rid of Vinatieri.

 

Tom Brady Super Bowl victories without Adam Vinatieri: 0

Adam Vinatieri Super Bowl victories without Tom Brady: 1

 

Edited January 12, 2010 by Deathpig

[WaterMan]

What killed the Patriots was the 'point of emphasis' debacle after the 2004 season. When they weren't allowed to play their early-90's Knicks thugball on defense in the playoffs it was over. The same was true to some degree of Carolina (they committed felonies on the Phillies WRs in the playoffs in 2004) but they don't have the same aura as the Patriots so no one remembers or cares.

 

In playoff games before 2005, defenses could get away with mugging people and not get called. Some day maybe I'll put together a montage of uncalled penalties from those games (illegal hands to the face, illegal contact, pass interference, late hits, offensive holding, defensive holding etc.) that the shrewd teams-- not just the Patriots, mind you-- were getting away with because the coaches knew they weren't going to be called. You still see shades of it, but now it seems so much more egregious (see also, Steelers vs. Seahawks or the more recent Packers vs. Cardinals).

 

It has nothing to do with Seymour or Brushci or Vrabel or anything else. It has to do with linebackers not being allowed to ride piggyback on tight ends or cornerbacks putting wide receivers in armbars without being penalized and being able to take passing teams completely out of their game through, essentially, shady and illegal defensive practices that were 'allowed' because the officials wanted to 'let the players play'.

 

I loved how the NFL made defenders work even harder. Now Randy Moss has the TD record.

[Balzac]

Yes, I'm really going to say that.

 

Why did they make the SB in 2007? Offense. They couldn't rely on their dink and dunk offense of their Super Bowl dynasty team to carry them anymore given the changes to the rules. They had to now win with offense, not with defense.

 

They made the SB by being the best overall team in the AFC. It wasn't just offense, as you seem to be implying - the Pats had the #4 defense in the NFL in 2007. Their offense was prolific, but their D was excellent as well.

 

Philly and New England made a living in the early part of the decade on playing dink and dunk passing offense with good defenses and special teams to control time of possession and set up short fields.

 

. . . because they didn't have a good offense, this was the brand of football that they had to employ to succeed. They didn't have a mediocre offense by design.

 

When the defense couldn't set the offense up they had to rethink the offense. New England got Welker and Moss and had a season trying to rewrite most seasonal offense records and THAT is why they made the Super Bowl.

 

Again, they were the #4 defense in football in 2007 - the D set up the offense just fine. They got Moss and Welker and their offense exploded (i.e., they didn't have to rely on the dink and dunk Os of the past - had nothing to do with their defense).

 

I'm not saying that the 'point of emphasis' debacle suddenly made them a bad team. I'm saying it killed their dynasty because they were built to win under a set of assumptions that got changed. It took them two years to change, and when they got back... but again, it took an historic season to do so.

 

Their D had a precipitous drop-off from 2004 to 2005, but it was back to being the #2 D in the NFL in 2006 and #4 in 2007. The facts simply aren't supporting your arguments here.

 

But the 2007 Patriots are not really part of the Patriots 'dynasty' of the early 2000's. It's a completely different team with a completely different MO, and it's not clear that they are a Super Bowl winning team going forward given a lot of the issues that are now starting to arise.

 

It was the best team the franchise has ever had. If you think that adding a historically prolific offense to an excellent defense is a completely different MO, that's your call - I simply think that their offense caught fire because they added 2 amazingly gifted WRs to a team that already had very smart QB and a top D. Easy math.

[Deathpig]

The only good teams they put the screws to in the regular season was Pittsburgh and San Diego (and the SD game was early in the season when SD traditionally sucks). Beating the crap out of the weak AFC East and the Browns/Bengals inflates their defensive ranking. Every other good/playoff team put up 20+ points on the Patriots that season.

 

Arguing that the 2007 Patriots defense was good is like arguing the 1999 Rams defense was good or that the 2009 Saints defense was good. It was good insomuch as the offense forced the other team to be both one-dimensional and to take risks because they had big deficits to make up. Forcing the other team to be desperate can mask a lot of your shortcomings-- completely demoralizing the other team (which happened more than once in 2007) can make you look really, really good.

 

Furthermore, my point was that the point of emphasis change, while having an effect on the regular season, has a MUCH more dramatic effect on the post-season where the real shenanigans were happening, hence the regular season metrics don't apply as much.

 

Patriots Postseason opponent scoring average 2001-2004: 17.2

Patriots Postseason opponent scoring average 2005-2009: 20.7

 

Given the small sample size, the 01-04 Patriots are negatively affected by giving up 29 to the Panthers in the Super Bowl, just as the 05-09 Patriots are positively affected by holding a crummy Jacksonville team to 3 points in 05. Throw out those outliers and it's an even more dramatic difference (15.8 to 23).

 

Yeah, I'd say something changed from 2004 to 2005 and beyond in the postseason. I wonder what it was?