Patriots: The dynasty that almost wasn't

[jmt57]

Patriots: The Dynasty that almost wasn't by Michael Hurley of NESN

I'm not sure what to make of this column. It gives a superficial look at the Pats history, mostly during the Kraft era, most of the time insinuating that the Pats' success in this decade is due mostly to luck. He starts out with the Brady draft pick and then proceeds to rattle off other examples such as the snow game, Drew Bennett dropping Steve McNair's pass in the '03 playoffs and John Kasay's kickoff going out of bounds in Super Bowl 38.

One thing I have never understood is those people that say that if the tuck rule had not been called then the Patriots would have no Super Bowl victories. What does that have to do with what happened two and three years later?

Then at the end he changes his tune and makes a half-hearted prediction that the Pats may be back on top this year - before insinuating that the Pats will need to be lucky to win it all this year.

So where does this leave the Patriots? Are they the team of the decade or are they just lucky?

The answer is yes and yes. No championship can be won without an element of luck, and while the Patriots have gone four seasons without returning to glory, their luck is far from having run out.

Yes, the Pats weren’t exactly lucky on February 3, 2008. Nor were they lucky on September 7, 2008.

But the team that acquired one of the top receivers in the league for a fourth-round pick is not finished. The law of averages has unleashed its fury. Now, it just might be time for the Patriots to return to the top of the football world.

If they’re lucky.

Reality is that any team that wins a championship has a little bit of luck go their way over the course of the season. To me this guy makes it sound like it has been all luck and no skill or good planning over the years.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

I remember watching that Titans-Patriots playoff game at a friends house and couldn't believe Drew Bennett dropped that wide open pass. Like the author said, that was a game the Pats could've lost in regulation. Looking back at it now, doesn't that play seem similar to the David Tyree catch? Had Rodney broken up that pass or Tyree dropping the ball, the Pats would've most likely won the super bowl.

With that said, I can see where this guy is coming from because the Pats have had two super bowls that came with lucky breaks. First, the lucky "tuck rule", Drew Bennett drop and the John Kasey kicking it out of bounds making it too easy for the Pats to win the game. The only season where they didn't need any breaks was the 2004 season.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

And the 49ers lucked (?) into one Super Bowl when Dwight Clark caught a TD pass that Montana was throwing away in the NFC championship game........
There will always be plays that work out when you win. (Tuck rule, AV's clutch kicks)...and other when you don't (Tyree catch, Ask a Buffalo fan about Norwood's wide right)........
what's his point?

 

[capetide]

Every other team has the chance to obtain an All-World receiver for a 4th round pick. Every other team had the opportunity to draft an All-World QB at a bargain basement price. And every other team had the opportunity to hire a HOF coach. When one person or one organization experiences good fortune time after time, you have to start thinking that maybe it isn't just dumb luck.

 

[PrairiePat]

Any winning team has some lucky breaks go their way. Great teams seem to get more lucky breaks than mediocre ones, though, proving the old adage that you make your own luck.

Yeah, the Tyree catch was lucky, but the Giants made it worth something by (1) keeping the score close with a great defensive game, and (2) then went on to finish the drive and score a TD.

The Pats did the same in the Tuck game - they kept the score close, got a late break, and then took advantage and scored.

Good teams do that, great teams make a habit of it.

 

[Ryan]

Luck doesn't keep happening over and over. The Patriots just know how to take advantage of certain situations.

 

[upstater1]

I remember watching that Titans-Patriots playoff game at a friends house and couldn't believe Drew Bennett dropped that wide open pass. Like the author said, that was a game the Pats could've lost in regulation. Looking back at it now, doesn't that play seem similar to the David Tyree catch? Had Rodney broken up that pass or Tyree dropping the ball, the Pats would've most likely won the super bowl.

With that said, I can see where this guy is coming from because the Pats have had two super bowls that came with lucky breaks. First, the lucky "tuck rule", Drew Bennett drop and the John Kasey kicking it out of bounds making it too easy for the Pats to win the game. The only season where they didn't need any breaks was the 2004 season.

Lucky breaks, eh?

The tuck rule is a rule. How is that a lucky break. We lost a game that very same year because of the tuck rule. We wouldn't even have played the Raiders were it not for the tuck rule.

