Why all the negativity??!!

[DisgruntledTunaFan]

Once upon a time ago after the Niners won 2 Super Bowls in the early 80's-some of their key players were ageing, they got some key injuries(i.e. Montana was out for significant portions in '86), they choked in the playoffs a couple of times(one of those times, a QB controversy started brewing b/w Joe and Young), and Bill Walsh somehow managed to land in the "hot seat".

So what happened next? The '88 Niners rallied from 6-5 to the #2 seed-->ALL the way to a win in Soldier Field in the NFC Title game, then to another SB win against Cincy. They took this momentum into '89 to become the first NFL team to repeat since the Steelers.

So what's the point? BB and Pioli have continued to do outstanding jobs in assembling by far the most complete 53 man roster in the NFL. They've come up short the last couple of years after winning 3 SBs. So what? The Niners had hiccup years b/w their SBs alot worse, and look how they turned out in the long run. Even Bill Parcells and Joe Gibbs had some tough years in b/w their SB years with their respective Giants and Skins teams as well.

Keep your heads up-BB and Pioli will do yet another outstanding job this offseason, and we'll all be pleasantly surprised in '07.

BTW-if you really think the rest of the AFC will easily dethrown NE...

1. SD-Snotty Ball will be at its highest

2. Jets-unlikely they'll improve their roster talentwise. Otherwise, they won't luck out and overachieve again.

3. Indy-will be over the salary cap, despite it being *gasps* $109m

4. Jax-Del Rio is desperate

5. Denver-with THAT defense?

6. KC-Herm, 'nuff said

7. Miami-too old and still no QB

8. Buffalo-Jauran, 'nuff said

9. Pitt-should have hired their HC in-house

10. Balt-with THAT offense?

11. Cincy-Marvin has underachieved

 

[Sean Pa Patriot]

Patriots - Aging lb core, questionable Running game, and Questionable Recivers.. Also Secondary could be a issue , Brady entering his Prime yrs.. The right tackle situation needs to be solidfied...

 

[Sean Pa Patriot]

With all that said.. In Bill and Scott I trust..

 

[frankiesfly]

buffalo-JP losman

 

[Mike the Brit]

1. The loss hurt.

2. Some people deal with that by posting stuff on an internet message board that they may later realize is childish and idiotic. Good luck to them!

3. The Pats lost to a better team on the day.

4. The Pats won two Superbowls and were clearly the best team in football, despite horrendous injuries.

5. The Pats are no longer the best team in football, despite having the same coach.

6. There is a real question about why we took that (relative) backward step.

Was it: (a) loss of coaches? (b) loss of key players? (c) failure to recruit the right new players? (d) loss of harmony within the team? (e) loss of harmony between coaches and ownership? (f) just bad luck? (g) none of the above?

When the maniacs have calmed down, it's worth asking those questions. It doesn't mean that we're not grateful for where the team are or pessimistic about the future but, to finish where we started, THE LOSS HURT!

 

[SoonerPatriot]

1. The loss hurt.

2. Some people deal with that by posting stuff on an internet message board that they may later realize is childish and idiotic. Good luck to them!

3. The Pats lost to a better team on the day.

4. The Pats won two Superbowls and were clearly the best team in football, despite horrendous injuries.

5. The Pats are no longer the best team in football, despite having the same coach.

6. There is a real question about why we took that (relative) backward step.

Was it: (a) loss of coaches? (b) loss of key players? (c) failure to recruit the right new players? (d) loss of harmony within the team? (e) loss of harmony between coaches and ownership? (f) just bad luck? (g) none of the above?

When the maniacs have calmed down, it's worth asking those questions. It doesn't mean that we're not grateful for where the team are or pessimistic about the future but, to finish where we started, THE LOSS HURT!

I agree with everything you said except for No. 6. We were a better team in 2006 than we were in 2005 and we will be better in 2007 than we were in 2006.

The fact the Patriots have made 5 playoff appearences in 6 years in today's NFL is nothing short of amazing. Over that time, the roster has continued to evolve. If you look at the 2001 team, few players off that roster remained in 2003 and 2004 and beyond. Only once has a BB team regressed, and that came in 2002. And even that season was a winning season.

The long and short of it is, this team is set up to remain highly competitive for several years to come, if not more. You take your chances from there knowing full well you can't win them all.

 

[Mike the Brit]

I agree with everything you said except for No. 6. We were a better team in 2006 than we were in 2005 and we will be better in 2007 than we were in 2006.

The fact the Patriots have made 5 playoff appearences in 6 years in today's NFL is nothing short of amazing. Over that time, the roster has continued to evolve. If you look at the 2001 team, few players off that roster remained in 2003 and 2004 and beyond. Only once has a BB team regressed, and that came in 2002. And even that season was a winning season.

The long and short of it is, this team is set up to remain highly competitive for several years to come, if not more. You take your chances from there knowing full well you can't win them all.

Good points.

