"Don't worry, we have Brady"

[tonyto3690]

I think people are a little bit over confident when it comes to Bradys ability to make everything work. Yes, he certainly is a massive benefit, but we've seen in the past what happens when we put it completely on his shoulders to win the game. We can't win that way. No QB in the history of the league could do that. In 2011 and 2010 he got WAY closer than I thought remotely possible, but he's aging and should be throwing less, not more.

People will point to 2006. We had one of the best defenses in the NFL year. I'm high on this years defense, but lets be honest. They are not going to be that good. That defense was stacked. Elite DL. Elite LB corps. Solid secondary. Along with loaded veteran savvy and experience.

People will try to pretend Dobson and Boyce will come in and light it up. They're rookies. We haven't had a successful rookie WR since Branch a decade ago. Why is it assumed that BOTH guys will come in and have a big time immediate impact? Both are good prospects who may or may not be ready this year.

People will point to Amendola. Um what? He's missed as many games as he has started in his career. That was with a lighter workload. Now he's going to significantly increase his workload to match Welker's and stay healthy the entire season? AND be as efficient? Sorry. I can't buy that.

The beginning of the season will be ugly; and everyone will bemoan the end of the world. Then around the midpoint the team will get on a roll and start winning some games. We will be seen as a contender. We will win a first round playoff game against an inferior team and then lose to a better team in the playoffs where we and the media will all point to the inferior wide receiver options and there not being enough talent there.

Brady is the GOAT. But there are limits to what even the GOAT can do.

 

[BradyManny]

re: "Don't worry, we have Brady"

That 2006 defense was good, but it was also filled with guys who just a year later would be completely out of gas when it mattered most. This team is filled with young defenders just getting better. The next 3 years for this defense is brighter than that '06 team, so from a long-term perspective, I like this team's ability to compete.

This year might have a few roadbumps since some of the attrition to the team was unexpected (losing Welker to Phins; Hernandez turning out to be a sociopathic murderer; maybe Gronk's injury lingers, etc.) but the defensive core, which is what is really needed to help Brady, is there. I'm confident that no matter who we put around Brady, he'll put points on the board. We've been missing an outside receiver for years, and we've had a top 3 offense all along. If we don't have that this year, I think we now have the defense to make up for it.

This defense has not been playing complementary ball for years, it started to last year, and I think we'll see how much easier it is for the offense to put up points when its with a D that can actually get off the field. Looking at the team as a whole, I like where we are.

 

[DarrylS]

re: "Don't worry, we have Brady"

Me thinks that you might be listening to the "doom and gloom" crowd, if you know this much why don't you just fast forward to January..

The reality is that our D has shown steady improvement, and if they keep the other team out of the endzone.. the offense will be better.

No one is assuming that Boyd and Dobson will "light it up"... no one is assuming that Amendola will replace Welker, they are different types of receivers..

What you have to look at is on paper, better defense, more experienced and versatile running backs, a very good offensive line, improved special teams and an infusion of youth and speed.

Will they go all the way?? A lot of that has to do with how the chips fall in the season..

 

[everlong]

re: "Don't worry, we have Brady"

Don't worry, we have Tebow.

 

[Efstratios]

re: "Don't worry, we have Brady"

As the roster is now, I don't think we can win the SB, unless a lot of guys really step up their game, especially at the safety, DE, and wr positions.

That being said, I think Brady alone is more than enough to win us the division and carry us to the second round.

 

[Raymond]

re: "Don't worry, we have Brady"

The beginning of the season will be ugly; and everyone will bemoan the end of the world. Then around the midpoint the team will get on a roll and start winning some games. We will be seen as a contender. We will win a first round playoff game against an inferior team and then lose to a better team in the playoffs............

If you already know all this, can I have Wednesdays powerball number please?

 

[Archeryaddict12]

Brady hides flaws though. Tom will carry us like the past couple of years. He will put us in position to win it all, the whole team will have to come together to win it all. But with Tom we are contenders every year. But to win in the AFCCG and SB you have to play as a team. Not hoping Tom works his miracles.

