"Brady may be out of Super magic"

[The Dog]

How long before Brady stops getting free passes from fans. It seems no matter how poorly he plays it is never his fault. He can throw pick after pick. Throw short on 3rd down after 3rd down. Lead team to fg's when they need td's and it is never his fault. It is the fault of the OC or the wr's or the play calling or the route running. Wake up he isn't that great. Start placing the blame where it belongs on Brady's shoulders.

 

[Patsguy05]

How long before Brady stops getting free passes from fans. It seems no matter how poorly he plays it is never his fault. He can throw pick after pick. Throw short on 3rd down after 3rd down. Lead team to fg's when they need td's and it is never his fault. It is the fault of the OC or the wr's or the play calling or the route running. Wake up he isn't that great. Start placing the blame where it belongs on Brady's shoulders.

I smell a troll. Do I know you? Sounds just like typical Indianapolis fans troll, kool aid sipping rubbish.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

How long before Brady stops getting free passes from fans. It seems no matter how poorly he plays it is never his fault. He can throw pick after pick. Throw short on 3rd down after 3rd down. Lead team to fg's when they need td's and it is never his fault. It is the fault of the OC or the wr's or the play calling or the route running. Wake up he isn't that great. Start placing the blame where it belongs on Brady's shoulders.

So which is it Dog, disgruntled Superchargers fan or Manning admirer...only a handful of posts yet they all deride our HOF lock QB...

:trolls:

 

[PF1996]

How long before Brady stops getting free passes from fans. It seems no matter how poorly he plays it is never his fault. He can throw pick after pick. Throw short on 3rd down after 3rd down. Lead team to fg's when they need td's and it is never his fault. It is the fault of the OC or the wr's or the play calling or the route running. Wake up he isn't that great. Start placing the blame where it belongs on Brady's shoulders.

It seems as though Brady will always get a free pass from most of the fans on this board. Guess most of them lack objectivity. It's hilarious to read posts claiming that the Pats should blow a first round pick on a WR and that the FO needs to go out and get elite receivers for Brady when the reality is that the Pats did NOT have elite receivers during ANY of their SB seasons. They had Troy Brown and servicable guys at TE/running back in 2001. Givens and Branch were raw rookies in 2003. Even the developed versions of Givens and Branch in 2004 were not elite (Givens was decent possession guy, Branch good number 2). The fact is that one doesn't need elite receivers to win the SB if one has a QB who plays smart and an OC who designs plays to take advantage of his team's strengths and can make adjustments to what the opposing defense is doing. The Patriots didn't have either on Sunday (smart QB or OC) and that is a big part of the reason they lost. Both Brady and McDaniels/Belichick need to seriously evaluate their performance this past season and make definite changes if the Pats are to be serious contenders.

 

[PatsMyBoyz!]

How many years have we been hearing how great Manning is despite the fact he did squat in the playoffs each time?
Pot meet Kettle. At least Brady earned whatever "passes" he may or may not be given. Manning has gotten more unearned passes than anybody in the league.

 

[PF1996]

Absolutely. Over the last 2 years this team has weathered some bad storms (no D, no WRs, no running game) and has found itself competing for championships in large part because of Brady.

This board is getting ridiculous in picking scapegoats for the Indy loss. Brady, McDaniels - nobody on the D gets ANY criticism for that game?!?!?! It's not like they were deemed a liability going into the game.

In 2005, the Patriots finished the season strong and was in contention (i.e. made it to the semi-finals) due to the defense playing better, NOT Brady. When the defense played poorly in the early part of the year, the Patriots LOST. Unlike Manning, who had his team at 9-0 with a pathetic rushing defense, Brady couldn't overcome HIS team's poor defense. (i.e. his QB play wasn't spectacular). The Pats lost in 2005, not because of their defense but again due in large part to POOR PLAY BY BRADY.

Of the 4 losses the Pats had in 2006, TWO (i.e. the games costing them a first round bye and home field for at least one game) were BECAUSE OF BRADY'S POOR PLAY. The wide receivers and running backs were open all over the place in the Indy game. Brady inaccurate passes and forced throws resulted in four turnovers which cost the Pats that game (and AT LEAST an easier playoff trek/homefield advantage in AFC). Brady passes were also inaccurate in the second Jets game and his decision making poor, again directly leading to a Pats loss. I didn't see the second Miami game so I can't comment on that and I thought the WRs/playcalling was the problem in the Denver game, not Brady.

