tedster822
Rookie
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2005
- Messages
- 39
- Reaction score
- 0
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.I agree with him. I have been thinking that the loss last year may have been good for the long-run health of the Pats.
If we had held Indy off in hte second half, would BB/SP have gone on thier FA feeding frenzy?
In a word: yes.
If we gave up 30+ points in the second half but still won the game, do you think BB/SP wouldn't have realized that our defense needed speed and coverage skills at LB, and therefore passed up on getting a guy perfect for our system who was willing to take 30% less per year to come here instead of San Fran?
Do you think scoring 4 more points in one game would change BB/SP's opinion over whether our receiver corps needed major additions, an opinion culled over a season+ of practices and games? Would he have turned down guys like Stallworth + Washington, who were willing to come here for a year for peanuts? Would he not recognize Moss for $3 mil and a 4th is a steal?
I don't think this year's off-season represents any departure in philosophy, and I certainly don't think BB operates in such a knee-jerk manner as to go on a spending blitz because his team came up the tiniest bit short.
I don't remember anything about this, can you go into a little more detail ?Think again. Those who know him and who are close to the players say the flight home from Indy was one for the ages.
Think again. Those who know him and who are close to the players say the flight home from Indy was one for the ages. Had they lost in SD it would have been one thing. Too many season long deficits and tough breaks to overcome. But to be up big in the first half on the road, and make it to within a minute of another superbowl with a team featuring a rag tag assembled on the fly WR corps and ill or injured RB's save the FB, and rotating PS defenders subbing for OLB's only to come up 1 conversion or stop or pass not dropped short really stung these guys from Kraft to the towel boys. Finding out they almost could have squeeked by, and faced a Bears team that wasn't in their league under the worst of circumstances, galvanized this FO to become agressive as a means to insure they never miss an opportunity like that again.
We've held teams off and squeeked by in the past and it didn't trigger anything approaching this. Losing by a hair is what triggered it.
We've held teams off and squeeked by in the past and it didn't trigger anything approaching this. Losing by a hair is what triggered it.
In a word: yes.
If we gave up 30+ points in the second half but still won the game, do you think BB/SP wouldn't have realized that our defense needed speed and coverage skills at LB, and therefore passed up on getting a guy perfect for our system who was willing to take 30% less per year to come here instead of San Fran?
Do you think scoring 4 more points in one game would change BB/SP's opinion over whether our receiver corps needed major additions, an opinion culled over a season+ of practices and games? Would he have turned down guys like Stallworth + Washington, who were willing to come here for a year for peanuts? Would he not recognize Moss for $3 mil and a 4th is a steal?
I don't think this year's off-season represents any departure in philosophy, and I certainly don't think BB operates in such a knee-jerk manner as to go on a spending blitz because his team came up the tiniest bit short.
Think again. Those who know him and who are close to the players say the flight home from Indy was one for the ages. Had they lost in SD it would have been one thing. Too many season long deficits and tough breaks to overcome. But to be up big in the first half on the road, and make it to within a minute of another superbowl with a team featuring a rag tag assembled on the fly WR corps and ill or injured RB's save the FB, and rotating PS defenders subbing for OLB's only to come up 1 conversion or stop or pass not dropped short really stung these guys from Kraft to the towel boys. Finding out they almost could have squeeked by, and faced a Bears team that wasn't in their league under the worst of circumstances, galvanized this FO to become agressive as a means to insure they never miss an opportunity like that again.
We've held teams off and squeeked by in the past and it didn't trigger anything approaching this. Losing by a hair is what triggered it.
We won three superbowls by a total of what? 9 points?So which moves don't we make if we didn't lose by a hair?
The pats have had money before. They had a ton of money last year. They didn't jump out of the box and sign a fistful of FAs the first two days of Free Agency. BB swears it is business as usual but it wasn't. BB has never done this. Even when he got Colvin he waited until the market cooled down.The fact that an LB like Adalius Thomas came free was a fluke, extremely rare and a HUGE need for the Pats and their aging LB corps. A bit of a perfect storm, but nothing to do with a tough loss and a tougher flight home, IMO.
The pats have had money before. They had a ton of money last year. They didn't jump out of the box and sign a fistful of FAs the first two days of Free Agency. BB swears it is business as usual but it wasn't. BB has never done this. Even when he got Colvin he waited until the market cooled down.
We won three superbowls by a total of what? 9 points?
All close wins. There was nothing like this done after any of those three. Losing hurts. Losing to a team when all we needed was just to hang on and clean Chicago's clock had to be painful. It was much worse than the Denver loss.
You can say that BB's attitude after losing in the last minute is the same as it would have been if we won, but I don't believe it. I think he thought, "BS! This will not happen two years in a row!"
Did you read Bank's article? Do you disagree with the concept of a team almost making it and being driven the following year? Or just disagree with the idea that BB was upset enough after losing to go out and take measures?
Certainly we would have reloaded, we do every year. But to lose as we did still stings a lot of Pats fans. Think about the coach who came so close.
I don't think he said, "Oh well. You win some, you lose some?"
We'll never know, and you could be right. I jsut think otherwise.
In a word: yes.
If we gave up 30+ points in the second half but still won the game, do you think BB/SP wouldn't have realized that our defense needed speed and coverage skills at LB, and therefore passed up on getting a guy perfect for our system who was willing to take 30% less per year to come here instead of San Fran?
Do you think scoring 4 more points in one game would change BB/SP's opinion over whether our receiver corps needed major additions, an opinion culled over a season+ of practices and games? Would he have turned down guys like Stallworth + Washington, who were willing to come here for a year for peanuts? Would he not recognize Moss for $3 mil and a 4th is a steal?
I don't think this year's off-season represents any departure in philosophy, and I certainly don't think BB operates in such a knee-jerk manner as to go on a spending blitz because his team came up the tiniest bit short.
I almost completely agree with you. I just suspect that coming within a First Down of a trip to the SB made their sense of urgency all the greater and maybe they wouldn't have made every move. Thomas, Stallworth, Welker, Washington and Meriweather (whom you don't mention), for sure. Moss? Not so sure. But otherwise, you are right on IMHO.
The pats have had money before. They had a ton of money last year. They didn't jump out of the box and sign a fistful of FAs the first two days of Free Agency. BB swears it is business as usual but it wasn't. BB has never done this. Even when he got Colvin he waited until the market cooled down.