 

[patsfanincleveland]

re: "Don't worry, we have Brady"

I think people are a little bit over confident when it comes to Bradys ability to make everything work. Yes, he certainly is a massive benefit, but we've seen in the past what happens when we put it completely on his shoulders to win the game. We can't win that way. No QB in the history of the league could do that. In 2011 and 2010 he got WAY closer than I thought remotely possible, but he's aging and should be throwing less, not more.

People will point to 2006. We had one of the best defenses in the NFL year. I'm high on this years defense, but lets be honest. They are not going to be that good. That defense was stacked. Elite DL. Elite LB corps. Solid secondary. Along with loaded veteran savvy and experience.

People will try to pretend Dobson and Boyce will come in and light it up. They're rookies. We haven't had a successful rookie WR since Branch a decade ago. Why is it assumed that BOTH guys will come in and have a big time immediate impact? Both are good prospects who may or may not be ready this year.

People will point to Amendola. Um what? He's missed as many games as he has started in his career. That was with a lighter workload. Now he's going to significantly increase his workload to match Welker's and stay healthy the entire season? AND be as efficient? Sorry. I can't buy that.

The beginning of the season will be ugly; and everyone will bemoan the end of the world. Then around the midpoint the team will get on a roll and start winning some games. We will be seen as a contender. We will win a first round playoff game against an inferior team and then lose to a better team in the playoffs where we and the media will all point to the inferior wide receiver options and there not being enough talent there.

Brady is the GOAT. But there are limits to what even the GOAT can do.

You'd be best served by re-thinking your post.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

re: "Don't worry, we have Brady"

Brady is the GOAT. But there are limits to what even the GOAT can do.

Bah!

10 characters

 

[JMC00]

re: "Don't worry, we have Brady"

Brady is the GOAT. But there are limits to what even the GOAT can do.

First off obviously you don't think he is or you wouldn't have made this thread.

Secondly the whole WR in 10 years thing is kind of over blown especially when McDaniels has been the OC.

2005- No WR taken
2006- Chad Jackson wasn't his decision and I believe he may have even been against that one.
2007- No WR taken
2008- Matthew Slater taken in the 5th round. But obviously a Bill pick for a Special Teams player

McDaniels had never had a hand in picking a WR in his first tenure with the Patriots.

But then when he had the power on decisions he did pretty nicely for Denver in the WR department when he picked Thomas and Decker.

And Dobson and Boyce don't have to come in and light it up to help contribute to this team. Gronk and Hernandez didn't exactly light it up their 1st year, they made solid contributions and it helped the team get to a 14-2 record and have the best offense in the league.

Before you go into "well Welker was there". Yes he was but Welker also had his worst year with the Patriots that year coming off his knee injury. If Amendola stays healthy I believe he can surpass what Welker did that year which would make any Welker argument irrelevant.

People will point to Amendola. Um what? He's missed as many games as he has started in his career. That was with a lighter workload. Now he's going to significantly increase his workload to match Welker's and stay healthy the entire season? AND be as efficient? Sorry. I can't buy that.

Amendola, Games Played- 42, Games Missed- 20.

So you're wrong there. Also had the IR return rules been in effect for 2011 he wouldn't have missed 15 games. He's also shown twice he can put in a full season. The two games he missed in '09 were the first 2 games of the season and he was a healthy inactive.

You also under estimate what going from the likes of Sam Bradford, Kyle Boller, Marc Bulger and Keith Null and the Rams to Tom Brady and the Patriots may do for someone.

 

[MoneyFX]

re: "Don't worry, we have Brady"

Yeah, but it's not like Brady has nobody around him. The offensive line is great and he has a lead back in Stevan Ridley who can provide balance and kill the clock late in games, along with Shane Vereen, a dynamic change of pace back who is fast and has great hands as a receiver. We know what Gronkowski and Edelman can do, depends on if he's healthy or not. Just a few little thoughts.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

re: "Don't worry, we have Brady"

Does anyone really question that a team can only win consistently and be in Super Bowl contention when all 53 players and coaches are on one page?

I have never seen a team in dissention or a team devout of an abundance of talent win a Super Bowl...and probably never will.

 

[Oswlek]

re: "Don't worry, we have Brady"

Only an idiot would purport that having Brady assures a SB victory. We have 8 years that prove otherwise.