So, contrary to your claims, the reason the Pats have been competitive the last two years has in large part been the play of the defense, NOT the play of Brady. When the defense plays terribly, the Pats lose games, when the defense plays well, the Pats have a chance to win games. Brady's play is not good enough, and has never been except in the SB against Carolina, to bail out the Patriots when the defense isn't playing well as he proved on Sunday.

What's scary for this Pats fan is that Brady decision making seems to be deteriorating - he's repeating his mistakes even though he's aware of them and has been burnt in the past. The guy almost throws a pick on the Pats second to last possession. He then forces a throw, again to the outside on the PATs LAST possession with 24 secs. left. That's the kind of play I expect from a Rex Grossman, not a seasoned, supposedly "smart" veteran QB. Just dreadful and the reason I really think Brady needs a QB coach devoted exclusively to helping him.

 

[kolbitr]

It seems as though Brady will always get a free pass from most of the fans on this board. Guess most of them lack objectivity. It's hilarious to read posts claiming that the Pats should blow a first round pick on a WR and that the FO needs to go out and get elite receivers for Brady when the reality is that the Pats did NOT have elite receivers during ANY of their SB seasons. They had Troy Brown and servicable guys at TE/running back in 2001. Givens and Branch were raw rookies in 2003. Even the developed versions of Givens and Branch in 2004 were not elite (Givens was decent possession guy, Branch good number 2). The fact is that one doesn't need elite receivers to win the SB if one has a QB who plays smart and an OC who designs plays to take advantage of his team's strengths and can make adjustments to what the opposing defense is doing. The Patriots didn't have either on Sunday (smart QB or OC) and that is a big part of the reason they lost. Both Brady and McDaniels/Belichick need to seriously evaluate their performance this past season and make definite changes if the Pats are to be serious contenders.

I can't say I agree with your sentiments here regarding Brady, which you have repeated several times already. First of all, Givens and Branch were rookies in 2002, not 2003, and although Givens was not a starter in every game in 2003, he still had a solid year. But you are right, that Tom has never had truly top-flight receivers. On the other hand, he has also been remarkably consistent, and although this year his numbers were not as good as the last two years, they were fairly equivalent to the rest of his career.

Yes there were times that he looked more off than in previous years...but there has not been a drastic decline in any way.

 

[NEPat]

It seems as though Brady will always get a free pass from most of the fans on this board. Guess most of them lack objectivity. It's hilarious to read posts claiming that the Pats should blow a first round pick on a WR and that the FO needs to go out and get elite receivers for Brady when the reality is that the Pats did NOT have elite receivers during ANY of their SB seasons. They had Troy Brown and servicable guys at TE/running back in 2001. Givens and Branch were raw rookies in 2003. Even the developed versions of Givens and Branch in 2004 were not elite (Givens was decent possession guy, Branch good number 2). The fact is that one doesn't need elite receivers to win the SB if one has a QB who plays smart and an OC who designs plays to take advantage of his team's strengths and can make adjustments to what the opposing defense is doing. The Patriots didn't have either on Sunday (smart QB or OC) and that is a big part of the reason they lost. Both Brady and McDaniels/Belichick need to seriously evaluate their performance this past season and make definite changes if the Pats are to be serious contenders.

Sorry, part of being objective is realizing that Brady did not have the best weapons this year. It is not just Brady fans saying that, everyone has realized that all year, because, um, well, it's obvious if you watch football.

2001 was six years ago, people age, Brown is not the same guy anymore and that's clear. Seriously you're comparing a 30 yr old Troy Borwn with a 35 year old? That's your argument? Both Branch and Givens are better than any receiver the Pats currently have, it is nowhere near a stretch to say that. In fact, I'm surprised that people would argue otherwise, it's been obvious the drop off in talent.

Brady had poor games and he didn't play particularly well against the Chargers and Colts. Part of that is Brady just missing guys or making wrong reads, I can admit that. But to say it's not being objective to put the whole thing on Brady's head is silly.

And your last sentence is the most ridiculous. I get the feeling you're one of those spoiled Patriot fans who think it's his right now to reach the Superbowl every year. Are you arguing with a straight face that the Patriots can not be considered "serious contenders"?? You realize they reached the AFC Championship game, correct? You know sometimes the other team is better and beats you, you have to accept it. Now I can see why fans of other teams can't stand Pats fans, some of them want to pitch a fit when oh no! they don't win the Superbowl....

