Patriots decline was years in the making

[Deus Irae]

The OP is a trash article that cherry picks things like the Panthers superbowl, completely ignoring the divisional round against the titans that was a knock-down-drag-out defensive battle. We scored 3 total points in the second half, and Bethel friggin Johnson was our leading receiver. So yeah where were the "clutch" spectacular leaping catches from Givens (26 yards) and Branch (10 yards)? If the defense plays slightly worse, we don't move on and there is no superbowl.

See, I'm not buying this. The article is flawed, as most things are. However, your arguments don't prove this flaw. Had the Patriots won in 2006, that team still would not have been as good as the teams in 2001, 2003 or 2004. The same is true of every team OTHER THAN 2007, since the end of the 2004 season. That's just the reality of what's happened.

Instead of equating "Decline" and "not as good" with "Worst damned team in NFL history", perhaps you could contribute something positive to the discussion by bringing some actual insight to the table. For example, which player in the defensive back 8 from 2009 would be a starter on that 2004 team? Did the platoon of players replacing Seymour even approach 2004 Seymour?

After looking at the defense, one could look at the offense. Will Brady fully recover next season and become Brady again, or did the injury rob us of the rest of Brady's prime years? Moss is better than any receiver on that 2004 team, but can the team replace Welker, or will the WR spots also begin to lag behind those championship squads? Can Koppen regain his top form, or are his best years behind him? Can Light get it done for another year, or will Vollmer move to LT and open up the RT question yet again? How can the team get the tight end position back to its 2003-2004 strength? Can the team find a way to improve the running game, or will it remain the poor stepchild? With Neal having more physical problems, how do you solve the guard problems even if you manage to keep Mankins? All this is valid stuff to discuss, regardless of your take on specific aspects of it, and it's all what's gone into the team's decline.

I'm not one to blame everything on the front office. I think it's unfair to blame the front office for Bruschi's stroke, Colvin's injury, Thomas' first two injury plagued seasons, Mayo's injury last year, Harrison and Wilson both suffering multiple injuries robbing them of effectiveness earlier than might have been planned on (especially in Wilson's case), etc... Nonetheless, that's the situation at hand, and there's clearly been a decline from the first half of the decade. One can discuss it reasonably and look at reasons and solutions, the way a message board should be used, or one can stick fingers in the ear and ignore the reality for as long as possible while trying to make the message board into something that's little more than a company blog for the Patriots. I prefer the first approach.

 

[TomPatriot]

1) Anyone who thinks that the 2007 season was part of long spiral downward is an idiot. We we were one crazy play away from being one the consensus top three or four teams of all time.

2) Anyone who whines and moans about being 11-5 without Brady in 2008 is a moron and/or a mediot.

and finally,

3) Anyone who considers a division winning season an aweful result of a long decline in the making shouldn't be paid for writing sports columns or should be a beat writer for a paper in Detroit instead of New England.

just my 2 vents and 2 cents

It was worth more than two cents. Good post.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

Of course he does... A more quick strike offense is implemented, Wes gets open extremely quick, the fumble probably doesn't happen, though maybe it does. The defense adjusts because they actually DO have to pay attention to Welker too. The INT probably doesn't happen and the offense probably moves a lot better. You do realize they were throwing to Matthew Slater for the first time all year right... in the playoffs!




We led the league in TOP, 6th in points, 3rd in yards... The "weak ass AFC East" consists of the top 2 pass defenses in the NFL. It also consisted of 2 playoff teams.

Yes one player is absolutely making a difference against the Ravens. In case you just started paying attention to football, very minor details can cause games to get out of hand quickly. And even if we spot the Ravens a 24-0 lead in the 1st quarter. With Welker we still have a far better chance to make up for it. We had the opportunities even after the failure in the 1st quarter. We just had no one outside of Moss who could do a damn thing.

I don't think you were paying attention of how little time Brady had on sunday when Light and Mankins in general decided to take the day off and not protect the QB

As the season progressedand into sunday, Brady got rattled quite easily when the OL was not blocking well where in those situations he tends to overthrow his receivers or forces a bad throw into coverage for an INT.

No matter if Welker was injured or not,the OL was not holding thier own against the Ravens - there was a stat that indicated that Brady had 1.6 seconds to throw on sunday...unless Jesus is a Patriots WR, no one was getting open that fast,including Welker.

IIRC We had a very healthy Welker in SB 42 but the OL got destroyed.