But he certainly gives NE a very good chance at being a good team, with as much of a shot as any other team.

In 2010, they played with an entirely rebuilt TE position, a WR coming off a major knee injury and another WR who was falling fast that couldn't even make it on the team through October. Somehow they won 14 games and had an offense that blew the doors off the rest of the league. I don't buy into the idea that they weren't playoff built, or something to that effect. They just picked the wrong time to play their worst game of the season.

If you beat all four of the championship teams - three in dominant fashion - over the second half of the year, you are good enough to win a super bowl. Whether you do or not is another story.

Fast forward to 2011, at one point they literally had Kouts, Slater and Edelman on the field at the same time. Read that again. Yes, the offense didn't suffer through as much turmoil, but they still lost Hernandez for four games and saw Branch pretty much fall off a cliff in December because their other option for #2 was a complete failure. Somehow they won 13 games and were a single play away from winning the SB - without Gronk. Pick any single play you want.

Last year they were in the AFCCG again, which for most fan bases would be enough to demonstrate success, but to Patriot fans it is viewed as a failure.

The funny thing is, wouldn't you rather have questions about a squad in July then know for a fact that they were one of the worst December teams in the league? Because that is precisely what Baltimore was down the stretch last year.

Having Brady means they will likely win the AFCE and have a home playoff game. To go further they need the rest of the roster to step up. You know what? That means they are already in a better position than at least 25 other teams. :rocker:

 

[NEPettyOfficer72]

re: "Don't worry, we have Brady"

Out of over 18 years of watching football, I've still never seen a quarterback as great as Tom Brady. To me, with all due respect to Joe Montana, Tom Brady is the best quarterback in the history of the NFL. I looked up many stats on pro-football reference.com and Brady has passed Montana in ALL major categories except for SB Wins, and SB MVP (only 1 more than Tom)s. Everything else belongs to Tom, including Post Season wins which he passed Montana last year with 17, putting him at the top. He also has the most Superbowl starts out of any quarterback in NFL history, with 5 to Montana's 4, and was only a play or two away from winning all 5. A 41 point deficit last year to the league's best defense on Monday night at home, and he rallied that team 39 points back, nearly winning the game. That same defense that clamped down on Aaron Rodgers in the post season, and kept him down. He is still the best in the game today, and in his prime for another two years or so. With all that being said, for every team that's ever had a Championship win, it takes just that.... A TEAM.

 

[tonyto3690]

re: "Don't worry, we have Brady"

That 2006 defense was good, but it was also filled with guys who just a year later would be completely out of gas when it mattered most. This team is filled with young defenders just getting better. The next 3 years for this defense is brighter than that '06 team, so from a long-term perspective, I like this team's ability to compete.

Completely meaningless. I'm talking about this season.

This seasons unrealistic-best-case-scenario is the 2006 defense.

This year might have a few roadbumps since some of the attrition to the team was unexpected (losing Welker to Phins; Hernandez turning out to be a sociopathic murderer; maybe Gronk's injury lingers, etc.) but the defensive core, which is what is really needed to help Brady, is there. I'm confident that no matter who we put around Brady, he'll put points on the board. We've been missing an outside receiver for years, and we've had a top 3 offense all along. If we don't have that this year, I think we now have the defense to make up for it.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Just assuming Brady will pull off a miracle and make it work with scrubs is going to cost us the season. Expecting Brady to play perfect for 4 consecutive playoff games is just unrealistic.

This defense has not been playing complementary ball for years, it started to last year, and I think we'll see how much easier it is for the offense to put up points when its with a D that can actually get off the field. Looking at the team as a whole, I like where we are.

The team has gotten worse, and we weren't good enough last year.

The progression from the defense isn't enough to compensate for 4 of our 5 top receivers being gone.

First off obviously you don't think he is or you wouldn't have made this thread.

Secondly the whole WR in 10 years thing is kind of over blown especially when McDaniels has been the OC.

2005- No WR taken
2006- Chad Jackson wasn't his decision and I believe he may have even been against that one.
2007- No WR taken
2008- Matthew Slater taken in the 5th round. But obviously a Bill pick for a Special Teams player

McDaniels had never had a hand in picking a WR in his first tenure with the Patriots.

