How long can Patriots Organization keep this up

[thesoxwin]

How long can Pats keep this "winning" stuff up? We have all seen it before, with San Francisco, The Bears, Dallas. Don't tell me it's not in the back of everyones mind. The Pats have a championship team now, but how long does it last? Our guys are not getting any younger, thats for sure. I say we need to sign BB to a "LIFETIME" contract, so when he's done coaching, he at the very least, moves to the front office. It's not like baseball where we have young talent in the organization, waiting to break through.

It may be a little early to talk like this, because I figure we have about 4-5 good years left, as long as the "Core" players stay healthy and actually remain here. But I figure I'd throw it out there.

 

[RPMCanes]

Make sure that BB and Scott Pioli stay with the Pats for life.

 

[Sivy]

Tom Brady...

 

[naclone]

there's no reason it has to end any time soon. the pats FO is smart with the cap and never mortgage the future for winning now. they are able to attract free agents willing to play for less in order to get a chance to win, yet they don't rely heavily on mercenaries who walk as soon as they get a ring.

the whole organization is fundamentally built around the philosophy of sustaining success year-in and year-out rather than most franchises who try to "cycle" success every 7-10 years.

If they continue to draft well and attract free agents who want to be a part of what they are doing, it can certainly last as long as BB, Pioli and Brady are in the picture. And that realistically could be another 8 years.

#12 will go down as the best ever. of that, there is no doubt. but that doesn't mean the good times have to end when he is gone. and if it does, well, what could we possibly have to complain about? (actually, i'm sure we'll think of something)

Edit: as for the "core" of the team getting older, there is a pretty solid young core in place too. plus, look at what BB did in 2001 - completely blew up the team bringing in 35 free agents or whatever (mostly scrubs and castoffs) and won a super bowl. We may never again see the dominant teams we had this year and in 2004, but i'd like to think we'd always have a chance to compete so long as Belichick is on the sidelines.

 

[shmessy]

How long can Pats keep this "winning" stuff up? We have all seen it before, with San Francisco, The Bears, Dallas. Don't tell me it's not in the back of everyones mind. The Pats have a championship team now, but how long does it last? Our guys are not getting any younger, thats for sure. I say we need to sign BB to a "LIFETIME" contract, so when he's done coaching, he at the very least, moves to the front office. It's not like baseball where we have young talent in the organization, waiting to break through.

It may be a little early to talk like this, because I figure we have about 4-5 good years left, as long as the "Core" players stay healthy and actually remain here. But I figure I'd throw it out there.

MLB is fundamentally different than the NFL. Three or four teams can outspend evryone else and dominate for decades. It's not really a competition. Add in the preposterously strong players union which still fights tooth and dagger for the right to use sterroids and you have a joke of a league.

There's no mystery why the United States of America doesn't watch baseball on TV anymore.

 

[spacecrime]

how long does it last? Our guys are not getting any younger, thats for sure.

I figure we have about 4-5 good years left, as long as the "Core" players stay healthy and actually remain here.

Everyone's guys are getting older, but that has no bearing on how long a dominance lasts. Just how many Patriots were in SB XXXVI that will also be in XLII?

I'm guessing less than a ten. Probably closer to 5.

Brady
Light
Brown
Bruschi
Seymour

anyone else?

See, you have it backwards. As long as there are old guys on the team to provide continuity, the "team" continues. When too much new "young" blood is brought in, the team goes south and suddenly is in a re-building year.

 

[BradfordPatsFan]

It's not like baseball where we have young talent in the organization, waiting to break through.

I disagree with that to a point. There is young talent on the at running back and in the defensive backfield. Yes the LB's are getting older but the DL is at its prime age as are the wr's and much of the line is experienced, yet young.

This team will restock through the draft each year as it has done in the past. Each year some of that young talent will take on more important roles than in the previous year. The new picks will bide their time and learn the program, unless they are either can't miss players (Seymour) or in a "need" position as a player such as Matt Light was in 2001. Look at what James Sanders has done over the last few years. He is a young player who played behind Rodney, Geno, and others. He played on special teams and worked his tail off to learn the system. As players got hurt and/or were released, he moved up the depth chart. He is now a starting safety.

 

[thesoxwin]

There's no mystery why the United States of America doesn't watch baseball on TV anymore.

I can forget the steroid comment...there is steroids in every sport. Baseball is at least "trying" to deal with it. But the USA doesnt watch baseball on tv anymore......c'mon even you don't believe that.