Yes, luck figures into it, if you call an opponent catching a pass unlucky (Tyree) or dropping a pass unlucky (Bennett), and then there's Pierre Woods' fumble recovery which, for some odd reason, the ref refused to blow his whistle ending the play. Then you have all the unlucky things that happened against the Colts and Broncos in 2006 and 2007, like non-call on Reche in the end zone, ludicrous offensive pass interference on Troy Brown, Champ Bailey fumbling the ball into the end zone but having it spotted at the one, PI on Asante Samuel against the Broncos, etc. Don't forget a blocked kick against the Steelers that turns into a TD for Antwan Harris or a dropped interception by Joey Porter.

Seriously, what does any of this prove?

 

[sieglo]

Seriously, what does any of this prove?

That sports writers are often idiots?

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

If Drew Bennett dropping a wide open pass is a great example of good luck, is Reche Caldwell split out all alone dropping a wide open pass an equally devastaging bit of bad luck?

You can apply selective memory to any NFL team and argue the were lucky or they were cursed. This game is characterized by tough work, preparation, execution, and yes a heavy dose of quirky plays, some that help and some that hurt.

Again the Colts-AFC game, Reggie Wayne makes a killer catch, then fumbles the ball up into the air. It comes right back to him. Also, both teams in that game have O-linemen recover fumbles for TDs. Crazy lucky stuff both ways.

Some things didn't just "happen" though. I mean vs. the Chargers, a game-changing INT is negated by a fumble. But don't you think Troy Brown knew what he was doing when he made the strip?

 

[blackglass3]

Seriously, what does any of this prove?

That training camp can't get here fast enough?

 

[DaBruinz]

Patriots: The Dynasty that almost wasn't by Michael Hurley of NESN

I'm not sure what to make of this column. It gives a superficial look at the Pats history, mostly during the Kraft era, most of the time insinuating that the Pats' success in this decade is due mostly to luck. He starts out with the Brady draft pick and then proceeds to rattle off other examples such as the snow game, Drew Bennett dropping Steve McNair's pass in the '03 playoffs and John Kasay's kickoff going out of bounds in Super Bowl 38.

One thing I have never understood is those people that say that if the tuck rule had not been called then the Patriots would have no Super Bowl victories. What does that have to do with what happened two and three years later?

Then at the end he changes his tune and makes a half-hearted prediction that the Pats may be back on top this year - before insinuating that the Pats will need to be lucky to win it all this year.



Reality is that any team that wins a championship has a little bit of luck go their way over the course of the season. To me this guy makes it sound like it has been all luck and no skill or good planning over the years.

Its called the Butterfly Effect. If the incompletion hadn't been called, then you are talking about a whole different time line. Nothing would have been the same from then on. It would have changed the 2002 draft order as the Raiders would have been picking 31 or 32. There are a whole multitude of things that could have been different. That's why you can't assume that the Patriots would have won SB 38 and 39.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Its called the Butterfly Effect. If the incompletion hadn't been called, then you are talking about a whole different time line. Nothing would have been the same from then on. It would have changed the 2002 draft order as the Raiders would have been picking 31 or 32. There are a whole multitude of things that could have been different. That's why you can't assume that the Patriots would have won SB 38 and 39.

Damn butterflys, why can't they mind their own business and stick to molesting flowers. :enranged:

 

[jmt57]

Its called the Butterfly Effect. If the incompletion hadn't been called, then you are talking about a whole different time line. Nothing would have been the same from then on. It would have changed the 2002 draft order as the Raiders would have been picking 31 or 32. There are a whole multitude of things that could have been different. That's why you can't assume that the Patriots would have won SB 38 and 39.

While I agree that because of the change in the timeline one cannot assume the Pats go on to win SB 38 and 39, my issue is with those that claim that without the win against Oakland, then they assume the Patriots do not win those two Super Bowls. I would contend that there is a more of a chance that they would still win SB 38 and 39 than they would not.

 

[holyredeemer]

All I can really say in response to the article is this.

You can call it luck or whatever you want. Let's use the tuck rule as an example. The Pats keep the ball when the call was overturned, when the time comes, Adam misses the FG. Or, the call is overturned, the pats get the ball, cant get ten yards for the life of them and the game is over. Hell, the team still takes it to OT, and the pats dont get within range for Adam, game over.

