Greedy: I Want the Next Two Seasons to be the Best in Patriot History

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

W, 27-24

W, 20-10

The Ravens game had that premature timeout that gave the Pats a do over on a failed 4th down IIRC.

The Jets game was a struggle. Everyone expected the Pats to blow the doors off Mangini's team after the spygate crap, but instead the D won the game as Brady was harassed all game. I think the Pats scored a defensive TD.

The signs were there that the team had come back to the pack a bit, so to speak.

Regards,
Chris

 

[1960Pats]

2007 already is the greatest Pats team of all time. (title or not)

Here is the problem with 19-0 talk. When you to get to like 13-0, and have EVERY Playoff advantage clinched.. the final few games are like walking through a mine field.. If you are all sold out on getting to 16-0. Now the Pats are definitely one of the organizations that would go for it, if they are close.. It is just a definite. But there is no question the 2007 Pats were not quite themselves in the AFCCG or the SB, still should have won, but they were spent.

However, the flip side of the coin is take for instance a team that needs to win all the way out to get the number 1 or 2 seed (both the 2003 Pats and 2004 Pats were in this boat). It is probably good for those teams.. So it is probably good for a 12-0 team to win out. I know.. I'm all over the place.

The Pats could be strong enough to rest some players and still win, but it won't matter to me. I'm ready for another run at it.

The 2007 team that won the SB was one that didn't get a week off for 12 weeks. The one time they had a chance to rest they played the Pats all out to try and stop the 16-0 season. They didn't look spent.

 

[pazrul72]

Couldn't disagree more, no Lombardi means they aren't the greatest team ever. To this point 2003 remains their greatest team imo.

2003 certainly had a nasty defense and a flair for winning the dramatic close game but 2004 was a ruthless machine with clock killin Dillion in the backfield. I think you are forgetting how poor running the ball that 2003 team was. Loved Antwain Smith and seriously appreciate everything he did but he was on his last legs and was barely a threat to run at that point. So if you could get 03 to play 04 I believe it would be a close tightly contested game until about 6 minutes to go in the fourth at which point Dillion would end it with a long time consuming drive 24-20 2004 team.

 

[tasmlab]

You have GOT to be kidding. 19-0 would be a HUGE deal, deservedly so, and this forum would erupt in spontaneous orgasm.

Saying "it doesn't mean much" is sour grapes. We are better than that.

I don't disagree at all, but the conversation will certainly mean more once they are 10-0 sometime next November.

 

[mosslost]

What did they accomplish again? All I remember is heartache and disappointment. It's championship or bust. We've had 5 successful seasons, and that's it. I've certainly found enjoyment as a fan in other seasons, and I've been proud of the team for their fight and grit, but let's not pretend like coming up short is a great success story. We make fun of the Colts for their participation banners, so we should at least be consistent.

They are the best team in Patriot history. Best record 18-1. (only three teams ever accomplished 18-1)
And they are the only team to go 16-0 in regular season. We have teams that won the Super Bowl, Patriots and other Super Bowl winners, who do not hold a candle to the 2007 Patriots.

 

[Ivan]

2003 certainly had a nasty defense and a flair for winning the dramatic close game but 2004 was a ruthless machine with clock killin Dillion in the backfield. I think you are forgetting how poor running the ball that 2003 team was. Loved Antwain Smith and seriously appreciate everything he did but he was on his last legs and was barely a threat to run at that point. So if you could get 03 to play 04 I believe it would be a close tightly contested game until about 6 minutes to go in the fourth at which point Dillion would end it with a long time consuming drive 24-20 2004 team.

Nope, you are right, I was thinking of the team with Dillon.

 

[mosslost]

I simply don't care about 19-0. The Lombardi's and the level of excellence in a league fully designed to marginalize it are more than enough for me. As someone already mentioned we are in " gravy" status for the rest of the Brady/Belichick era, and while I will enjoy every bit of it I don't feel like they have anything left to prove or accomplish to walk away as the Greatest Coach, QB, and Team in NFL history.

Brady is still at the top of his game and Belichick has built a great team around him and I believe they will win at least two more Lombardi's before he hangs them up but I'm just looking forward to seeing how good they will be this season, and then will go from there.