Since the playoffs of 2007 and the 'blueprint' was developed, Brady has not been Brady in large due to the fact that until his OL gets better and a cohesive unit, he will not suddenly transform into his old self..he needs help up front and the draft needs to develop a good tackle for us to have on this line.

Put Brady behind a great line such as Minnesota or Indy and he would have been unstoppable this year.

Of all the guys in round 1 last year,Michael Oher would have been a perfect selection more than any others for us,unfortunately Denver had first dibs

 

[emoney_33]

See, I'm not buying this. The article is flawed, as most things are. However, your arguments don't prove this flaw. Had the Patriots won in 2006, that team still would not have been as good as the teams in 2001, 2003 or 2004. The same is true of every team OTHER THAN 2007, since the end of the 2004 season. That's just the reality of what's happened.

Not quite sure what you mean here re: 2006 winning? The 2001 team was NOT that good.

Instead of equating "Decline" and "not as good" with "Worst damned team in NFL history", perhaps you could contribute something positive to the discussion by bringing some actual insight to the table.

OK decline meaning what, team talent or end-result? The defense peaked in 2003, and obviously has "declined" from that exact point in time. The offense got better over a time with a big dip in 06 and a huge jump in 07. 2007 the offense peaked. Now this is a very limited and short sighted view though, the graph for this is not nearly a smooth line downwards from 01 -> 09, it's filled with peaks and valleys and we end up with a better team in 2009 than 2001. But a worse overall team in 2009 than 2003/2004.

For example, which player in the defensive back 8 from 2009 would be a starter on that 2004 team? Did the platoon of players replacing Seymour even approach 2004 Seymour?

The Seymour back then is almost impossible to replace.

Now what defensive backfield are you talking about for 2004? The one that merely GOT to the playoffs, or the one that played in the playoffs and won the superbowl that consisted of mediocre corners Gay and Samuel? Because in the playoffs only the 2004 Harrison is starting. 2009 Merriweather, Bodden, Springs are all starting in place of Eugene, Samuel and Gay in 2004 playoffs.

After looking at the defense, one could look at the offense. Will Brady fully recover next season and become Brady again, or did the injury rob us of the rest of Brady's prime years?

Brady in 2009 produced better year than any other than 2007, WHILE facing the toughest pass defense schedule of the last 17 years. Say whatever you want, but it's fantasy to believe that Brady was magical in 03/04. He's still Brady and he's still the best.

Moss is better than any receiver on that 2004 team, but can the team replace Welker, or will the WR spots also begin to lag behind those championship squads? Can Koppen regain his top form, or are his best years behind him? Can Light get it done for another year, or will Vollmer move to LT and open up the RT question yet again? How can the team get the tight end position back to its 2003-2004 strength? Can the team find a way to improve the running game, or will it remain the poor stepchild? With Neal having more physical problems, how do you solve the guard problems even if you manage to keep Mankins? All this is valid stuff to discuss, regardless of your take on specific aspects of it, and it's all what's gone into the team's decline.

I agree all of this is valid to discuss, ad we need to address most of these issues this offseason.

I'm not one to blame everything on the front office. I think it's unfair to blame the front office for Bruschi's stroke, Colvin's injury, Thomas' first two injury plagued seasons, Mayo's injury last year, Harrison and Wilson both suffering multiple injuries robbing them of effectiveness earlier than might have been planned on (especially in Wilson's case), etc... Nonetheless, that's the situation at hand, and there's clearly been a decline from the first half of the decade. One can discuss it reasonably and look at reasons and solutions, the way a message board should be used, or one can stick fingers in the ear and ignore the reality for as long as possible while trying to make the message board into something that's little more than a company blog for the Patriots. I prefer the first approach.

I don't think there has been a "decline" in the sense that it's been steadily getting worse. There was a really nice accumulation of everything going right and working (earthwind moreland!) with a very successful peak of 03-04 that just happened to come closely with the 01 miracle team, that had more dumb luck go its way than anything.

I think 2009 was a low because of all the inexperience, learning curve, loss of yet another talented coordinator, and a difficult to plan for failure of multiple receiver options. I do not think we are on some downward slope though and believe that there is enough foundational talent on the team that we will be again competing for a SB next year. I am confident the front office will address the holes and needs on this team without sacrificing the future.

 

[emoney_33]

I don't think you were paying attention of how little time Brady had on sunday when Light and Mankins in general decided to take the day off and not protect the QB

The point with Welker is you don't need a lot of time, and I think the playcalling would not have been so with Welker available.

