And those "people outside New England" try to glorify the loss by spinning every damn kick the Patriots have made in the last 10 years as an impossible clutch kick that decided every game, and without Adam, the Patriots no longer have the ability to win games, as they suddenly lose 3-9 points off every one of their scores. They also make it out like Adam is the best all-around kicker in the game, which he CLEARLY wasn't in the past 3 or so seasons. His kickoffs were declining, and he hadn't hit a 50+ yarder since 2002. But to the outside world, he's been the "face of the Patriots" for drama occuring 5 years ago.
When the time came for him to leave because of age, declining performance, and desired money, the Patriots made the right choice again. Usually, such a move is glorified by the media, but now, since Adam "won the Super Bowls and brought the dynasty to New England," anything less but a house made of gold and Bill Gates as his servant is not respecting him and thus a bad front office move by the Patriots.
And here you stand, contradicting yourself multiple times. First you say without Adam the Pats wouldn't have won the Super Bowls with the 3-point margins. Then, just as conveniently, you continue with the "Tom Brady won because of of his supporting cast" by concluding it was a team victory, and the "rest of the world" knows it. Therefore, you are making our point, as the success of an entire team doesn't depend on a single player, but some players contribute more than others (Say - Tom Brady (leader, quarterback, etc.) over Vinatieri (kicker)