But then when he had the power on decisions he did pretty nicely for Denver in the WR department when he picked Thomas and Decker.

I think McDaniels is underrated as a drafter. But expecting two rookies to come in and contribute from day 1 when veterans have struggled to pick up the playbook is just not realistic.

And Dobson and Boyce don't have to come in and light it up to help contribute to this team. Gronk and Hernandez didn't exactly light it up their 1st year, they made solid contributions and it helped the team get to a 14-2 record and have the best offense in the league.

Gronk had 10 TDs and Hernandez did in fact play very well. Furthermore our defense forced a ton of turnovers and Brady played at a ridiculous level. I still maintain that his 2010 was more impressive than his 2007.

Before you go into "well Welker was there". Yes he was but Welker also had his worst year with the Patriots that year coming off his knee injury. If Amendola stays healthy I believe he can surpass what Welker did that year which would make any Welker argument irrelevant.

Welker was a shell of himself that year.

Gronk, Hernandez and Branch were also there. None of the options were elite. But there were four solid options that could get open at a pretty high rate.

This year we have Amendola (may or may not be there all season)
Edelman (may or may not be there all season)
Gronkowski (may or may not be there all season)


Also, if you haven't forgotten. Because none of our guys were elite pass catchers at that point, we struggled mightily against the Jets in the playoffs (and lost). The Jets crowded the middle of the field and neither Welker nor Branch could get open consistently against man converage.

In the playoffs you NEED that guy who can get open when you need a first down or can make that game breaking play. Gronk I think will be that in the playoffs, but as we saw in 2009, it doesn't matter much if you have an elite guy if everyone else is injured or garbage.

Amendola, Games Played- 42, Games Missed- 20.

So you're wrong there. Also had the IR return rules been in effect for 2011 he wouldn't have missed 15 games. He's also shown twice he can put in a full season. The two games he missed in '09 were the first 2 games of the season and he was a healthy inactive.

Games played =/= Games started. He has started 17 games in his career.

Sure, when he plays only 5 snaps a game, he can survive the game. But when he's on the field as the #1 or #2 option every down like Welker was? He has not shown he can maintain a workload LESS than Welker, let alone AS MUCH.

You also under estimate what going from the likes of Sam Bradford, Kyle Boller, Marc Bulger and Keith Null and the Rams to Tom Brady and the Patriots may do for someone.

You forgot Peyton "I want to get my WRs killed" Manning. But yes, fair point.

Me thinks that you might be listening to the "doom and gloom" crowd, if you know this much why don't you just fast forward to January..

The reality is that our D has shown steady improvement, and if they keep the other team out of the endzone.. the offense will be better.

No one is assuming that Boyd and Dobson will "light it up"... no one is assuming that Amendola will replace Welker, they are different types of receivers..

What you have to look at is on paper, better defense, more experienced and versatile running backs, a very good offensive line, improved special teams and an infusion of youth and speed.

Will they go all the way?? A lot of that has to do with how the chips fall in the season..

It's not doom and gloom to call it like it is.

Our team has failed the past several years when we aren't gifted turnovers to our defense. Our team does great in the regular season because we get turnovers every game. But in the playoffs those easy freebies haven't come as frequently and we've struggled as a result.

Sorry, but a defense that relies on turnovers to be good is not a good defense. It is extremely rare for a defense like that to win a superbowl. The only team I can think of to do it is the Saints in 2009. And they were gifted some freebies by career chokes Peyton and Favre.

If you already know all this, can I have Wednesdays powerball number please?

Don't be a child. This teams obvious weakness is the WR position. I hope I'm wrong but we've seen this same story the past 4 years. 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012. Each year we lost in the playoffs because our WRs couldn't get consistent separation downfield.

 

[BradyManny]

re: "Don't worry, we have Brady"

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Just assuming Brady will pull off a miracle and make it work with scrubs is going to cost us the season. Expecting Brady to play perfect for 4 consecutive playoff games is just unrealistic.

The team has gotten worse, and we weren't good enough last year.

The progression from the defense isn't enough to compensate for 4 of our 5 top receivers being gone.