As the season progressedand into sunday, Brady got rattled quite easily when the OL was not blocking well where in those situations he tends to overthrow his receivers or forces a bad throw into coverage for an INT.

28-13 TD-INT better than 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, and 06. He had NO ONE to throw to on Sunday, and yes the pressure caused some bad (but not unheard of) throws.

No matter if Welker was injured or not,the OL was not holding thier own against the Ravens - there was a stat that indicated that Brady had 1.6 seconds to throw on sunday...unless Jesus is a Patriots WR, no one was getting open that fast,including Welker.

A LOT changes with Welker in the lineup, including the inability to pin their ears back and rush full out. They had no one to worry about except for Moss who they just played back on. Did you notice Moss catching some short passes, yea there wasn't NO time all game. You exaggerate the Ravens pressure.

IIRC We had a very healthy Welker in SB 42 but the OL got destroyed.

And I never claimed Welker to be a magical being that would prevent everyone from stopping us. He absolutely would have helped against the Ravens, not a single doubt in any rational mind. The Ravens game was far far different than the Giants. The situation allowed the Ravens to focus on a full out pass rush attack with very minimal risk. The situation is much different with Moss AND Welker in the lineup.

Since the playoffs of 2007 and the 'blueprint' was developed, Brady has not been Brady in large due to the fact that until his OL gets better and a cohesive unit, he will not suddenly transform into his old self..he needs help up front and the draft needs to develop a good tackle for us to have on this line.

Brady has played ONE season since the "playoffs of 2007", and in that season posted the 2nd best numbers of his career against the most difficult pass-defense schedule in the entire NFL the last SEVENTEEN years. There is no damn blueprint. Brady 2009/20010 > Brady 2003/2004 as much as you want to sensationalize the past. Again I'll point to the 2004 playoffs, Titans game:

21/41 201 Yards 4.9 Avg 1TD 0 INT

The defense won that game, and if they didn't and we lost you may have trashed the offense in 2004 too, but instead you sensationalize it because they won the SB.

Put Brady behind a great line such as Minnesota or Indy and he would have been unstoppable this year.

He was the best QB in the NFL this year when you take into account the most DIFFICULT PASS DEFENSE schedule in the NFL in the last 17 years! Don't you understand that he is playing against other teams...

Of all the guys in round 1 last year,Michael Oher would have been a perfect selection more than any others for us,unfortunately Denver had first dibs

Don't understand how this fits in...

 

[Kasmir]

The way I look at it, the real dynasty years were 2003-2007. The 2001 team was very lucky to win a SB, and the 2007 team was very unlucky to lose one. The 2008 team was an overwhelming favorite to win it all, and still went 11-5 despite losing Brady. It's only bad luck that prevented the team from picking up at least one bowl in 2007 or 2008. The 2001/2002 teams were just not very good. 2003/4 vs 2007 + what should have been 2008 is a really tough call. The 2004 team had a great defense and an excellent offense. The 2007 team had one of the greatest offenses of all time and a good enough defense. Both teams were very formidable by historic standards. If Brady had stayed healthy in 2008, no team in the league would have been comparable.

Problem is that 2008 did happen, and Brady is not yet what he was and may never be. Moss is aging and Welker is a question mark. Light, Neal, and even Faulk are nearing their career declines. The defense is rebuilding and cannot carry the team, and may lose it's single legitimate star. The coaching staff and front office have been decimated. It's the confluence of all those factors that suggests the dynasty is over. Belichick is facing his greatest challenge. Next year will decide whether the dynasty indeed ended or was just set back.

 

[captain stone]

We we were one crazy play away from being one the consensus top three or four teams of all time.

The Tyree catch came on 3rd down. So even if the pass were incomplete, it would've been 4th/5, or 4th/15 if the zebras had done the right thing and called Off. Holding on anyone at all from the Jints' OL.

Besides, what else would you call going from 18-1 to 11-5 to 10-7?

I call that a decline.

 

[NJPatsfan26]

The Tyree catch came on 3rd down. So even if the pass were incomplete, it would've been 4th/5, or 4th/15 if the zebras had done the right thing and called Off. Holding on anyone at all from the Jints' OL.

Besides, what else would you call going from 18-1 to 11-5 to 10-7?

I call that a decline.

Going from 18-1 and almost being the only perfect team in the NFL to 10-7 is a decline...just need to know how to correct it. Is it the players, is it the coaching staff, who is it ? Guess that answer will come with the offseason.

 

[Ring 6]

1) Anyone who thinks that the 2007 season was part of long spiral downward is an idiot. We we were one crazy play away from being one the consensus top three or four teams of all time.