I'm also sure Brady/Belichick are taking your suggestion head on, and will "seriously evaluate their performance this season." Good idea!! Now why didn't I think of that?

 

[richpats]

In 2005, the Patriots finished the season strong and was in contention (i.e. made it to the semi-finals) due to the defense playing better, NOT Brady. When the defense played poorly in the early part of the year, the Patriots LOST. Unlike Manning, who had his team at 9-0 with a pathetic rushing defense, Brady couldn't overcome HIS team's poor defense. (i.e. his QB play wasn't spectacular). The Pats lost in 2005, not because of their defense but again due in large part to POOR PLAY BY BRADY.

You seem to not get the phrase "weathering storms" - in the first 11 games of 2005, the D and the running game were non-existent and the Pats went 6-5. If not for Brady it would have been 2-9, and the D would have had no opportunity to push the team into contention. And unlike Manning, Brady never had the playmakers on offense to win shoot-outs. When's the last time Manning had no running game or D? 2001, when Indy went 6-10.

Of the 4 losses the Pats had in 2006, TWO (i.e. the games costing them a first round bye and home field for at least one game) were BECAUSE OF BRADY'S POOR PLAY. The wide receivers and running backs were open all over the place in the Indy game. Brady inaccurate passes and forced throws resulted in four turnovers which cost the Pats that game (and AT LEAST an easier playoff trek/homefield advantage in AFC). Brady passes were also inaccurate in the second Jets game and his decision making poor, again directly leading to a Pats loss. I didn't see the second Miami game so I can't comment on that and I thought the WRs/playcalling was the problem in the Denver game, not Brady.

There's only one loss this season I would put on Brady's shoulders and that's the first Indy game. Against the Jets the Pats lost the battle at the LOS, factor in the elements too. Miami, did the o-line show up for that one? The Denver game exposed the lack of chemistry in the passing game when they took the run away. So out of 16 games, Brady was off in one, maybe 2 - there are 29 other teams that would love that kind of consistency.

So, contrary to your claims, the reason the Pats have been competitive the last two years has in large part been the play of the defense, NOT the play of Brady. When the defense plays terribly, the Pats lose games, when the defense plays well, the Pats have a chance to win games. Brady's play is not good enough, and has never been except in the SB against Carolina, to bail out the Patriots when the defense isn't playing well as he proved on Sunday.

Get your arguments straight, in the above paragraph you placed blame on Brady's poor play for a loss and now it's the defense?

What's scary for this Pats fan is that Brady decision making seems to be deteriorating - he's repeating his mistakes even though he's aware of them and has been burnt in the past. The guy almost throws a pick on the Pats second to last possession. He then forces a throw, again to the outside on the PATs LAST possession with 24 secs. left. That's the kind of play I expect from a Rex Grossman, not a seasoned, supposedly "smart" veteran QB. Just dreadful and the reason I really think Brady needs a QB coach devoted exclusively to helping him.

How bout we just bring Bledsoe back? Would Brady sound so bad then? This kind of criticism just proves why some fans take him for granted.

 

[PF1996]

Sorry, part of being objective is realizing that Brady did not have the best weapons this year. It is not just Brady fans saying that, everyone has realized that all year, because, um, well, it's obvious if you watch football.

2001 was six years ago, people age, Brown is not the same guy anymore and that's clear. Seriously you're comparing a 30 yr old Troy Borwn with a 35 year old? That's your argument? Both Branch and Givens are better than any receiver the Pats currently have, it is nowhere near a stretch to say that. In fact, I'm surprised that people would argue otherwise, it's been obvious the drop off in talent.

Brady had poor games and he didn't play particularly well against the Chargers and Colts. Part of that is Brady just missing guys or making wrong reads, I can admit that. But to say it's not being objective to put the whole thing on Brady's head is silly.

And your last sentence is the most ridiculous. I get the feeling you're one of those spoiled Patriot fans who think it's his right now to reach the Superbowl every year. Are you arguing with a straight face that the Patriots can not be considered "serious contenders"?? You realize they reached the AFC Championship game, correct? You know sometimes the other team is better and beats you, you have to accept it. Now I can see why fans of other teams can't stand Pats fans, some of them want to pitch a fit when oh no! they don't win the Superbowl....

I'm also sure Brady/Belichick are taking your suggestion head on, and will "seriously evaluate their performance this season." Good idea!! Now why didn't I think of that?