I'm not expecting Brady to play perfectly. I'm expecting him to make the players around him better, as he has done for the last dozen years. And I'm expecting him to be the best player on the roster, which he has been for about the same time.

We're not asking a miracle of Tom Brady this year: Gronkowski is probably the 2nd best offensive player he's been teamed with in his career. Amendola is a good young player, who if healthy, will not be a huge dropoff from Wes Welker. Jake Ballard was the top TE and #3 receiver (in yards) on the team that beat us in the Super Bowl a couple years ago. Stevan Ridley is a quality starting caliber RB. Shane Vereen started to show flashes of things to come. Most importantly, this OL is one of the best in the business and its importance to our success goes overshadowed by our skill players each year.

This is not 2006 when outside of Tom Brady and the OL, the offense was almost entirely made up of guys who would never contribute in the NFL again, for anyone. We have weapons. We have a great line. We have a great system in place and a QB who is a master in it. This team largely survived the losses of Gronk, Hernandez & Edelman at various times last year and kept ticking. The offense is going to be OK. It might not look like 2007 out of the gate, but it's going to be OK.

 

[Rob0729]

re: "Don't worry, we have Brady"

I think people are a little bit over confident when it comes to Bradys ability to make everything work. Yes, he certainly is a massive benefit, but we've seen in the past what happens when we put it completely on his shoulders to win the game. We can't win that way. No QB in the history of the league could do that. In 2011 and 2010 he got WAY closer than I thought remotely possible, but he's aging and should be throwing less, not more.

People will point to 2006. We had one of the best defenses in the NFL year. I'm high on this years defense, but lets be honest. They are not going to be that good. That defense was stacked. Elite DL. Elite LB corps. Solid secondary. Along with loaded veteran savvy and experience.

People will try to pretend Dobson and Boyce will come in and light it up. They're rookies. We haven't had a successful rookie WR since Branch a decade ago. Why is it assumed that BOTH guys will come in and have a big time immediate impact? Both are good prospects who may or may not be ready this year.

People will point to Amendola. Um what? He's missed as many games as he has started in his career. That was with a lighter workload. Now he's going to significantly increase his workload to match Welker's and stay healthy the entire season? AND be as efficient? Sorry. I can't buy that.

The beginning of the season will be ugly; and everyone will bemoan the end of the world. Then around the midpoint the team will get on a roll and start winning some games. We will be seen as a contender. We will win a first round playoff game against an inferior team and then lose to a better team in the playoffs where we and the media will all point to the inferior wide receiver options and there not being enough talent there.

Brady is the GOAT. But there are limits to what even the GOAT can do.

Several things:

• The Pats' offense in 2006 was still 7th in points scored and 11th in yards with Reche Caldwell as the leading receiver and no lead running back (Corey Dillon put more strain on his wrist calling to pull him out of the game than he did on his legs). Not bad when you #1 receiver is really a #3 WR for most teams.
• The Pats still scored 27 points a game. If you count the playoffs, the Pats scored over 30 points seven times that season and 40 points twice.
• Where was this elite LB corp in 2006? The Pats starters were Bruschi (who was a shell of his former self after the stroke), Colvin (good, not great), Seau (better than most people expected, but above average at best), and Vrabel (solid).
• Seymour had a down year that year do to injuries. I wouldn't say he was elite that year. I don't think Wilfork was nearly as good then as he is today. In fact, arguably the best d-lineman that year was Ty Warren.
• Rodney missed six games that season.
• The Pats had a revolving door at the other safety position with Artrell Hawkins settling in as the starter by the end of the season.

 

[Tunescribe]

re: "Don't worry, we have Brady"

I think people are a little bit over confident when it comes to Bradys ability to make everything work. Yes, he certainly is a massive benefit, but we've seen in the past what happens when we put it completely on his shoulders to win the game. We can't win that way. No QB in the history of the league could do that. In 2011 and 2010 he got WAY closer than I thought remotely possible, but he's aging and should be throwing less, not more.

People will point to 2006. We had one of the best defenses in the NFL year. I'm high on this years defense, but lets be honest. They are not going to be that good. That defense was stacked. Elite DL. Elite LB corps. Solid secondary. Along with loaded veteran savvy and experience.

