Patriots decline was years in the making

[emoney_33]

The Patriots haven't won a Super Bowl since 2004. I'm reasonably certain that the Patriots ownership and front office considers that unacceptable, so why should fans believing that be called out for thinking the same way?

The perfect example of a spoiled fan believing his high standards permeate through the Front Office as unacceptable.

 

[emoney_33]

If the team had found it acceptable to "compete" each season, that 2007 season wouldn't have happened. I wish more homers would take the blindfolds off and actually pay attention to what's happening instead of just being content with acting as unpaid shills. Randy Moss isn't being paid $9 million to catch passes because just competing is acceptable. The team was able to "just compete" with Reche Caldwell & company as its receiving corps.

Honestly, what WORLD do you live in? Do you understand the difference between working towards a GOAL and achieving an ACCEPTABLE end result? You set out to win the superbowl every year, but coming up short is not "unacceptable". You really have no idea how to differentiate that do you?

If my personal goal was to make $5M profit, but I ended up making $4M profit, I would never say that is "unacceptable". I however would again the next year strive to reach my goal of $5M. While I understand it's acceptable to not reach the ultimate pinnacle of success, that does not effect my effort or determination in trying to get there.

 

[emoney_33]

Why? That's just a red herring.

You are friggin annoying and mind-numbingly stubborn. Get lost if you can't hold a conversation or debate. The patriots have done a very good job in trying to stay on top long term. Better than any other team in the NFL, but yet your expectations remain to be "even better than the best"! Since you can't do any better and no one else has done any better, STFU already.

 

[NovaScotiaPatsFan]

1) Anyone who thinks that the 2007 season was part of long spiral downward is an idiot. We we were one crazy play away from being one the consensus top three or four teams of all time.

2) Anyone who whines and moans about being 11-5 without Brady in 2008 is a moron and/or a mediot.

and finally,

3) Anyone who considers a division winning season an aweful result of a long decline in the making shouldn't be paid for writing sports columns or should be a beat writer for a paper in Detroit instead of New England.

just my 2 vents and 2 cents

Man, you've been in a terrible mood since I got back, everything ok? Anything we can do?

 

[Deus Irae]

Would anyone from the past 3 drafts who survived the cuts have started over anyone from 2003 or 2004 based on early indicatons?...I can't think of any

Maroney over Smith if you go back 4 drafts, maybe? Probably not, because it would probably end up being platooned. Gostkowski vs. Vinatieri would be an interesting training camp competition.

It's a bit of an unfair question because the 2008 and 2009 draft picks haven't fully matured yet. Meriweather may one day take the Eugene Wilson spot, for example, even though he'll probably never top Rodney. Mayo may one day prove to be a worthy successor to Bruschi. Vollmer has potential, even if he would fall short of beating out 2003-2004 Light and would have to move to the right side. Butler, certainly, has the talent to take the CB2 spot from both CB2s of 2003-2004, and the question is whether or not he'll be able to harness that talent at the NFL level but, then again, I don't think anyone sees him as the next Ty Law. Edelman as a WR3, maybe?

Any way you slice it, there's a pretty obvious decline in most spots on defense, and at least questions regarding several spots on offense (TE, RB, FB, RG, WR3, and even QB if Brady can't regain his consistency)

 

[Pats726]

1) Anyone who thinks that the 2007 season was part of long spiral downward is an idiot. We we were one crazy play away from being one the consensus top three or four teams of all time.

2) Anyone who whines and moans about being 11-5 without Brady in 2008 is a moron and/or a mediot.

and finally,

3) Anyone who considers a division winning season an aweful result of a long decline in the making shouldn't be paid for writing sports columns or should be a beat writer for a paper in Detroit instead of New England.

just my 2 vents and 2 cents

TOTALLY agree with you...TOO many so called fans and know nothing columnists wishing to kick the team when it is down..makes for easy writing..and the fact that it is elevated so much SHOWS how little the heart is of the Patriot
fanbase...And I say GR to them all!!