You can continue to blame the receivers but the FACT is that THREE of the Patriots FIVE losses, including the MOST important loss occurred because of Brady's inexcusable SHODDY performances. The FACT is that in THOSE THREE LOSSES, Brady missed AND IGNORED OPEN RECEIVERS, made POOR, INACCURATE THROWS and made BAD DECISIONS OVER AND OVER AGAIN. Another FACT is that Brady played poorly in the MAJORITY of games this season but was bailed out either by the Pats DEFENSE or by the INEPT play of the opposing team. There's no argument that the Patriots WRs this year were weaker than in 2005 but overall, this was NOT the weakest offensive group, talent-wise, that the Pats have had during Belichick's reign. As mediocre as I found the offensive playcalling, guys were STILL getting open. Brady just couldn't get the ball to them effectively due sometimes to poor pass protection but MOSTLY due to his own poor-average QB play. Brady played horrendously in the San Diego game and was BAILED out by a spectacular, heads up play by Troy Brown. He threw another ridiculous two against Denver last year directly costing the Pats the game. He threw a pick to end the game last Sunday, directly costing the Pats that game. Yet people still insist he's "clutch" and that it's everyone else's fault. Just like Bledsoe didn't suck and make bad decisions...it was "he had no oline and no RB". I guess just as in that case, people won't honestly acknowledge the facts about Brady until Belichick sits him on the bench and starts Cassel.

Reaching (and losing by blowing the biggest lead in NFL playoff history) the AFC championship game doesn't mean that the Pats will make it next year or the year after, etc. Considering the Pats schedule next year, it's highly unlikely that they will reach the AFCCG next year if Brady continues to play like Jake Plummer and McDaniels/Belichick continue their average playcalling. If you think the Pats as currently constituted will be "serious contenders" in the future, then you're more of an optimist than I am and I hope you're correct. I would like but don't expect the Pats to win the SB every year. However, what I do expect is that the Pats will be BEATEN rather than BEAT THEMSELVES and the latter happened on Sunday which is one reason I'm not confident about the Pats future prospects.

 

[richpats]

The D has taken a lot of heat for the game, and the loss, but at the same time, in the 2nd half, the D DID hand the ball back to the offense on several occasions, including a couple deep in Colts territory..... The Pats had an opportunity for anywhere from 6, 10 or 14 points, and they only got 6...squandering up to 8 points.

The majority of criticism, at least here, as been put on the offense - who had to step up for our "tanked" defense. I don't hear a lot of "Dean Pees" but a lot of "Josh McDaniels". Honestly, the D gave up 5 consecutive scoring drives...legitimate drives, not those started in Pats territory. Free pass for the D? Not from me.

 

[NEPat]

Brady played horrendously in the San Diego game and was BAILED out by a spectacular, heads up play by Troy Brown. He threw another ridiculous two against Denver last year directly costing the Pats the game. He threw a pick to end the game last Sunday, directly costing the Pats that game.

If this is basically your argument, that Brady has played poorly in some games and that has contributed to Patriot losses, then that is fine and I won't disagree even if I don't agree that the blame for those losses should fall 100% at his feet. The offense also has to improve, this is all fine debate and discussion if that is what you want to discuss.

My problem is with the argument that the Patriots have been successful the past two seasons IN SPITE of Brady. I think that is a nonsensical argument, and completely misses what he has meant to this team. The Patriots do not even sniff the playoffs without him, and I am honestly puzzled as to how someone can just brush that aside.

it was "he had no oline and no RB". I guess just as in that case, people won't honestly acknowledge the facts about Brady until Belichick sits him on the bench and starts Cassel.

OK see, you need to relax just a little. One extreme is to think Brady is god and the other extreme is to think Brady's play warrants a benching. Let's try and get somewhere in between the two extremes, and breathe a little, eh?

If you think the Pats as currently constituted will be "serious contenders" in the future, then you're more of an optimist than I am and I hope you're correct. I would like but don't expect the Pats to win the SB every year. However, what I do expect is that the Pats will be BEATEN rather than BEAT THEMSELVES and the latter happened on Sunday which is one reason I'm not confident about the Pats future prospects.

Honestly, I did not think the Pats would make it as far as they did this year. I will quote Rodney here: "We exceeded everyone's expectations but our own."

I'm not sure why you think the Pats will stay put and remain the exact same team. They never do, they will change, and I'm quite sure that Belichick is aware of what the weak spots on this team are.