That example can be used for nearly every significant drive during any given season. The bottom line is this. Luck or not, the Pats have been clutch when they needed to be during those Championship seasons. Unfortunately for the teams we played against, they weren't clutch enough.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

I can't really disagree with the writer. We've fielded a great team for the 7 of the past 8 seasons now. 3 Super Bowls to show for it, I'd say whatever bad luck we had in the past 4 years is evened out by everything that went our way from 01-04. It's called law of averages. The Colts title in '06 was pretty lucky/flukish if you ask me. But if you see how long they were a good team maybe they were just due for one. Same goes for the '05 Steelers(probably much longer overdue). Those teams were good, we were just a bit better over that time period.

 

[DaBruinz]

While I agree that because of the change in the timeline one cannot assume the Pats go on to win SB 38 and 39, my issue is with those that claim that without the win against Oakland, then they assume the Patriots do not win those two Super Bowls. I would contend that there is a more of a chance that they would still win SB 38 and 39 than they would not.

How can you say that if Oakland wins that the Patriots are still likely to win SBs 38 and 39? You are making assumptions that you can't make.

First and foremost, you can't assume that the 2002 draft will end up providing the Patriots with Graham, Branch, Davey, Green, Womack, and Givens. So, with that being the case, that changes what happens in 2002. And that, in turn affects how they draft in 2003. Which affects the 2003 season. Which affects how they draft in 2004 and affects the 2004 season.

If the Pats lose, there is no guarantee that free agents Christian Fauria, Cam Cleeland, Donald Hayes, etc sign with the team. If they don't sign, then that affects how the Patriots handle the Draft. Also, there is no guarantee that Phifer would have re-upped with the Pats.

Tens of thousands of possibilities could have occured that could have kept the Patriots from winning SBs 38 and 39. To say that there is more of a chance of them winning those 2 says that you don't really understand all the changes that could potentially take place. And every change that happens leads to a different set of circumstances. Which would then lead to another set of different circumstances.

Basically, all that can be said is that if the Patriots lost to Oakland, that no one could know what would have happened down the line. Just remember, if the Pats lose to Oakland, Oakland would play Pittsburgh. And its a toss up who would have one. But in either case, neither would have beat the Rams. And THEIR dynasty probably would have started instead of being short-circuited by the Pats.

 

[jmt57]

How can you say that if Oakland wins that the Patriots are still likely to win SBs 38 and 39? You are making assumptions that you can't make.

First and foremost, you can't assume that the 2002 draft will end up providing the Patriots with Graham, Branch, Davey, Green, Womack, and Givens. So, with that being the case, that changes what happens in 2002. And that, in turn affects how they draft in 2003. Which affects the 2003 season. Which affects how they draft in 2004 and affects the 2004 season.

If the Pats lose, there is no guarantee that free agents Christian Fauria, Cam Cleeland, Donald Hayes, etc sign with the team. If they don't sign, then that affects how the Patriots handle the Draft. Also, there is no guarantee that Phifer would have re-upped with the Pats.

Tens of thousands of possibilities could have occured that could have kept the Patriots from winning SBs 38 and 39. To say that there is more of a chance of them winning those 2 says that you don't really understand all the changes that could potentially take place. And every change that happens leads to a different set of circumstances. Which would then lead to another set of different circumstances.

Basically, all that can be said is that if the Patriots lost to Oakland, that no one could know what would have happened down the line. Just remember, if the Pats lose to Oakland, Oakland would play Pittsburgh. And its a toss up who would have one. But in either case, neither would have beat the Rams. And THEIR dynasty probably would have started instead of being short-circuited by the Pats.

And you are making the assumption that the Pats would be worse off, without any chance of being better off. If anything the Pats with a better draft pick would more likely end up being better, not worse.

The 2001 season ends, season over. How the team did the previous year doesn't make a team do better or worse the following year. Each year is different, each game is different. Winning (or losing) one year does not mean the team is more (or less) likely to win the next year - skill, preparation and execution (with a bit of luck) determines those outcomes. For example if 2008 was determined by 2007, then how do you explain the Falcons, Dolphins, Ravens and Cardinals?

I understand what you're saying about the 'butterfly effect' changing things, but in my opinion you're making it out to be much bigger than it most likely would be. Of course there are chances there would be a dramatic effect - that was never my contention. What I was talking about was people saying that absolutely the Pats would not win SB 38 and 39 if they don't win SB 36. That is the logic that I fail to follow.