 

[BradyManny]

If the team had found it acceptable to "compete" each season, that 2007 season wouldn't have happened. I wish more homers would take the blindfolds off and actually pay attention to what's happening instead of just being content with acting as unpaid shills. Randy Moss isn't being paid $9 million to catch passes because just competing is acceptable. The team was able to "just compete" with Reche Caldwell & company as its receiving corps.

I'm sure no one in the organization is happy with not winning a Super Bowl since 2004. With all-time greats at QB and HC, the goal every season should be a Super Bowl victory. What the fans think, or how we react, that's less relevant to me.

However, for anyone to suggest our "downfall" started after 2004, that's crazy talk. This team was ONE fluke play away from the greatest season of all-time. To not say 2007 is an overwhelming success is just not true. Its the fourth-most successful season in Patriots history.

Everyone needs to get off the ledge and think this ride of success is over. 2006, we were a failed 3rd & 4 away from the SB. 2007, we were a helmet catch from 19-0. If either one of those things had not happened, no one would be freaking out right now. And the fact that they did happen, and we didn't win rings, has no bearing on the likelihood of the 2010 being the season that the Lombardi goes back to the Patriots.

 

[Deus Irae]

You are friggin annoying and mind-numbingly stubborn. Get lost if you can't hold a conversation or debate. The patriots have done a very good job in trying to stay on top long term. Better than any other team in the NFL, but yet your expectations remain to be "even better than the best"! Since you can't do any better and no one else has done any better, (Please be quiet - edited) already.

I'm holding a conversation just fine, thanks. You jumped in with your homeristic nonsense and posted an irrelevant question. Feel free to take your own advice.

And only a complete and utter moron would think that the Patriots have done "better than any other team in the NFL" since 2004. The Steelers and Colts have clearly done a better job in that time frame, which is the time frame being discussed. Or are you now going to play the 2000-2004 Colts game of pointing to regular season games?

You know, the sort of nonsense Patriots fans used to laugh about...

 

[emoney_33]

I'm sure no one in the organization is happy with not winning a Super Bowl since 2004. With all-time greats at QB and HC, the goal every season should be a Super Bowl victory. What the fans think, or how we react, that's less relevant to me.

However, for anyone to suggest our "downfall" started after 2004, that's crazy talk. This team was ONE fluke play away from the greatest season of all-time. To not say 2007 is an overwhelming success is just not true. Its the fourth-most successful season in Patriots history.

Everyone needs to get off the ledge and think this ride of success is over. 2006, we were a failed 3rd & 4 away from the SB. 2007, we were a helmet catch from 19-0. If either one of those things had not happened, no one would be freaking out right now. And the fact that they did happen, and we didn't win rings, has no bearing on the likelihood of the 2010 being the season that the Lombardi goes back to the Patriots.

I'd also like to add that there were close plays that went OUR way in 01,03 and 04 as well. Things that were not a direct result of some magic or mystique. Things average out and overall the Patriots have continuously fielded a top 5 team with a good chance to win it all each and every year. We still had a semi-decent shot at making it this year if Welker didn't get hurt.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I myself am a realist that knows we won't win the Super Bowl every season and also realizes that this team as we know it could fall to the bottom as quickly as it rose to the top and just because Brady and Belichick are both here guarantees NOTHING but great talent of those two but it takes more to winning than just 2 guys,no matter how good they are at thier job.

The bottom line is a true fan should be HAPPY that their team has made the playoffs and a playoff team is a team that has succeeded to do more than 20 other teams have failed at..anything more than playing in the wildcard round is simply a bonus for fans.

Of course us fans should be happy with the overall performance of this team and the commitment ownership has made to put a solid team on the field for the past 10 years- especially since the prior 30+ were filled with a mix of some good times, but mostly brutal seasons to endure. Not to be would be ridiculous. However....

This organization has reached such a level of success and their own high standards have almost compelled us fans have the same expectations. Thats what good companies do. They put out a great product, market it and make the consumer think that they are getting great value. The "value" is different for each of us. The Pats have been brilliant with this. So has BB.