 

[Truck]

#12 will go down as the best ever. of that, there is no doubt. but that doesn't mean the good times have to end when he is gone. and if it does, well, what could we possibly have to complain about? (actually, i'm sure we'll think of something)

Edit: as for the "core" of the team getting older, there is a pretty solid young core in place too. plus, look at what BB did in 2001 - completely blew up the team bringing in 35 free agents or whatever (mostly scrubs and castoffs) and won a super bowl. We may never again see the dominant teams we had this year and in 2004, but i'd like to think we'd always have a chance to compete so long as Belichick is on the sidelines.

I agree with all of what you said. when 12 leaves there'll be a hit in terms of offense, but in 2001 & 3 we won with great defense and 'mistake free but not playmaking' offense.
I'm sure BB can find and coach another qb to play at brady 2001 level (although i doubt he'll find someone to play at a brady 2007 level)

Bottom line:
We'll continue to have a team thats always one of the top 3 teams as long as Brady & BB are here.
If one of them is here, we'll probably have a playoff team, with an outside shot at sb.
Once Brady & BB are gone, expect us reverting back to the average (kinda like this team post parcells).

Of course we could get lucky and have Josh Mcdaniels learn everything there is to know from BB and become a great HC for us in 5 years, Scott Pioli stays on forever (as some GMs do in various sports), we draft another probowl qb, and BB & Brady move into part time roles of helping us recruit free agents.

 

[aluminum seats]

My feeling has always been--every time one of those "Belichick and/or Pioli are going to go to X, it's their dream job....." is that the reason that's stupid is that these guys know they're in the ideal situation, building something long-lasting and historic. I think they will stay throughout Brady's career.

When Brady retires, this "era" will end, and I suspect Belichick will want to retire (at least for a couple years) too, and maybe Pioli will look for a new challenge (although perhaps not). My hope is that part of the planning of this team will be the process of grooming a new coach--BB essentially picking and preparing his replacement. And of course you have to have the QB.

 

[italian pat patriot]

legit question; i think that till we will have BB, SP and Tom Brady we will be
always able to be contenders

of course we are not a young team (expecially on LB) but the future still looks quite ok (imho)

the 7th pick it doesn't hurt either in the next draft and i presume also FA will like to play for us (i.e.: as Moss, as Stallworth) at a 'reasonable price'

 

[scout]

For me sometimes its hard to enjoy the ride without looking to the future. What if, next year the Pats pull off a defensive Moss/Welker? Could happen with a #7 and an additional low 3rd rounder. That would go toward breaking the 'other' sacred record in football, a threepeat. The immediate task would be replacing some aging LB'ers provided our free agents resign. How many more titles in the next five years? After that, its who replaces Brady and how strong is our defense?

 

[Fencer]

Haven't the Steelers been doing it for a little over 30 years now?

They were a joke in the late 60s, however.

 

[shmessy]

I can forget the steroid comment...there is steroids in every sport. Baseball is at least "trying" to deal with it. But the USA doesnt watch baseball on tv anymore......c'mon even you don't believe that.

When was the last baseball player to be suspended for steroid use? On the first offense?

And check out the TV ratings for the Baseball World Series Game 7 versus any Super Bowl. Forget that, compare a World Series Game 7 to the AFC or NFC Championship games ratings.

MLB is a joke. No one takes Selig seriously. Donald Fehr runs that. In football, the Green Bay Packers compete on a level economic field with the New York Jets. Can you say that about the Kansas City Royals and the New York Mets?

 

[Watson's IQ]

My first thought is that no NFL team can sustain any degree of success without a true franchise quarterback. So the first part to my answer is that as long as Tom Brady is producing, the Patriots will be a contender every year. Also, I'm pretty sure the type of QB Brady is, he will continue to be productive even after his physical skills start to diminish, because of his poise and decision making, etc. Teams without a great QB can succeed for a year without a great QB (Last years Bears are the perfect example, or the 2000 Ravens), but that success is never sustained. Look at the two most successful teams of this decade, and it's no accident that their quarterbacks are Manning and Brady.

So as long as Brady is at the helm, I expect a few more years like this where we are clearly the best team in the league (asking for another undefeated season might be a bit much), others like last year where we're a clear playoff team but not the best, and maybe some others where we're fighting for a playoff spot (although the AFC East has a ways to go before that last one is realistic). I don't expect to see any 7-9 or even 8-8 seasons as long as Brady is the QB.