In some ways, with the dominance the Patriots have had, having a random 16-0 season that does not represent one of the trophies actually adds to the teams lore. "Even our off years are rediculous" We have a 16-0; 14-2[ 13-3; and multiple 12-4 years during our "down" stretch."

 

[mosslost]

I'm all set. I'm in the "anything else is gravy" camp except I'd like to see Rodgers house of cards collapse in the most publicly disgraceful way possible.

I'm not all set.. in this order.

1. More titles (And of course I won't reject a 19-0 year.. everyone who says that would not matter is nuts. It would be humongous)
2. Win Division every year, keep the AFCGC stretch going.
3. NO bad or down years while Brady is playing. (Or ever of course) I would hate to see Brady have even one bad year, like 8-8 or some ****. 12-4 minimum.

 

[mosslost]

2007 already is the greatest Pats team of all time. (title or not)

Here is the problem with 19-0 talk. When you to get to like 13-0, and have EVERY Playoff advantage clinched.. the final few games are like walking through a mine field.. If you are all sold out on getting to 16-0. Now the Pats are definitely one of the organizations that would go for it, if they are close.. It is just a definite. But there is no question the 2007 Pats were not quite themselves in the AFCCG or the SB, still should have won, but they were spent.

However, the flip side of the coin is take for instance a team that needs to win all the way out to get the number 1 or 2 seed (both the 2003 Pats and 2004 Pats were in this boat). It is probably good for those teams.. So it is probably good for a 12-0 team to win out. I know.. I'm all over the place.

@Ivan 2007 Best team easily

 

[mosslost]

Couldn't disagree more, no Lombardi means they aren't the greatest team ever. To this point 2003 remains their greatest team imo.

that is just wrong.. completely and entirely. Incorrect

 

[mosslost]

Couldn't disagree more, no Lombardi means they aren't the greatest team ever. To this point 2003 remains their greatest team imo.

You guys are simply wrong about this and it is not even a debate.

2007 Pats better than 2001 Pats and many many champions
1987 Celtics better than 1976 Celtics, or even the 1981 Celtics and many many others.
2011 Giants are a joke

The funny thing about this.. is I am right, and there is no debate. The best team does not have to be the one who got the trophy. That is not even logical.

 

[mosslost]

The Pats could be strong enough to rest some players and still win, but it won't matter to me. I'm ready for another run at it.

The 2007 team that won the SB was one that didn't get a week off for 12 weeks. The one time they had a chance to rest they played the Pats all out to try and stop the 16-0 season. They didn't look spent.

dude, they lost a bunch of those games you are talking about. The Pats stretch of having to win every single week was much bigger burden that the fricken Giants no weeks off.

 

[goheels22002]

Well since we are being totally delusional, here's my take:

1. We trade JG for the #12, and 53rd, and the conditional pick pck next season that is likely to be a 2nd but could be a first if the Browns win 8 games.
.
2. We trade Butler for #42 and #76. Getting those 2 picks are better than just the #32 for either players or trades. I know this is a delusional thread, but even in a delusion we are NOT getting the #11

3. We sign a motivated Revis for the vet minimum and Manold for $6MM (just a reminder we had 5 ex- Jets on that 2001 team.)

4. We draft Derrick Bennet at #12 and add a great speed, length, and size combo off the edge and with the 42nd pick we grab Quincy Wilson a 6'1 206lb CB with at 6.7 second 3 cone. (Sidney Jones is also acceptable) Now armed with 2 picks in the 3rd round we use one of them to get Adam Shaheen 6'7 TE from Ashland who can develop this season without any pressure. And then use the other 3rd rounder to grab a RB, (Mixon would be iudeal Connor would be more likely at that point). After THAT haul, everything else would be gravy, and I haven'even used the #52. My delusion is getting tired.

5. Sign Ryan Fitzpatrick to compete with with Brissett for the back up role. ($1MM guaranteed on a $4MM salary and $2MM in incentives)

THAT would be a team that would be stacked an upgraded all over the field while giving us enough high picks that we could add to posisitions of need for the future. Remember the superbowl run that we are on now is fueled by those great drafts we had in 2010-12. We've had a few off years since, and this delusion will set us up for the next great draft run.

Patfanken is suggesting the Patriots get older and slower by signing Ryan Fitzpatrick, Darelle Revis and Nick Mangold.