At the start of the 2001 season, I remember thinking to myself that I would be tickled to death with a 9-7 season. Why? It showed progress and hope. That year, good "value" was a winning record and hope for the future. Obviously, expectations were exceeded. SB 38 met my expectations. SB 39 met my expectations. 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 did not meet my expectations. As a fan did I get good value? Absolutely. Am I happy with how each of those seasons ended. No. Was I realistic? Absolutely not. I'm spoiled rotten to the core.

I expect the Pats to win the SB every year. Based on the Pat's mission statement which is to field a tough, smart football team that competes for championships every year, quite frankly they failed in achieving that in a couple of years- notably last year.

Look at the Yankees model. Their management deems every year is a failure that does not produce a championship. That is what their fan base now commands. The Pats are pretty close to those expectations- both internally and their fan base, myself included.

 

[emoney_33]

I'm holding a conversation just fine, thanks. You jumped in with your homeristic nonsense and posted an irrelevant question. Feel free to take your own advice.

And only a complete and utter moron would think that the Patriots have done "better than any other team in the NFL" since 2004. The Steelers and Colts have clearly done a better job in that time frame, which is the time frame being discussed. Or are you now going to play the 2000-2004 Colts game of pointing to regular season games?

You know, the sort of nonsense Patriots fans used to laugh about...

You can cherry pick OUT the superbowl seasons all you want, it doesn't mean it didn't happen. You have absolutely no leg to stand on and you continuously divert the conversation with your stupid "red herring" and "straw man" keywords, whenever a question is posed to you that blows your stupid argument out of the water.

The fact of the matter is 2001-2004 HAPPENED, and it happened under this same regime. Also the fact of the matter is that there is still a significant amount of uncontrollable factors that go into winning a superbowl, and playoff teams are usually separated by only a hair. A good or bad bounce here or there. You don't always control that.

Kraft, BB and the staff have not changed methods, ideals, or goals. You are dogging on the EXACT methods, ideals and goals that brought 3 titles in 4 years. You simply CANNOT have a perfect world where not only do you have that but you also magically adapt it to have perfect hindsight to work in every single year.

Bottom line this decade the Patriots have been better than every team in the NFL and that is by and large due to BB. End of story. Now continue on with your whining, because of your love obsession with Seymour, kind of like Wrong Borges.

 

[Deus Irae]

I'm sure no one in the organization is happy with not winning a Super Bowl since 2004. With all-time greats at QB and HC, the goal every season should be a Super Bowl victory. What the fans think, or how we react, that's less relevant to me.

However, for anyone to suggest our "downfall" started after 2004, that's crazy talk. This team was ONE fluke play away from the greatest season of all-time. To not say 2007 is an overwhelming success is just not true. Its the fourth-most successful season in Patriots history.

Everyone needs to get off the ledge and think this ride of success is over. 2006, we were a failed 3rd & 4 away from the SB. 2007, we were a helmet catch from 19-0. If either one of those things had not happened, no one would be freaking out right now. And the fact that they did happen, and we didn't win rings, has no bearing on the likelihood of the 2010 being the season that the Lombardi goes back to the Patriots.

The team has clearly not been as good in the second half of the decade as it was in the first half, even with the excellence of that 2007 season. The 2009 team was, arguably, the worst team the Patriots have fielded since 2002 or possibly even 2000. This is true even though it was a relatively injury free campaign (Brady's injury was 2008).

The word used in the title is "Decline". It's accurate. "Downfall" is accurate or an overreaction, depending upon which meaning of the term is being referred to. A comparative talent evaluation shows the decline.

 

[emoney_33]

I expect the Pats to win the SB every year. Based on the Pat's mission statement which is to field a tough, smart football team that competes for championships every year, quite frankly they failed in achieving that in a couple of years- notably last year.

That is problem number 1. EXPECTING a superbowl is far different than expecting a team that is CAPABLE of winning the superbowl. I fully expect the latter, but to expect the former is ridiculous spoiled entitled attitude IMHO. They have kept consistent with their mission statement, and even last year it took a tie breaker to stop the team from competing in the playoffs after a devastating injury to a HOF QB.

Look at the Yankees model. Their management deems every year is a failure that does not produce a championship. That is what their fan base now commands. The Pats are pretty close to those expectations- both internally and their fan base, myself included.

