a gross oversimplification, IC. How did that high cost secondary work out for the Eagles?
And as for the lack of spending being the reason for not winning superbowls, that's ridiculous. Did the Giants spend big for their 2 wins. Did the Packer or the Saiints. I don't remember either of those teams going nuts in FA before their superbowl wins. Please name a team in the last decade who rode the coattails of big FA spending who has won a superbowl.
The Bottom Line is the only difference in the Pats 3 wins and their 2 losses in the superbowl, is in the 3 wins the Pats were a good team that caught enough breaks and won. In the 2 losses the Pats were a good team that didn't catch enough breaks. Its really as simple as that.
The margin of victory in the NFL now is RAZOR thin, something as simple as getting one of the 3 fumbles, Manningham's foot being 3 inches further to right, Brady taking 2 steps to his left on the Safety, Gronk being healthy, Any of these and more could have changed the result of that game, without a single extra dollar being spent. The same goes for the 2007 game. Its not about the money