2005 was certainly a less strong team than 2006 because of major weaknesses in the secondary and at linebacker. Also, I think, there were difficulties with two new co-ordinators.

The fact that we now have such difficulties in the passing game hurts, though.

 

[SoonerPatriot]

Good points.

2005 was certainly a less strong team than 2006 because of major weaknesses in the secondary and at linebacker. Also, I think, there were difficulties with two new co-ordinators.

The fact that we now have such difficulties in the passing game hurts, though.

Moving forward I don't think we'll see that. I actually believe Brady is going to have a deeper WR corps over the next 3 or 4 seasons than he had in the first part of his career.

Gaffney and Caldwell will be back next season. The possibility remains of bringing in a FA and drafting another WR or two. Plus there is the ever present Chad Jackson situation. I'm not sure where that's going, but one has to figure he'll get a chance to sink or swim next year. I still believe he can be a huge asset if he wants to be.

 

[Mike the Brit]

Moving forward I don't think we'll see that. I actually believe Brady is going to have a deeper WR corps over the next 3 or 4 seasons than he had in the first part of his career.

Gaffney and Caldwell will be back next season. The possibility remains of bringing in a FA and drafting another WR or two. Plus there is the ever present Chad Jackson situation. I'm not sure where that's going, but one has to figure he'll get a chance to sink or swim next year. I still believe he can be a huge asset if he wants to be.

It's amazing what they've done with what they could find on the reject pile. OK, Reche could have won the game for us, but he made big plays this season -- we certainly wouldn't have beaten San Diego without him. But would Tom Brady have played better with Givens and Branch? I don't doubt it.

On Sunday night I saw two Pro Bowl corners playing about as well as it's possible to in the Polian-no-contact era. It pains me that one is about to walk in free agency. I wish that the team would break its lets-leverage-everything-it-can-out-of-the-rookie-contract policy and offered Ellis Hobbs a long contract now. He will only go the way of Asante in two years time if we don't.

The Eagles have already extended a lot of their 05 draftees (I know, we've been more successful than the Eagles, but it doesn't mean that we can't learn from them; they are a very well managed team with excellent personnel.) Pioli and Belichick have done marvellously for our team, but I can't help thinking that they've got their strategy wrong here.

 

[SoonerPatriot]

It's amazing what they've done with what they could find on the reject pile. OK, Reche could have won the game for us, but he made big plays this season -- we certainly wouldn't have beaten San Diego without him. But would Tom Brady have played better with Givens and Branch? I don't doubt it.

On Sunday night I saw two Pro Bowl corners playing about as well as it's possible to in the Polian-no-contact era. It pains me that one is about to walk in free agency. I wish that the team would break its lets-leverage-everything-it-can-out-of-the-rookie-contract policy and offered Ellis Hobbs a long contract now. He will only go the way of Asante in two years time if we don't.

The Eagles have already extended a lot of their 05 draftees (I know, we've been more successful than the Eagles, but it doesn't mean that we can't learn from them; they are a very well managed team with excellent personnel.) Pioli and Belichick have done marvellously for our team, but I can't help thinking that they've got their strategy wrong here.

I would have liked to have seen Samuel extended before it got to this point, but I don't think the team knew he would have this kind of season making it a huge financial committment to bring him back. The one miscalculation they made was with Branch. I dont they expected him to play the kind of hardball he played. I don't view that as a mistake, more of a miscalculation which would have likely happened to most of the front offices around the league.

I do agree, losing Hobbs is a risk because I find it hard to believe they'll get around to extending him this off-season with so much to digest with Samuel and Graham.

Anyway, Branch wouldn't have helped much last night. I see a defense that gave up 467 yards as the primary reason we lost. We need to get better players at WR, but it's even more important we get better players in the back 8 on defense.

 

[Mike the Brit]

My feeling was that a lot had to do with the passing game. No real rhythm there meant that Indiana could focus on the running game more (which they defended brilliantly) which meant that we couldn't sustain drives when it mattered, which meant that the defense was worn down.

I guess that it's just a matter of perspective. The truth is they scored more points than we did and had we played that bit better in any area it would have gone our way -- but we didn't.

 

[SoonerPatriot]

My feeling was that a lot had to do with the passing game. No real rhythm there meant that Indiana could focus on the running game more (which they defended brilliantly) which meant that we couldn't sustain drives when it mattered, which meant that the defense was worn down.

I guess that it's just a matter of perspective. The truth is they scored more points than we did and had we played that bit better in any area it would have gone our way -- but we didn't.

I agree that the offense didn't do the defense any favors yesterday. It will have to get better, and I think it will having Gaffney,Caldwell and Jackson spend another year in the system.

By the way, I saw "The Queen" Saturday. It was quite good. Big UK fan here.

 

[pats1]

Patriots - Aging lb core, questionable Running game, and Questionable Recivers.. Also Secondary could be a issue , Brady entering his Prime yrs.. The right tackle situation needs to be solidfied...

2 first round picks, $25 million in cap space, returning injured...