I do not think the Pats beat themselves on Sunday. The Colts beat them twice this year, and on Sunday they took the game away. They were the better team. Big lead or no big lead, you still have to stop the other team's offense and you still need to run the clock out. The Colts prevented the Patriots from doing both.

We have such extraordinarily high expectations for this team that we can't accpet when another team is better. The Colts were better. The Pats will improve. I also think Brady will be fine, and he is not in danger of becoming Jake Plummer.

Let's breathe. In. Out. It will be OK.

 

[kolbitr]

You can continue to blame the receivers but the FACT is that THREE of the Patriots FIVE losses, including the MOST important loss occurred because of Brady's inexcusable SHODDY performances. The FACT is that in THOSE THREE LOSSES, Brady missed AND IGNORED OPEN RECEIVERS, made POOR, INACCURATE THROWS and made BAD DECISIONS OVER AND OVER AGAIN. Another FACT is that Brady played poorly in the MAJORITY.
[ranting edited]

This is bordering on mania. You can shout it all you want, but shouting doesn't make it true. Brady did not play poorly in the majority of the games, as the numbers clearly indicate. Whether or not he was the primary reason they lost three of the games this year is open for debate--but given the importance of the QB-position, one could also legitimately point out that he was the primary reason for them winning numerous other games.

In the end you have tagged him with both of the Colts losses and the Jets loss, not to mention the Denver loss. Noone would argue that he played particularly well in any of those games--although, as pointed out already, the Jets game was probably lost on the LOS, and the Denver game, as has been documented many many times, was a turnover-fest.

The Indy games this year, unlike last year, showcased some questionable decisions by Brady (several of which involved a certain Benjamin Watson), we can agree on that. And San Diego was also a pretty poor display. In fact, one of the surprising things this year was that Brady did not really elevate his play in the playoffs, as he has in the past. But to see this as evidence that Brady has entered a spastic decline, and that Cassell's time is near, is crazy talk. There is plenty of blame to go around for the loss last Sunday...defensive fatigue, questionable penalties, bizarre playcalling, poor QB play, overall exhaustion...there is no need to seek to simplify things and find a single scapegoat. The team was beaten by the second best team in football over the past four years...that is sad, not unbelieveable, to me.

 

[PF1996]

You seem to not get the phrase "weathering storms" - in the first 11 games of 2005, the D and the running game were non-existent and the Pats went 6-5. If not for Brady it would have been 2-9, and the D would have had no opportunity to push the team into contention. And unlike Manning, Brady never had the playmakers on offense to win shoot-outs. When's the last time Manning had no running game or D? 2001, when Indy went 6-10.

There's only one loss this season I would put on Brady's shoulders and that's the first Indy game. Against the Jets the Pats lost the battle at the LOS, factor in the elements too. Miami, did the o-line show up for that one? The Denver game exposed the lack of chemistry in the passing game when they took the run away. So out of 16 games, Brady was off in one, maybe 2 - there are 29 other teams that would love that kind of consistency.

Get your arguments straight, in the above paragraph you placed blame on Brady's poor play for a loss and now it's the defense?

How bout we just bring Bledsoe back? Would Brady sound so bad then? This kind of criticism just proves why some fans take him for granted.

In the first eleven games of the season, the ONLY game that the Pats won which could be attributed to Brady succeeding in spite of the defense was the win over Atlanta. In the Patriots other five wins during that stretch, the defense allowed 20 or less points and the offense never scored more than 24 points except once. Also, Brady cost the Pats the opportunity to win both the Carolina game as well as the Kansas City game. So, by my estimation, the Pats record with just a good (i.e. not great like Manning) QB would have been 7-4, rather than the 6-5 it was with Brady. Feel free though to show me ANY evidence to support YOUR claim that "but for Brady, the Pats would have been 2-9" in 2005.

While Brady was directly responsible for only two losses in 2006, he played poorly (i.e. was OFF) in MOST of the games - this is a FACT that only an uninformed homer would ignore.

 

[fgssand]

Considering the Pats schedule next year, it's highly unlikely that they will reach the AFCCG next year if Brady continues to play like Jake Plummer and McDaniels/Belichick continue their average playcalling. If you think the Pats as currently constituted will be "serious contenders" in the future, then you're more of an optimist than I am and I hope you're correct. I would like but don't expect the Pats to win the SB every year. However, what I do expect is that the Pats will be BEATEN rather than BEAT THEMSELVES and the latter happened on Sunday which is one reason I'm not confident about the Pats future prospects.

