Ah, what would YOU do? I can play that game too.
I'm a forward-thinker, that's why I am raising concerns about the coaching staff, because I'm concerned about upcoming seasons. That's my opinion, and I don't need to be a head coach to raise those concerns. I'm a fan of the team, and what I would expect from ANY coach in the NFL, will be under question from this team until they can win it all again.
You're not a forward-thinker, you're a backward-gazer. And all of us have rearview mirrors too.
Suggesting solutions is not "playing the game." It's coming through with some semblance of proactivity.
Otherwise bemoaning losses in hindsight is exactly what it looks like: griping. At least open your threads with "I too would like to gripe about losing the Super Bowl," or "I too am bummed." That's all I see here.
I can tell you exactly what
I would do in the next season (what you call "playing that game"):
- Get Moss done;
- Get Gaffney done;
- Allow sufficient camp competition that we see what, if anything, CJ brings (pretty much a done deal that he will get his chance in camp, with this coaching staff);
- dump Stallworth and Washington if they will not restructure;
- dependent on Bruschi/Seau playing status, examine options vis a vis value assigned internally at Patriots Place for draft pick and FA optional additions at LB;
- Get Samuel done, if Samuel is doable in a way that allows the team cap wiggle room as we move toward 2010;
- Retain the coaching staff: BB, Pees, and McDaniel did fine this year from my point of view.
- Continue to focus on value approach in draft, rather than "need drafting." Within that continuum: be aware of cost and returns on high first round picks (as the Pats typically are.) Employ an extensive far-flung scouting process. Determine, for instance, whether Gholston is worth a #7 and the contract that comes with; try to ascertain trading status both prior to and within draft.
- Post draft FA redux: Same priorities: cornerback, linebacker.
You'll notice my concept of what to do (above) is exceedingly boring and conventional.
It is also practical, and taking all the data together, much more rational than any ridiculous response to single game "analysis" which consists of "score more points when I'm really really into it" or "Be more psyched."
You're distinguishing yourself only in the well-worn department of second guessing. This is not "lone prophet in the wilderness" stuff, it's griping from the armchair stuff. That's why it's so unwelcome. Not because you're "thinking outside the box," but because you're over there in a much smaller box, shouting about how outside the box you are.
It's not revolutionary, it's just boring and negative. Negative is fine when one must destroy to create, but again, you have no ideas moving forward. Just some feeling that we didn't win our OTHER super bowls by enough, and that dude, we totally FORGOT to win this one!
PFnV