2) Anyone who whines and moans about being 11-5 without Brady in 2008 is a moron and/or a mediot.

and finally,

3) Anyone who considers a division winning season an aweful result of a long decline in the making shouldn't be paid for writing sports columns or should be a beat writer for a paper in Detroit instead of New England.

just my 2 vents and 2 cents

I actually have a different take on that.
I think today, I can see that there was steady decline in the roster.
However PARTS of the roster allowed the team to outperform the sum of its parts.
Look back at the contributions of player who left vs came in.
You will see a high number of solid performers leave, and a small number of excellent performers replace them.
In other words, the team was being dismantled solid piece by solid piece, but was kept afloat (in some way overall improved) by fewer, but greater additions.

The 'it' that the Patriots had, though evaporated. 2005 was a tough year for a good team that lost people and gritted it out. 2006 and 2007 both ended in entirely uncharacteistic fashion. 2008 did see an 11 win team without Brady, but it was also a team that had worse moments than we have seen in many years (the total inability to stop the Dolphins, the destruction in Pitt to name a few).

IMO, the signs of deterioration are very evident over the past 5 years, but when you look through those glasses you see a team that actually overachieved because of a select few

How is it so diffcult to understand in a cap era?
As of, say 2004, the Patriots had something like a roster under an 80 mill cap that would command 150mill if they all became Free Agents.
Everyone is quick to throw blame (cheapness, bad decisions, etc) but the fact is that it was impossible to keep all of the players we had, and the money simply didn't exist to replace them with close to equal players. Add to that the fact that we always drafted at the end of each round, and how could it not happen that the OVERALL talent of the Patriots declined and came back to the league? The individual greatness of BB, Brady and others, and the overall brilliance of the organization caused the Pats to turn that unavoidable reality into:
4 division titles, 2 AFCC games, 1 SB berth, and an average of 12 wins a season over the last 5 years. Including the remarkable achievement of creating a team that was soooooo good at one thing it almost overcame all of the deterioration to have a perfect season.

I have always said the identity of the 2001 Pats was that they were good enough at everything to be able to:
-Dominate you at what you were bad at
-Win the battle at what you were OK at
-And hold their own at what you were great at.
In other words, it was a team that was never overmatched at anything.

That grew through 2004, but since it is so clearly obvious that this team became one who's success depended upon being really, really good at some things to cover the weaknesses that existed in other areas.
I firmly believe the weaknesses that this team had were never exposed fully because the strengths hid them, but if you look back over the last few years at the bad games, the teams that dominated in certain areas, you will see that there were severe weaknesses that the team and coaches did a tremendous job of hiding.
Why do you think we evolved (or whatever the negative version of evolution is) from a team that was its best in big games against best of competition to a team that stayed in the hunt by killing bad teams, but struggling to ever beat good ones. (a slow progression from 2005 to now with the exception in 2007).

This has all come clear to be over the past few days, but when you think about it, it really seems to fit.

I think as a fan base we should be looking at the last 5 years as a great job of extneding the competiveness of this franchise rather than an underperforming failure.
Of course there are 2 sides to that outlook. First, it doesn't bode as well for the near future, but on the other hand the positives that exist will allow the rebuild to happen more quickly by being able to cover for the shortcomings.
IMO, the success that was sustained probably clouded the issues even within the organization, and 2009 will result in blowing up te parts that are broken, because the positives aren't overcoming the negatives any longer.

 

[Ring 6]

See, I'm not buying this. The article is flawed, as most things are. However, your arguments don't prove this flaw. Had the Patriots won in 2006, that team still would not have been as good as the teams in 2001, 2003 or 2004. The same is true of every team OTHER THAN 2007, since the end of the 2004 season. That's just the reality of what's happened.

Instead of equating "Decline" and "not as good" with "Worst damned team in NFL history", perhaps you could contribute something positive to the discussion by bringing some actual insight to the table. For example, which player in the defensive back 8 from 2009 would be a starter on that 2004 team? Did the platoon of players replacing Seymour even approach 2004 Seymour?

After looking at the defense, one could look at the offense. Will Brady fully recover next season and become Brady again, or did the injury rob us of the rest of Brady's prime years? Moss is better than any receiver on that 2004 team, but can the team replace Welker, or will the WR spots also begin to lag behind those championship squads? Can Koppen regain his top form, or are his best years behind him? Can Light get it done for another year, or will Vollmer move to LT and open up the RT question yet again? How can the team get the tight end position back to its 2003-2004 strength? Can the team find a way to improve the running game, or will it remain the poor stepchild? With Neal having more physical problems, how do you solve the guard problems even if you manage to keep Mankins? All this is valid stuff to discuss, regardless of your take on specific aspects of it, and it's all what's gone into the team's decline.