2001-2008 say hello, and they don't have a salary cap btw. Much easier for the Yankees to buy talent and keep competing than for an NFL team. Making what the Patriots have done and continue to do this decade even more amazing.

The yankees could afford anyone and everyone they wanted from 2001-2008 and still couldn't win it all. The Patriots have operated under strict salary cap rules and won it 3 times in 4 years.

 

[emoney_33]

The team has clearly not been as good in the second half of the decade as it was in the first half, even with the excellence of that 2007 season. The 2009 team was, arguably, the worst team the Patriots have fielded since 2002 or possibly even 2000. This is true even though it was a relatively injury free campaign (Brady's injury was 2008).

The word used in the title is "Decline". It's accurate. "Downfall" is accurate or an overreaction, depending upon which meaning of the term is being referred to. A comparative talent evaluation shows the decline.

The 2007 team was better than the 2001, 2003 and 2004 teams. I really don't care for your end-result of ONE game judgement. The Rams of 2001 were better than the 2001 Patriots, even though we were better on the ONE day that counted most. You can't build a team that only plays in the superbowl, you can only build a team that starts from the beginning.

 

[Deus Irae]

You can cherry pick OUT the superbowl seasons all you want, it doesn't mean it didn't happen. You have absolutely no leg to stand on and you continuously divert the conversation with your stupid "red herring" and "straw man" keywords, whenever a question is posed to you that blows your stupid argument out of the water.

The fact of the matter is 2001-2004 HAPPENED, and it happened under this same regime. Also the fact of the matter is that there is still a significant amount of uncontrollable factors that go into winning a superbowl, and playoff teams are usually separated by only a hair. A good or bad bounce here or there. You don't always control that.

Kraft, BB and the staff have not changed methods, ideals, or goals. You are dogging on the EXACT methods, ideals and goals that brought 3 titles in 4 years. You simply CANNOT have a perfect world where not only do you have that but you also magically adapt it to have perfect hindsight to work in every single year.

Bottom line this decade the Patriots have been better than every team in the NFL and that is by and large due to BB. End of story. Now continue on with your whining, because of your love obsession with Seymour, kind of like Wrong Borges.

I'm not cherrypicking anything. I'm discussing the O.P., the article that inspired it, and the subsequent posts.

Now, you can join in that conversation, or you can continue to toss out red herrings. If you do the former, I'll be happy to discuss this with you. If you continue with the latter, I'll just ignore you from here forward.

 

[RobertWeathers]

That is problem number 1. EXPECTING a superbowl is far different than expecting a team that is CAPABLE of winning the superbowl. I fully expect the latter, but to expect the former is ridiculous spoiled entitled attitude IMHO. They have kept consistent with their mission statement, and even last year it took a tie breaker to stop the team from competing in the playoffs after a devastating injury to a HOF QB..

Didn't say I was right. Just being honest. It's interesting though. I don't feel that the Red Sox will win the WS every year. Just the Pats. Again, it's attributed to the amout of success that they have had for an extended period if time.

2001-2008 say hello, and they don't have a salary cap btw. Much easier for the Yankees to buy talent and keep competing than for an NFL team. Making what the Patriots have done and continue to do this decade even more amazing..

Don't disagree at all. But after every season, either Hank or in years past George says to the effect that they were disappointed in the season and will work feverishly to bring home a WS next year. Now, in fairness to the Krafts, they don't do this. However if you heard Bob or Jonathan this past week there is no doubt that they are bummed out in a major way. That tells me that they are also spoiled by the teams success. They understand how hard it is to win a SB and they appreciate the luck it sometimes takes, but just like the fans, they are accustomed to a high-level of success. It's natural. Same with the Steinbrenners.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

I'd also like to add that there were close plays that went OUR way in 01,03 and 04 as well. Things that were not a direct result of some magic or mystique. Things average out and overall the Patriots have continuously fielded a top 5 team with a good chance to win it all each and every year. We still had a semi-decent shot at making it this year if Welker didn't get hurt.

Welker does not stop the Ravens from putting 24 points on the board in the first quarter - Welker didn't give up 4th quarter points in losses,Welker isn't in the locker room with an I don't really care attitude,Welker doesn't block.

