I am a newbie here, but geez, you are really laying it into Simmons more then he should be. I have to admit he is one of my favorite sports writers, so I am biased, but the general sense of loathing over this article is a tad undeserved, in my honest opinion, so I will try to defend some of his points. He is pondering the possible end of the Pats reign of dominance, where, for the first time in 5 years the team came up short in a big moment. What exactly is wrong about this, its something I worry about too since I have never seen it before and there is no possible way to know how this team will react. I believe they will react by reaking havoc on the NFL next year, but there is a possibility that they may collapse (like the Yankees after '01). Did anyone think at the time the Yankees wouldn't be back to their winning ways after that, no. But they haven't won a series since. He is pointing out this could be the end of the Pats reign of dominance, not that it is.
Second, this is what he says in the article about dynasty:
"Why were we calling them a dynasty in the first place? Bill Russell's Celtics won 11 titles in 13 seasons -- now that was a dynasty. We live in a sports world where hyperbole rules, so it's easy to forget that Webster's defines a dynasty as "a powerful group or family that maintains its position for a considerable time." Four years is not a considerable time."
He is making a point about hyperbole, which is a valid one, since people are constantly saying something or someone is the best ever. It is possible we are taking 4 years as too short a time to be considered a "dynasty" since until recently it has never been used that way. With that said, considering the context of the modern NFL, where the league is trying to stop repeat champions, a considerable amount of time can be 4 years and three championships. But I think he makes a valid point about hyperbole, and maybe we should take a step back about these Pats and see how things play out before we declare them something they may not be. And besides its not like he is completely discounting the possibility that the Pats remain dominant, its just that the way the Pats lost made him worried, and I can't blame him for that.
Third, he has never written as a sports expert, he has always written from a fan's perspective. If you don't like that, that's fine, but as a fan he is going to make theories about sports and the teams he follows, just like every fan. What I like is the fact that he is completely honest about his own bias, where as other writers hide behind a veneer of objectivity while glorifying those he likes and lambasting those he hates. In this article he shows genuine concern, as a fan, that his team may not be as feared as it once was, and this could mark the end of its reign of dominance. As a fan, I share the same concern, maybe just not to the extent he does.
As far as being right and wrong on certain issues, he has always said the lesson as always was that he was an idiot. He doesn't hide the fact he has been wrong before, and has been more willing to admit he has been wrong then almost any other sports writer (just read his book). At least give him credit for that. Just like any fan he makes good points and bad points, as a writer he is more willing to admit mistakes when he is wrong then almost any other sports writer.