Mods, a once inspired and visionary member of this board has been possessed by the demonic Woody Johnson with the evil spirit of Mike Kensil. This is serious. Please do what it is you do to bring guys like Ken back from the green side.

I am offering ten Hail Marys which I understand can be quite effective against demonic possessions:

 

[ivanvamp]

Couldn't disagree more, no Lombardi means they aren't the greatest team ever. To this point 2003 remains their greatest team imo.

I think that 2004 team was better, but now we're just splitting hairs. Both teams 14-2, both won the Super Bowl.

Rankings:
2003:
- Points offense: #12
- Yards offense: #17
- OSRS: 2.1
- Points defense: #1
- Yards defense: #7
- DSRS: 4.9
- Avg point differential per game: +6.9

2004:
- Points offense: #4
- Yards offense: #7
- OSRS: 6.3
- Points defense: #2
- Yards defense: #9
- DSRS: 6.5
- Avg point differential per game: +11.1

 

[Kontradiction]

What did they accomplish again? All I remember is heartache and disappointment. It's championship or bust. We've had 5 successful seasons, and that's it. I've certainly found enjoyment as a fan in other seasons, and I've been proud of the team for their fight and grit, but let's not pretend like coming up short is a great success story. We make fun of the Colts for their participation banners, so we should at least be consistent.

It's such a non-accomplishment that no team had done it before and no team has come close to doing it since. The team was a missed "in the grasp" whistle and a miracle duck between the hashes caught off a helmet away from 19-0. To act almost entitled to it ever season is basically throwing shade at that accomplishment. If it happens? Great. But let's just be happy with bookend dynasties, shall we?

 

[WaterfallJumper]

It's such a non-accomplishment that no team had done it before and no team has come close to doing it since. The team was a missed "in the grasp" whistle and a miracle duck between the hashes caught off a helmet away from 19-0. To act almost entitled to it ever season is basically throwing shade at that accomplishment. If it happens? Great. But let's just be happy with bookend dynasties, shall we?

But all the regular season does is qualify you for post-season play. I'm not acting entitled to recognize that we came really close, but ultimately failed to achieve the goal. As I said in my second post, I enjoyed it as a fan, and I'm more than happy to root for this team through thick and thin. I just keep my eyes on the prize, that's all.

 

[Ivan]

I think that 2004 team was better, but now we're just splitting hairs. Both teams 14-2, both won the Super Bowl.

Rankings:
2003:
- Points offense: #12
- Yards offense: #17
- OSRS: 2.1
- Points defense: #1
- Yards defense: #7
- DSRS: 4.9
- Avg point differential per game: +6.9

2004:
- Points offense: #4
- Yards offense: #7
- OSRS: 6.3
- Points defense: #2
- Yards defense: #9
- DSRS: 6.5
- Avg point differential per game: +11.1

I agree, I was actually thinking of the team with Dillon.

 

[Kontradiction]

But all the regular season does is qualify you for post-season play. I'm not acting entitled to recognize that we came really close, but ultimately failed to achieve the goal. As I said in my second post, I enjoyed it as a fan, and I'm more than happy to root for this team through thick and thin. I just keep my eyes on the prize, that's all.

So, in your estimation, do you think it was easy for that team to go 18-0, into the Super Bowl, and be a silent fart away from winning it? Of course not. It's an accomplishment because, somehow, someway, teams every year toss in stinkers and lose games they probably shouldn't even if their competition is inferior during the regular season. That team didn't and, in spite of an ankle injury to Brady (on top of the fact that the Giants were crushing him) and Neal's broken leg which opened the flood gates in the middle, they almost won the big one. In NFL history, nobody has ever gone 18-0 outside of that team and nobody has come close since. To assign 19-0 expectations to every incarnation of the Patriots, year in and year out, cheapens that feat.

 

[PatriotDynasty99]

Off the topic of Patriots best team ever for second. Just an observation. Bill Belichick really seems to be taking an unusually (even for him) keen interest in the prospects for this year's draft, especially for a guy without a 1st or 2nd round pick.

Maybe he has a card up his sleeve? Hmm.

 

[PatriotDynasty99]

One more observation. And I know Belichick never has done this. But wouldn't it be nice to get one of the stud RBs from this draft?