Ron Sellers

So basically every loss is a 'big' game, while every win is a meaningless game?

If the Pats never won a single 'big' game, then how the hell did they make the playoffs - much less make it to the Super Bowl?

If the only thing you focus on is losses and ignore the wins, then of course things are going to look horrible.

I know Sunday's loss is disappointing, but let's try to have at least an ounce of perspective here. 97% of all teams end up not winning the Super Bowl each and every year.

ctpatsfan77

That said, there's a difference between taking a high-risk/high-to-enormous-reward gamble and a low-risk/moderate-to-high-reward gamble.

The Pats have generally shied away from the former, but not at all from the latter (e.g., Haynesworth, Moss, Dillon).

__________________
"Momentum was quickly snatched away by New England, who once again proved that any Patriot, at any moment, can make a play." —Inside the NFL, Packers v. Patriots

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

blackglass3

That's fine, but 97% of teams do not lose the exact same way over and over again.

IllegalContact

there really is not much that separates the pats from at least 2 of their SB wins and SB losses........2 of them were won with FG's in the end and 2 of them were lost with TD's in the end

the difference? I think the biggest one is the decrease in pocket awareness by brady. maybe its because of the current scheme, but I'll tell you that the current giants defense would notfare well against weis' dink and dunk. the pats were effective on those kinds of plays against the giants ...... the dump offs to the RB's the quick outs to branch........if they put more of an emphasis on those kinds of plays, then over time, the bigger plays open up. it just seems now that brady spends more time looking for the 15-20 yard throws......

I'm hoping that at the end of brady's career that they may revert to that kind of execution. I think he would be better at it now than then.

I also think that kind of offense can be staffed with cheaper players which means they cna go back to investing in defense and sticking with the recipe that won them 3 SB's

__________________
“ I think good coaches will coach with the personnel they have, and if you only have one (good) linebacker, you’re not going to play a 3–4. ”
—Hank Bullough, who installed one of the first 3–4 defenses with the New England Patriots.

IllegalContact

the fact that the pats have lost to the giants in nearly identical ways the last 3 games should set off some flags. very little separated the win from the loss

__________________
“ I think good coaches will coach with the personnel they have, and if you only have one (good) linebacker, you’re not going to play a 3–4. ”
—Hank Bullough, who installed one of the first 3–4 defenses with the New England Patriots.

MP-Logick

David Tyree, Jake Ballard, and Mario Manningham. None are great receivers. But in all three games, they made a huge catch that turned out to be the difference. Welker and Branch couldn't do the same.

In our previous Super Bowls, David Patten, Troy Brown, young Deion Branch, and David Givens all made those clutch catches. To me that's been the difference between winning or losing right there.

PatsSox363804

There's really not that much difference between the early teams and these teams as far as how the games play out, I mean not really. The biggest difference is that in those games the offense put up enough points so when the opposition scored at the end it was only tied and if mcnabb doesn't get sick maybe Philly scores quicker in sb 39. The other difference is that they got bounces and took advantage of mistakes but more importantly Brady wasn't throwing picks. Take out the Denver game this year and Brady is basically even in TD int ratio since 2005. It's like ever since he threw that pick 6 to Bailey and took his first playoff loss something changed, he only had 3 picks in 10 games before that. Granted he's asked to do more now but for someone with his career numbers that stat is odd. We really have become the colts of the early 2000's.

TriplecHamp

Over the past few years, 3 games pop out at me that go against OP's theory. Monday night in Baltimore, The opener against Buffalo, and the Cowboys game this season. Those 3 drives really stand out at me as the team as a whole coming through in the clutch. On defense the stop against Indy last year, and the stand this year against Baltimore stand out.

None of these came in the big game but if you go back to SB42 the drive that gave us the lead is an example but the defense gave it up at the end.

PatsSox363804

If that has been 2003 belichick has vinatieri kick the 48 harder and then who knows how the rest of the game plays out. Also someone not named Pierre woods is there to cover that fumble.

In last nights game there's no way Mcginest or Vrabel are offsides nor is there a chance law and Harrison would have had an extra guy in the secondary to negate a turnover.

It's stuff like that that we did in 01, 03, and 04 and not in 07 or Sunday. Just a few key plays in all of those games.

letekro

That 2003 defense was phenomenal. The Mohammed TD was fluky and Rodney and Geno getting hurt led to their final TD. That was a great defense. Just a crazy game.

Let's not forget how horrible the offense was in Indy in the second half. Their longest drive of the half was 34 yards (!) and that was the last one that ended with the Marlin Jackson interception. One sustained drive could have given the defense time to regroup.