I'm not one to blame everything on the front office. I think it's unfair to blame the front office for Bruschi's stroke, Colvin's injury, Thomas' first two injury plagued seasons, Mayo's injury last year, Harrison and Wilson both suffering multiple injuries robbing them of effectiveness earlier than might have been planned on (especially in Wilson's case), etc... Nonetheless, that's the situation at hand, and there's clearly been a decline from the first half of the decade. One can discuss it reasonably and look at reasons and solutions, the way a message board should be used, or one can stick fingers in the ear and ignore the reality for as long as possible while trying to make the message board into something that's little more than a company blog for the Patriots. I prefer the first approach.

Refer to what I just posted because it goes into greater detail, but I think we see this similarly.
I do think it was inevitable because the 2004 roster couldnt come close to being afforded under the cap when those players started playing out their contracts. We were also 'handicapped' in the draft for 10 years by always picking late.
I think over a 53 man roster, there was steady decline, but in certain parts of the roster there was upgrade to help overcome it.
The 2007 team was 1 minute from perfection, but other than the passing game, what part of the team was as good as 03-04? The run and pass D both were not, and it wasn't close. The run game wasn't. The passing game was so dominant that while every other aspect of the team had declined, it still almost carried to a perfect season.
2008, IMO, was fueled by the will to win, and philosphy of the organizaiton. A very flawed team refused to accept it couldnt win with a noname QB and beat up all of the bad teams it faced to get 11 wins. It wasn't equipped to beat good teams. This years team deteriorated further, even to the point where adding Brady back couldn't create an overall improvement.
In retrospect, what else could have been done? How do you account for having to replace half a roster with inferior players because of the cap?
I think we were one (of a few) plays away from having the greatest team ever that would have been made up of a completely average team plus Tom Brady, Randy Moss and Wes Welker playing at the top of their games.
That would have made this 5 year transition a rousing success to me, and it not happening simply makes it a pretty damn good job when consider the circumstances.

 

[emoney_33]

The way I look at it, the real dynasty years were 2003-2007. The 2001 team was very lucky to win the SB, and the 2007 team was very unlucky to lose one. The 2008 team was an overwhelming favorite to win it all, and still went 11-5 despite losing Brady. It's only bad luck that prevented the the team from picking up at least one bowl in 2007 or 2008. The 2001/2002 teams were just not very good. 2003/4 vs 2007 + what should have been 2008 is a really tough call. The 2004 team had a great defense and an excellent offense. The 2007 team had one of the greatest offenses of all time and a good enough defense. Both teams were very formidable by historic standards. If Brady had stayed healthy in 2008, no team in the league would have been comparable.

Problem is that 2008 did happen, and Brady is not yet what he was and may never be. Moss is aging and Welker is a question mark. Light, Neal, and even Faulk are nearing their career declines. The defense is rebuilding and cannot carry the team, and may lose it's single legitimate star. The coaching staff and front office has been decimated. It's the confluence of all those factors that suggests the dynasty is over. Belichick is facing his greatest challenge. Next year will decide whether a dynasty indeed ended or was just set back.

Very well put. I think this pretty much nails it.

 

[captain stone]

Going from 18-1 and almost being the only perfect team in the NFL to 10-7 is a decline...just need to know how to correct it. Is it the players, is it the coaching staff, who is it ? Guess that answer will come with the offseason.

It's All of the Above: college scouting, pro scouting, front office, coaches & players. I'm hoping that the answers will come in the off-season, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Deus Irae]

...In retrospect, what else could have been done? How do you account for having to replace half a roster with inferior players because of the cap?....

You posted quite a bit that should be looked at by people, but I wanted to focus on the above portion, because it's really the key, in my mind.

Some of the problem was cap, but I certainly don't think it was all, or even much, of it. Most of the players were kept on through their prime, after all. The only major losses have been Law, Samuel and Seymour (That's assuming his trade was about money). I'd put Washington there as well, but that wasn't as much a case of the Patriots not having the money as it was of the Patriots screwing around and trying to low ball a player.

Bruschi - stayed
Johnson - retired
McGinest - was shot when he left
Vrabel - was shipped out past his prime
Cox, Pfifer, Pleasant, Hamilton, Smith, Compton - Contributors, but older and not expected to last

I think it's mostly been a tale of two problems, one with a subset: Lesser quality players via the draft, and poor free agency due to both big misses and bad luck.