People will try to pretend Dobson and Boyce will come in and light it up. They're rookies. We haven't had a successful rookie WR since Branch a decade ago. Why is it assumed that BOTH guys will come in and have a big time immediate impact? Both are good prospects who may or may not be ready this year.

People will point to Amendola. Um what? He's missed as many games as he has started in his career. That was with a lighter workload. Now he's going to significantly increase his workload to match Welker's and stay healthy the entire season? AND be as efficient? Sorry. I can't buy that.

The beginning of the season will be ugly; and everyone will bemoan the end of the world. Then around the midpoint the team will get on a roll and start winning some games. We will be seen as a contender. We will win a first round playoff game against an inferior team and then lose to a better team in the playoffs where we and the media will all point to the inferior wide receiver options and there not being enough talent there.

Brady is the GOAT. But there are limits to what even the GOAT can do.

Well, hello Chicken Little! :bricks::bricks::bricks:

 

[patsfanincleveland]

re: "Don't worry, we have Brady"

Completely meaningless. I'm talking about this season.

This seasons unrealistic-best-case-scenario is the 2006 defense.



This is exactly what I'm talking about. Just assuming Brady will pull off a miracle and make it work with scrubs is going to cost us the season. Expecting Brady to play perfect for 4 consecutive playoff games is just unrealistic.

The team has gotten worse, and we weren't good enough last year.

The progression from the defense isn't enough to compensate for 4 of our 5 top receivers being gone.


I think McDaniels is underrated as a drafter. But expecting two rookies to come in and contribute from day 1 when veterans have struggled to pick up the playbook is just not realistic.

Gronk had 10 TDs and Hernandez did in fact play very well. Furthermore our defense forced a ton of turnovers and Brady played at a ridiculous level. I still maintain that his 2010 was more impressive than his 2007.

Welker was a shell of himself that year.

Gronk, Hernandez and Branch were also there. None of the options were elite. But there were four solid options that could get open at a pretty high rate.

This year we have Amendola (may or may not be there all season)
Edelman (may or may not be there all season)
Gronkowski (may or may not be there all season)


Also, if you haven't forgotten. Because none of our guys were elite pass catchers at that point, we struggled mightily against the Jets in the playoffs (and lost). The Jets crowded the middle of the field and neither Welker nor Branch could get open consistently against man converage.

In the playoffs you NEED that guy who can get open when you need a first down or can make that game breaking play. Gronk I think will be that in the playoffs, but as we saw in 2009, it doesn't matter much if you have an elite guy if everyone else is injured or garbage.



Games played =/= Games started. He has started 17 games in his career.

Sure, when he plays only 5 snaps a game, he can survive the game. But when he's on the field as the #1 or #2 option every down like Welker was? He has not shown he can maintain a workload LESS than Welker, let alone AS MUCH.

You forgot Peyton "I want to get my WRs killed" Manning. But yes, fair point.




It's not doom and gloom to call it like it is.

Our team has failed the past several years when we aren't gifted turnovers to our defense. Our team does great in the regular season because we get turnovers every game. But in the playoffs those easy freebies haven't come as frequently and we've struggled as a result.

Sorry, but a defense that relies on turnovers to be good is not a good defense. It is extremely rare for a defense like that to win a superbowl. The only team I can think of to do it is the Saints in 2009. And they were gifted some freebies by career chokes Peyton and Favre.




Don't be a child. This teams obvious weakness is the WR position. I hope I'm wrong but we've seen this same story the past 4 years. 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012. Each year we lost in the playoffs because our WRs couldn't get consistent separation downfield.

A big part of your problem is you are basing your opinions on history and have zero understanding about how and why that history transpired.

Turnovers are the single most important factor in determining the outcome of football games. Stating that defenses that get turnovers aren't good is just flat out stupid.

Even a blind squirrel can find a nut. A broken clock is correct twice a day.

So much for the Jets and playoffs 2010.

Did you bother to ever notice what has happened in the four games since? What does going into the Meadowlands and blowing out a division rival by an average of 30 points mean? Ever even considered "thinking" about that?

Doubt it.

The only reason the last two Lombardi's are not sitting at Patriots Place is the loss of a healthy Gronk in the playoffs.