I'm not talking about the infinite amount of possibilities of what might happen when a change occurs during that timeline. What I am asking is 'what would be the most likely to happen'? And I would say that the Pats winning is still the most likely outcome based on the events that did actually occur.

 

[Bartmac36]

That training camp can't get here fast enough?

nicely played...

I don't think luck is a factor, but an ability/inability to capitalize on golden opportunities at crucial times has defined our dynasty for sure...

 

[DaBruinz]

And you are making the assumption that the Pats would be worse off, without any chance of being better off. If anything the Pats with a better draft pick would more likely end up being better, not worse.

What part of "all that can be said is that if the Patriots lost to Oakland, that no one could know what would have happened down the line" didn't you understand? How is that me "making an assumption that the Pats would be worse off?" There is NO WAY to tell what would have happened. NONE. And no, you can't assume that the Patriots would have been better with a better draft pick. Perfect examples are Chad Jackson and Bethel Johnson.

Instead of putting words in my mouth, read what is said. No where did I make an assumption about what the Patriots future would have been had they lost to Oakland. Here is what I said. "that changes what happens in 2002. And that, in turn affects how they draft in 2003. Which affects the 2003 season. Which affects how they draft in 2004 and affects the 2004 season." Do you see ANYWHERE in that sentence that says that they would be better or worse off. No. You don't. It was YOUR assumptions. Not mine. Because YOU chose to assume something was said that wasn't.

The 2001 season ends, season over. How the team did the previous year doesn't make a team do better or worse the following year. Each year is different, each game is different. Winning (or losing) one year does not mean the team is more (or less) likely to win the next year - skill, preparation and execution (with a bit of luck) determines those outcomes. For example if 2008 was determined by 2007, then how do you explain the Falcons, Dolphins, Ravens and Cardinals?

You really should work on reading what is said. No where did I say ANYTHING about the records. What I said was that things would be different if the Patriots lost to Oakland.

I'm not going to bother with your examples because you clearly didn't comprehend what was said so they have no bearing on what is being talked about.

I understand what you're saying about the 'butterfly effect' changing things, but in my opinion you're making it out to be much bigger than it most likely would be. Of course there are chances there would be a dramatic effect - that was never my contention. What I was talking about was people saying that absolutely the Pats would not win SB 38 and 39 if they don't win SB 36. That is the logic that I fail to follow.

No, you clearly don't understand what is being said about the butterfly effect changing things. If you did, there is no way that you could be making the claims that you are making. None. Unless you are claiming to be clairvoyant. Why? Because, when you change something, you change every single event that happens after that. Nothing would occur exactly the same way.

Now, for the people claiming that there is no way the Patriots would win SBs 38 and 39, they are just as wrong as you are. There is no way of knowing. Absolutely none.

I'm not talking about the infinite amount of possibilities of what might happen when a change occurs during that timeline. What I am asking is 'what would be the most likely to happen'? And I would say that the Pats winning is still the most likely outcome based on the events that did actually occur.

Again, there is absolutely, positively no way to say that the Pats winning would be the most likely outcome because as soon as you say they lose to Oakland, all the other events cease to exist and a new timeline occurs. There is absolutely no way for you to even support the idea that the Pats would be the most likely winners. Because, as I said, everything changes. The outcomes of the the 2002 draft, 2002 season, 2003 draft, 2003 season, 2004 draft, and 2004 season.

Hell, for all we know, if the Pats lose to the Raiders, Brady doesn't get his extension and is traded. That is one of an infinite number of plausible outcomes. Or they don't draft Branch and Givens and the Patriots continue to have WR woes.

How can you possibly say that the Patriots, in your mind, would most likely win SBs 38 and 39 when you can't even begin to say who would be on the 2003 team? I mean, in all honesty, you are more likely to win the lottery than have what you propose actually be the time line that would occur if the Pats had lost to Oakland.

 

[BradyFTW!]

No, you clearly don't understand what is being said about the butterfly effect changing things. If you did, there is no way that you could be making the claims that you are making. None. Unless you are claiming to be clairvoyant. Why? Because, when you change something, you change every single event that happens after that. Nothing would occur exactly the same way.

But many things would occur essentially the same way. I agree with the general idea of what you're saying, but you're going a little extreme with the magnitude of it.