Free Agency:

In the beginning, it was the notion of signing 50 guys to find 3. As time went on, and more teams became adept at locking up the players who had some value, this approach became less and less successful, which led to the need to sign higher priced players like Colvin and Thomas. The problems there are epitomized by those two players. Colvin was hurt just about as he was unpacking his clothes, and Thomas was both injured and, apparently, a poor match for the team.

Taking a good look at the Free agent signings from 2005, 2008 and 2009 really says a lot about why the team has declined, I think.

Draft: I've talked about this before, but just to recap:

2000-2005

Pro Bowl/All Pro talent:

Seymour
Brady
Wilfork
Light
Samuel
Koppen
Mankins

Plus "a step down"/complimentary guys like Branch, Warren Wilson, Watson, Hobbs, Kaczur, Cassel, Sanders and Graham.

2006-2009

Pro Bowl/All Pro talent:

Meriweather (as an alternate)

Yes, Mayo showed promise last year, and there are some "a step down"/complimentary guys on could put on the list, but it's nothing like it was prior to 2006.

 

[bigfandan]

With the team's struggle with free agents and lack of impact players from last 4 drafts, it makes even more sense to hold on your own high caliber guys. The fact we let Branch out and Brady lost his #1 receiver and some will forever argue with Branch we beat Colts and go to win superbowl that year. (not sure I would go that far; but opportunity cost was there). Seymour trade was bizzare to me since we badly needed pass rush (going into the season) and the season proved that trade's timing could not have been worse. The #1 pick, even if it brings in a player of equal talent (odds say it won't bring in a player as valuable as Branch/Seymour), the player's contribution would be several years down the road. If we made the right moves in last few seasons (holding on to both Branch and later Samuel as well), we might have been able to squeeze out another SB or 2. Some stability would have helped Brady too; especially with this year playing behind a poor OL. That is with the benefit of hindsight. I am starting to see the wisdom behind Colts paying (often overpaying) its marquee players. It is unthinkable Colts would trade away Marvin Harrison or Dwight Freeney for #1 picks.

Now we are struggling to regain footing. Both ofense and defense need infusion of talent. We are in a semi-rebuild mode. Who knows how long the trial and error process would take. Last summer' free agency revolving door proved one thing - the problem does not go away even if you correctly identified it and spent considerable resources to address it. We may continue to have the pass rush problem, and the LB problem, and the WR problem, and the OL problem. These were the problems we had last summer, and one year later, we are back at it again.

I think it's mostly been a tale of two problems, one with a subset: Lesser quality players via the draft, and poor free agency due to both big misses and bad luck.

Free Agency:

In the beginning, it was the notion of signing 50 guys to find 3. As time went on, and more teams became adept at locking up the players who had some value, this approach became less and less successful, which led to the need to sign higher priced players like Colvin and Thomas. The problems there are epitomized by those two players. Colvin was hurt just about as he was unpacking his clothes, and Thomas was both injured and, apparently, a poor match for the team.

Taking a good look at the Free agent signings from 2005, 2008 and 2009 really says a lot about why the team has declined, I think.

Draft: I've talked about this before, but just to recap:

2000-2005

Pro Bowl/All Pro talent:

Seymour
Brady
Wilfork
Light
Samuel
Koppen
Mankins

Plus "a step down"/complimentary guys like Branch, Warren Wilson, Watson, Hobbs, Kaczur, Cassel, Sanders and Graham.

2006-2009

Pro Bowl/All Pro talent:

Meriweather (as an alternate)

Yes, Mayo showed promise last year, and there are some "a step down"/complimentary guys on could put on the list, but it's nothing like it was prior to 2006.

 

[mgteich]

You seem to think we've done horribly with our acquisitions of Colvin, Thomas, Moss, Welker, and Bodden . Do you believe that?

Also, I don't think you believe that Meriweather, Mayo, Vollmer and Butker were terrible picks. Many here do not believe that Light and Koppen are great players.

You cited 2000-2005 vs 2006-2009. Let's wait a year and compare five years to five years.
==================
In the end, the success of 2010 will depend on the extending of Brady, Wilfork, Bodden and Mankins, and also on picking up a couple of contributers as we normally do.