Losing your best player hurts. Why that's not understood is simply beyond comprehension.

Post after post re-stating the exact same nonsense does not alter any reality.

Outside of auditioning for the clown car, your efforts seem to have no real purpose.

 

[Oswlek]

re: "Don't worry, we have Brady"

Tony, you have a lot of inaccurate and/or disingenuous statements in your post.

This seasons unrealistic-best-case-scenario is the 2006 defense.

If you mean "setting a franchise record for points allowed" then I totally agree they won't reach that. If you mean "allowing 32 second half points in a playoff loss" then I see no reason to think that will happen. Frankly, the offense has been more of an issue the last two playoff exits.

Expecting Brady to play perfect for 4 consecutive playoff games is just unrealistic.

Of course it is, which is why this statement is hyperbole at its finest. Frankly, just seeing it is one of my biggest pet peeves. Brady didn't need to play great against Baltimore to win in 2011. Didn't even play well, frankly. And, despite a record 17 consecutive completions the next week, his SB performance was not great either.

I recall going through in 2011 when someone tried to say some version of this reasoning and it turned out that every time NE lost, it was because the offense was poor. Not "d%#*!@t if only I hadn't made that one, single, isolated mistake in a sea of otherwise perfection causing us to lose 41-38!" In fact, those games almost never happen.

No one expects perfection. Rarely is it even needed. Just don't go scoreless over the final 27 minutes.

The progression from the defense isn't enough to compensate for 4 of our 5 top receivers being gone.

Why not? Have you seen the replacements? They turned over just as many in 2007 and did OK. They turned over nearly as many the year before (with a lot less talent overall) and had a good year. Hell, they did nearly the same thing in 2010 and scored more points down the stretch than they had in 2007.

Also, if you haven't forgotten. Because none of our guys were elite pass catchers at that point, we struggled mightily against the Jets in the playoffs (and lost). The Jets crowded the middle of the field and neither Welker nor Branch could get open consistently against man converage.

There was a lot more going on in that game than simply "crowding the middle of the field." And just because they lost that game doesn't mean that their roster limitations were doomed for failure 100% of the time. They just played a bad game.

Our team has failed the past several years when we aren't gifted turnovers to our defense. Our team does great in the regular season because we get turnovers every game. But in the playoffs those easy freebies haven't come as frequently and we've struggled as a result.

Meh, I've never bought into this line of reasoning at all. Not even remotely.

Did they lose every regular season game they didn't get any turnovers? How did they beat the Ravens in 2011 with a 3-1 TO deficit? They held Baltimore to 7 first half points without needing a turnover and did a good job of setting the O up. Only after losing a few players did Baltimore finally have success. Even the Giants only scored 19 offensive points despite landing on both fumbles and having a 1-0 TO advantage.

Sure, TOs are great win deciders, but I've seen nothing to indicate NE depends on them more than any other team.

2009, 2010, 2011, 2012. Each year we lost in the playoffs because our WRs couldn't get consistent separation downfield.

There is some truth to this, but it is still only skin deep.

Do you think the 2009 squad was going somewhere even if they had another WR or 2? Didn't NE have a late lead in the SB when a wide open receiver dropped a game clinching pass? How about when a completely hobbled Gronk ran right past the defense only to have the ball underthrown? Or the multitude of open receivers who dropped passes against the Ravens last year?

Could NE's WRs corps be improved? Of course! Which is why NE made aggressive moves to fix the problem this year. If you have such a problem with it, you should be applauding the Patriots actions, not treating them with scorn.

The bigger problem in your post is that you act as if everything that happened was somehow fated to happen. That NE, under no circumstances, could possibly have won in the last 4 years. I cannot agree.

Would the 2003 Patriots have been less championship caliber had Drew Bennett caught the wide open pass on the 5 yard line at the end? What if JR Redmond was tackled one foot in bounds and NE ran out of time one their final drive of 2001?

I have no illusions that the Patriots were somehow preordained to win in any of the years that they won. To the contrary, knowing how much chance is involved only makes me enjoy those seasons even more. Nor did winning those championships make those teams any more perfect than some of the teams that didn't quite make it.