Come on Drew, Brady is better than you are, always was....get over yourself. You know darn well if you had returned in '01 - there would be no Superbowl win that or any other year.

I'll take TB as first choice to lead my franchise - over all the rest.

 

[kolbitr]

In the first eleven games of the season, the ONLY game that the Pats won which could be attributed to Brady succeeding in spite of the defense was the win over Atlanta. In the Patriots other five wins during that stretch, the defense allowed 20 or less points and the offense never scored more than 24 points except once. Also, Brady cost the Pats the opportunity to win both the Carolina game as well as the Kansas City game. So, by my estimation, the Pats record with just a good (i.e. not great like Manning) QB would have been 7-4, rather than the 6-5 it was with Brady. Feel free though to show me ANY evidence to support YOUR claim that "but for Brady, the Pats would have been 2-9" in 2005.

While Brady was directly responsible for only two losses in 2006, he played poorly (i.e. was OFF) in MOST of the games - this is a FACT that only an uninformed homer would ignore.

Why should any of us provide this for you? You haven't provided any "evidence" to the contrary...only given us your own "estimation." That really isn't good enough for me, nor for anyone else, I suspect. Why not do as you demand?

 

[PF1996]

Kolbitr & NEPat - thanks for your rational discussion. It's a rarity on messageboards these days. Seems like we all agree that Brady has played poorly at times but we disagree as to the extent that he's responsible for the losses and that's fine. We'll also disagree on whether the Pats beat themselves (my opinion) or the Colts beat them (your opinion). My primary concern though is the Pats future prospects and there are several things that worry me about this team. One of those things is Brady's play which has been ongoing all season. There's nothing to suggest that the spotty play we saw this season isn't going to continue next season. The other problem is the in game coaching, as well as fundamentals coaching, which in my opinion hasn't been very good. AGain, an ongoing problem all season with no indication as to how it is going to be fixed for next season. Our recent draft picks haven't been consistently productive so I can't presume that we are going to get capable players with our next draft. I hope all these questions get answered positively but I watched the Yankees go from champions to their current championship drought in the exact manner that the Patriots are now following. So I can't help being concerned.

 

[PF1996]

Why should any of us provide this for you? You haven't provided any "evidence" to the contrary...only given us your own "estimation." That really isn't good enough for me, nor for anyone else, I suspect. Why not do as you demand?

YOU don't have to provide ANYTHING for me. Richpats claimed the Pats would be 2-9 but for Brady in 2005 and I asked HIM to provide me with ANY evidence to support THAT claim. He can provide the evidence and demonstrate that his statement is something other than homerism or he can not provide the evidence and prove that it is nothing more than homerism. His choice....quite irrelevant to me. I don't care whether my estimation is "good enough" for you, I provided it to show the basis of my opinion, a typical gesture when having a rational discussion.

 

[PF1996]

Come on Drew, Brady is better than you are, always was....get over yourself. You know darn well if you had returned in '01 - there would be no Superbowl win that or any other year.

I'll take TB as first choice to lead my franchise - over all the rest.

Yeah, but is Brady better than Bulger - that's the question. I'd take Bulger.

 

[NEPat]

Yeah, but is Brady better than Bulger - that's the question. I'd take Bulger.

You're not Drew Bledsoe, you're Jason Sehorn!

Seriously, we're just on opposite ends of the argument regarding Brady and won't be bridging the gap any time soon.

There's nothing to suggest that the spotty play we saw this season isn't going to continue next season. The other problem is the in game coaching, as well as fundamentals coaching, which in my opinion hasn't been very good. AGain, an ongoing problem all season with no indication as to how it is going to be fixed for next season. Our recent draft picks haven't been consistently productive so I can't presume that we are going to get capable players with our next draft.

There is being pessimistic, and then there is drowning yourself in despair, and I think your viewpoint is the latter. So the Patriots won't improve next year, and on top of that the draft is probably going to be useless? And what is "recent draft picks"? Chad Jackson? I think the Patriots recent draft picks have been far more successful than they have been unsuccesful. That should be a bright point, not a mark against them.

As for your Yankees point, I'm not sure what comparisons can be made between the two teams other than they both won multiple championships over a short period of time. Do you mean that decisions the Yankees made that led to their 'downfall' (let's not go crazy here and act like they fell off the face of the Earth, and this is a Sox fan speaking) are similiar to decisions the Pats have made? I don't see that, as I think the two organizations are run in completely different ways, aside from the fact that comparisons are difficult when you're talking about two different sports.