I agree that we are not the Super Bowl quality team that the media thought we were at the start of 2009. However, the problem is NOT this long litany of issues. As you and I both know well, the problems with 2009 were Brady's health, Seymour's absence, the absensce of Hobbs and the poor performance by Thomas. Mix all this up with poor performance by our coordinators and you ahve the difference between 10-6 and 13-3.

This is not easy to correct, but the issue is not lack of general talent (unless we lose Brady or Wilfork, our pillars).

I do believe that there is indeed ONE systemic issue, one reason why the patriots are no longer favorites. The patriots (and the colts) used to have an advantage because of their ap management. That, along with Brady and Manning, are the primary reasons for success in this last decade. that advantage is gone. Cap management just doesn't matter much any more. So, now we can be AMONG the top teams, but are no longer one of the two or three elite teams.

You posted quite a bit that should be looked at by people, but I wanted to focus on the above portion, because it's really the key, in my mind.

Some of the problem was cap, but I certainly don't think it was all, or even much, of it. Most of the players were kept on through their prime, after all. The only major losses have been Law, Samuel and Seymour (That's assuming his trade was about money). I'd put Washington there as well, but that wasn't as much a case of the Patriots not having the money as it was of the Patriots screwing around and trying to low ball a player.

Bruschi - stayed
Johnson - retired
McGinest - was shot when he left
Vrabel - was shipped out past his prime
Cox, Pfifer, Pleasant, Hamilton, Smith, Compton - Contributors, but older and not expected to last

I think it's mostly been a tale of two problems, one with a subset: Lesser quality players via the draft, and poor free agency due to both big misses and bad luck.

Free Agency:

In the beginning, it was the notion of signing 50 guys to find 3. As time went on, and more teams became adept at locking up the players who had some value, this approach became less and less successful, which led to the need to sign higher priced players like Colvin and Thomas. The problems there are epitomized by those two players. Colvin was hurt just about as he was unpacking his clothes, and Thomas was both injured and, apparently, a poor match for the team.

Taking a good look at the Free agent signings from 2005, 2008 and 2009 really says a lot about why the team has declined, I think.

Draft: I've talked about this before, but just to recap:

2000-2005

Pro Bowl/All Pro talent:

Seymour
Brady
Wilfork
Light
Samuel
Koppen
Mankins

Plus "a step down"/complimentary guys like Branch, Warren Wilson, Watson, Hobbs, Kaczur, Cassel, Sanders and Graham.

2006-2009

Pro Bowl/All Pro talent:

Meriweather (as an alternate)

Yes, Mayo showed promise last year, and there are some "a step down"/complimentary guys on could put on the list, but it's nothing like it was prior to 2006.

 

[Deus Irae]

You seem to think we've done horribly with our acquisitions of Colvin, Thomas, Moss, Welker, and Bodden . Do you believe that?

Huh?:

Colvin was hurt just about as he was unpacking his clothes

I'm not one to blame everything on the front office. I think it's unfair to blame the front office for Bruschi's stroke, Colvin's injury, Thomas' first two injury plagued seasons, Mayo's injury last year, Harrison and Wilson both suffering multiple injuries robbing them of effectiveness earlier than might have been planned on (especially in Wilson's case), etc... Nonetheless, that's the situation at hand, and there's clearly been a decline from the first half of the decade.

I'm pretty sure that noting that is not bashing the Colvin acquisition or saying the team did terribly with it. That's just one example out of four, but you already know what I've posted about the others, so your post here seemingly makes no sense at all. Perhaps I've misunderstood it?

Also, I don't think you believe that Meriweather, Mayo, Vollmer and Butker were terrible picks. Many here do not believe that Light and Koppen are great players.

From earlier in the thread:

It's a bit of an unfair question because the 2008 and 2009 draft picks haven't fully matured yet. Meriweather may one day take the Eugene Wilson spot, for example, even though he'll probably never top Rodney. Mayo may one day prove to be a worthy successor to Bruschi. Vollmer has potential, even if he would fall short of beating out 2003-2004 Light and would have to move to the right side. Butler, certainly, has the talent to take the CB2 spot from both CB2s of 2003-2004, and the question is whether or not he'll be able to harness that talent at the NFL level but, then again, I don't think anyone sees him as the next Ty Law. Edelman as a WR3, maybe?

You seem to have missed multiple posts of mine before making your own post.

 

[Deus Irae]

You cited 2000-2005 vs 2006-2009. Let's wait a year and compare five years to five years.

I'm not the one who started the thread so I didn't set the parameters, and there's no need to compare five years to five years anyway. 49ers fans didn't have to wait 15 years to figure out what happened to their dynasty.