Now, sustaining success after Brady is the key obviously (and thankfully years down the line at this point). I think they will be smart about it and draft a QB a few years before Brady's going to retire (considering the championships he will have won at that point, I don't think Brady will hang on to the last, once he's no longer productive I think he'd retire - the man has other interests after all), Tom can help groom him into the heir apparent. Obviously, you're never going to replace Tom Brady, and if BB takes the same time to walk away, there will be some drop off. However, I have confidence that as long as Bob Kraft is the owner, we're going to be competitive a lot more years than we aren't. Winning is habit-forming, after all.

At least I hope.

 

[thesoxwin]

God where do I start....a "suspension" for steroid use is not nearly enough. Maybe a million dollar fine would get them thinking. In football the punishment for a first positive test is a four-game suspension. A second offense brings a six-game ban. That's not much of a deterrent. In baseball The first positive test would result in a fifty game suspension. The second positive test would result in a one-hundred game suspension. The third positive test would result in a lifetime suspension from Major League Baseball.

Here is a list of baseball players suspended for steroid use:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_suspended_for_steroids

But, thats not what I was trying to bring out when I started this thread.

 

[PATSNUTme]

I know that there are plenty of Red Sox and Patriots fans out there. that's just the way it is and I have nothing against it. I even look in on a REd Sox game every once in a while, when I can't sleep.


However I get peeved when the Red Sox first guys come here, a Patriots site, and interject Red Sox in most of their post.

Not to mention a Red Sox avatar. Couldn't find a Patriots avatar to post on a Patriots fan site? Do you have a Patriots avatar when you post on the Red Sox site? I doubt it.

 

[shmessy]

I know that there are plenty of Red Sox and Patriots fans out there. that's just the way it is and I have nothing against it. I even look in on a REd Sox game every once in a while, when I can't sleep.


However I get peeved when the Red Sox first guys come here, a Patriots site, and interject Red Sox in most of their post.

Not to mention a Red Sox avatar. Couldn't find a Patriots avatar to post on a Patriots fan site? Do you have a Patriots avatar when you post on the Red Sox site? I doubt it.

He's probably Shaughnessy.

BTW, from soxwin's wiki link:

"In January 2004, Major League Baseball announced a new steroid policy which included random, offseason testing and 10-day suspensions for first-time offenders, 30-days for second-time offenders, 60-days for third-time offenders, and one year for fourth-time offenders, all without pay, in an effort to curtail performance-enhancing drug use in professional baseball. This policy strengthened baseball's pre-existing ban on controlled substances, including steroids, which was in effect since 1991. [1]

The policy was to be reviewed in 2008, but under pressure from the U.S. Congress, on November 15, 2005, players and owners agreed to tougher penalties: a 50-game suspension for a first offense, a 100-game suspension for a second, and a lifetime ban for a third"
________
10 days. You know what that compares in NFL terms? Less than ONE game. They upped to 50 games once the owners were DRAGGED INTO CONGRESS. So, in sum, CONGRESS had to force MLB to adopt ALMOST similar rules to what the NFL already has.

 

[thesoxwin]

I know that there are plenty of Red Sox and Patriots fans out there. that's just the way it is and I have nothing against it. I even look in on a REd Sox game every once in a while, when I can't sleep.


However I get peeved when the Red Sox first guys come here, a Patriots site, and interject Red Sox in most of their post.

Not to mention a Red Sox avatar. Couldn't find a Patriots avatar to post on a Patriots fan site? Do you have a Patriots avatar when you post on the Red Sox site? I doubt it.

Maybe you should do some looking before you bash. I am a NEW ENGLAND SPORTS fan. I wrote that in my introduction to this forum. My name is thesoxwin EVERYWHERE I post...everywhere...pokersites,masslive, my own site, ect..ect. I was also a season ticket holder from 79-84 at ther "old' Stadium. I did not interject RED SOX in my original post, but compared baseballs minor league to footballs non-existant minor league.
So....don't question my fandome...

 

[shmessy]

I did not interject RED SOX in my original post, but compared baseballs minor league to footballs non-existant minor league.
.

Bull****. Here's EXACTLY a portion of what you wrote in your original post in this thread: "It's not like baseball where we have young talent in the organization, waiting to break through."

Are you going to go all "Selig-Fehr-Clemens" on us and state 'well, I said Baseball, but not Red Sox'?

Or are you going to stand up straight like a "Rodney Harrison" and admit you were wrong?

(Note the differences between the two league's cultures).

Regarding your second point:

It's called College Football. And the US of A watches THAT on TV at a 100+ rate than any Minor League Baseball game.