In overall talent we probably had the worst or close to worst team in the playoffs this year - Only the weak ass AFC East and the inconsistency of a rookie QB (Sanchez) and his turnovers got us to win the division after failing to beat ANY team with a playoff reservation all year.

One player is not making a difference...get real.

 

[emoney_33]

I'm not cherrypicking anything. I'm discussing the O.P., the article that inspired it, and the subsequent posts.

Now, you can join in that conversation, or you can continue to toss out red herrings. If you do the former, I'll be happy to discuss this with you. If you continue with the latter, I'll just ignore you from here forward.

The OP is a trash article that cherry picks things like the Panthers superbowl, completely ignoring the divisional round against the titans that was a knock-down-drag-out defensive battle. We scored 3 total points in the second half, and Bethel friggin Johnson was our leading receiver. So yeah where were the "clutch" spectacular leaping catches from Givens (26 yards) and Branch (10 yards)? If the defense plays slightly worse, we don't move on and there is no superbowl.

If the Patriots had eased off the hard-line stance and paid either Branch or Givens, maybe they convert that late third down in the 2006 AFC Championship Game, don't blow the 15-point halftime lead, beat the Bears for title No. 4 and don't give up the AFC throne to the Colts.

It's revisionist history and fantasy. Neither Branch nor Givens were responsible for all the wins or the "clutch". You can cherry pick the games they were clutch and say if-only all you want. Fact of the matter is that it was a culmination of many things including uncontrollable factors. You can point to uncontrollable referee calls in the past playoffs as well as a single thing that COULD have put us over the edge. You can also imagine a bad PI call late in the Titans game in 03 playoffs, and maybe that's a 1-and-done year too.

The article is a pile of crap that sensationalizes the SB titles and tries to rationalize something that the author is obviously incapable of even discussing.

 

[emoney_33]

Don't disagree at all. But after every season, either Hank or in years past George says to the effect that they were disappointed in the season and will work feverishly to bring home a WS next year. Now, in fairness to the Krafts, they don't do this. However if you heard Bob or Jonathan this past week there is no doubt that they are bummed out in a major way. That tells me that they are also spoiled by the teams success. They understand how hard it is to win a SB and they appreciate the luck it sometimes takes, but just like the fans, they are accustomed to a high-level of success. It's natural. Same with the Steinbrenners.

I understand completely that anyone involved should be "bummed" about not winning it all. It is 100% absolutely the goal and something you -want- to do every year. But when reflecting it is NOT an utter failure if you do not accomplish the incredibly difficult task of winning the superbowl. Doesn't mean you enjoy it, or that you act as if it was exactly what you wanted, but you also don't go overboard in the sense of labelling it a giant failure. IMO anyway.

 

[emoney_33]

Welker does not stop the Ravens from putting 24 points on the board in the first quarter - Welker didn't give up 4th quarter points in losses,Welker isn't in the locker room with an I don't really care attitude,Welker doesn't block.

Of course he does... A more quick strike offense is implemented, Wes gets open extremely quick, the fumble probably doesn't happen, though maybe it does. The defense adjusts because they actually DO have to pay attention to Welker too. The INT probably doesn't happen and the offense probably moves a lot better. You do realize they were throwing to Matthew Slater for the first time all year right... in the playoffs!

In overall talent we probably had the worst or close to worst team in the playoffs this year - Only the weak ass AFC East and the inconsistency of a rookie QB (Sanchez) and his turnovers got us to win the division after failing to beat ANY team with a playoff reservation all year.

One player is not making a difference...get real.

We led the league in TOP, 6th in points, 3rd in yards... The "weak ass AFC East" consists of the top 2 pass defenses in the NFL. It also consisted of 2 playoff teams.

Yes one player is absolutely making a difference against the Ravens. In case you just started paying attention to football, very minor details can cause games to get out of hand quickly. And even if we spot the Ravens a 24-0 lead in the 1st quarter. With Welker we still have a far better chance to make up for it. We had the opportunities even after the failure in the 1st quarter. We just had no one outside of Moss who could do a damn thing.