In the end, the success of 2010 will depend on the extending of Brady, Wilfork, Bodden and Mankins, and also on picking up a couple of contributers as we normally do.

This team clearly needs more than just "a couple of contributers" if it's going to begin reversing the decline.

I agree that we are not the Super Bowl quality team that the media thought we were at the start of 2009. However, the problem is NOT this long litany of issues. As you and I both know well, the problems with 2009 were Brady's health, Seymour's absence, the absensce of Hobbs and the poor performance by Thomas. Mix all this up with poor performance by our coordinators and you ahve the difference between 10-6 and 13-3.

All season long, people here were overrating that defense based upon how highly it was ranked, and now you just want to kill the coordinator who helped keep that point total down enough to have the team ranked #5 in scoring defense despite having Huey, Duey, Louie and Screwey for linebackers, having lost his best defensive player just days before the season began, and having to use chicken screen and bailing wire to find a #2 CB because nobody on the roster was actually capable of doing the job with anything approaching consistency? One can question how much of the performance was Pees and how much was Belichick, but the coaching pretty clearly put a lot of lipstick on that pig of a defense.

This is not easy to correct, but the issue is not lack of general talent (unless we lose Brady or Wilfork, our pillars).

The issue is precisely a lack of general talent, albeit combined with the Brady injury.

I do believe that there is indeed ONE systemic issue, one reason why the patriots are no longer favorites. The patriots (and the colts) used to have an advantage because of their ap management. That, along with Brady and Manning, are the primary reasons for success in this last decade. that advantage is gone. Cap management just doesn't matter much any more. So, now we can be AMONG the top teams, but are no longer one of the two or three elite teams.

I suppose that might be one of the issues, albeit a relatively minor one, if you define "cap management" in a broad sense. It's near the bottom of the "reasons for the decline" pile, though, as I was demonstrating to Andy in the very post you were just quoting.

 

[captain insano]

Why some Pats fans (and writers) seem to want to act like JEST fans (and writers) is beyond me.

 

[BradyManny]

The team has clearly not been as good in the second half of the decade as it was in the first half, even with the excellence of that 2007 season. The 2009 team was, arguably, the worst team the Patriots have fielded since 2002 or possibly even 2000. This is true even though it was a relatively injury free campaign (Brady's injury was 2008).

The word used in the title is "Decline". It's accurate. "Downfall" is accurate or an overreaction, depending upon which meaning of the term is being referred to. A comparative talent evaluation shows the decline.

I don't know if I agree with that. The 2009 team faced one of the tougher schedules of the decade (besides the 2007 team, which, ironically, didn't lose any regular season games). The AFCE has gotten a lot stronger this season. And we won it, last year, we didn't. So by definition, I have to say the 2009 team was better than the 2008 team. By defensive-adjusted #s, this team was one of the best in the league, it just didn't play like one when it counted. But neither did the 2008 team, so its a toss up to me.

 

[RobertWeathers]

The 2001 team was very lucky to win a SB the 2007team was very unlucky to lose one.

Dont get this line of thinking. In my estimation after Week 2, that team went 14-3 and beat a 11-5 team, 13-3 team and another 13-3 team and had most of the players in place that won the 2003 SB. Had BB. Had Weis. Had Crennel. The 2007 was unlucky with (catches and injuries, etc), but along that same vein they didn't execute when they needed to- unlike the 01, 03 and 04 squads.

The 2008 team was an overwhelming favorite to win it all, and still went 11-5 despite losing Brady. It's only bad luck that prevented the team from picking up at least one bowl in 2007 or 2008. The 2001/2002 teams were just not very good. 2003/4 vs 2007 + what should have been 2008 is a really tough call. The 2004 team had a great defense and an excellent offense. The 2007 team had one of the greatest offenses of all time and a good enough defense. Both teams were very formidable by historic standards.

If Brady had stayed healthy in 2008, no team in the league would have been comparable.

How do you know this? The 2008 defense was marginal. The secondary was below average. IMO they don't get past Pitt in the playoffs, maybe even Baltimore for that matter.

Problem is that 2008 did happen, and Brady is not yet what he was and may never be. Moss is aging and Welker is a question mark. Light, Neal, and even Faulk are nearing their career declines. The defense is rebuilding and cannot carry the team, and may lose it's single legitimate star. The coaching staff and front office have been decimated. It's the confluence of all those factors that suggests the dynasty is over. Belichick is facing his greatest challenge. Next year will decide whether the dynasty indeed ended or was just set back.

Agree 100%