How the Patriots Won Three Super Bowls

[ivanvamp]

The NFL is a different league now than it was 10 years ago. But it still might be helpful to remember how they won those three Super Bowls.

1. Excellent defenses. Here were their points allowed ranking in 2001, 2003, and 2004: 6, 1, 2. They were not just good at keeping opponents off the score. They were playmakers. Came up with big plays at key times. Physical, punishing defense.

2. Balanced offense. Those were not the days when Brady threw and threw and threw. He was an excellent quarterback, but they ran the ball a lot and were very effective doing so. When they needed Brady to throw, he could do it. But they weren't so reliant on him to carry the offense.

3. Terrific leadership. Brady, Vrabel, Bruschi, Wilfork, Harrison, et al. Great group of leaders.

4. They did not have an all-star receiving corps. Guys like Brown, Patten, Givens, Graham, Fauria, Faulk. These were Brady's main weapons. There's no doubt in my mind that the current crop of weapons is every bit as good as those guys.

5. Luck. It has to be said. They were very UN-lucky in 2007 and 2011 in those Super Bowl losses, but they were very fortunate in 2001 and 2003 during those Super Bowl winning runs. You have to get the breaks, and NE got them in those SB-winning years, but not in some recent years when they haven't won it. Good health is a factor as well.

So I am all for a return to the days when they had a vicious defense, a balanced offense that can move the ball in the air or on the ground, and get some breaks and good health. That, to me, is a recipe for great success.

 

[IllegalContact]

cheap QB at the time?

quite a few SB's are are won by QB's on their rookie deals....which usually means 15M to 20M cap advantage

 

[ivanvamp]

cheap QB at the time?

quite a few SB's are are won by QB's on their rookie deals....which usually means 15M to 20M cap advantage

Yes, that definitely helped. But obviously teams have won Super Bowls with expensive QBs. And Brady is more expensive than he used to be, but he's not as expensive as some other QBs.

 

[pats4life12]

It's all about the defense we had a pass rush. Our offense has always been good. But we need the good pass rush back.

 

[VrabelJr]

Wilfork was a rookie in 2004 so I don't think he was a leader.

Brady probably wasn't a leader until 2004.

 

[Ring 6]

The NFL is a different league now than it was 10 years ago. But it still might be helpful to remember how they won those three Super Bowls.

1. Excellent defenses. Here were their points allowed ranking in 2001, 2003, and 2004: 6, 1, 2. They were not just good at keeping opponents off the score. They were playmakers. Came up with big plays at key times. Physical, punishing defense.

2. Balanced offense. Those were not the days when Brady threw and threw and threw. He was an excellent quarterback, but they ran the ball a lot and were very effective doing so. When they needed Brady to throw, he could do it. But they weren't so reliant on him to carry the offense.

3. Terrific leadership. Brady, Vrabel, Bruschi, Wilfork, Harrison, et al. Great group of leaders.

4. They did not have an all-star receiving corps. Guys like Brown, Patten, Givens, Graham, Fauria, Faulk. These were Brady's main weapons. There's no doubt in my mind that the current crop of weapons is every bit as good as those guys.

5. Luck. It has to be said. They were very UN-lucky in 2007 and 2011 in those Super Bowl losses, but they were very fortunate in 2001 and 2003 during those Super Bowl winning runs. You have to get the breaks, and NE got them in those SB-winning years, but not in some recent years when they haven't won it. Good health is a factor as well.

So I am all for a return to the days when they had a vicious defense, a balanced offense that can move the ball in the air or on the ground, and get some breaks and good health. That, to me, is a recipe for great success.

I don't think it is so complicated. They won SBs because they made plays when it counted most. They were equally capable of winning SBs in 06,07,10,11,12,13 if they made those plays.
I don't know if there is 'put your finger on it' thing. Many teams are SB Championship capable but only 1 finishes the job.

 

[Snake Eyes]

I don't think it is so complicated. They won SBs because they made plays when it counted most.

Ok, why do certain teams consistently make the necessary plays while others fail? Just saying 'they made plays' is kinda like saying they scored more points.

 

[RayClay]

The core of the defense was in it's prime in Bruschi, McGinest a great fit in Vrabel and Ty law. Minus Vrabel, they had gone to a Super Bowl and athletically were prime also. Experience and communication wise, they were tops, added other smart vets like Phifer and Rodney, plus one great draft pick in Seymour.

They could individually and collectively sniff out plays. Our defense is still young, but could take a leap if this secondary comes through.

 

[Patriot Missile]

We also had a shutdown corner in Law to keep their best receiver at bay. I think we have that this year too.

 

[voluntarysaftey]

cheap QB at the time?

quite a few SB's are are won by QB's on their rookie deals....which usually means 15M to 20M cap advantage

Although we also had an expensive QB in 2001 on the roster. But I do agree, that if you can get a great QB in his rookie contract, you're saving enough for 1-2 other impact players

 

[Jangles]

1. Scored more points than the competition

 

[Patriot Missile]

cheap QB at the time?

quite a few SB's are are won by QB's on their rookie deals....which usually means 15M to 20M cap advantage

Yes to this. Seattle and SF will find this out very soon.

 

[Ring 6]

Ok, why do certain teams consistently make the necessary plays while others fail? Just saying 'they made plays' is kinda like saying they scored more points.

They don't. What team has consistently won SBs?
Since we won back to back it has been
Pitt
Indy
NYG
Pitt
NO
GB
NYG
Bmore
Seattle

With the exception of Seattle mostly those teams have been contenders throughout most of the last 10 years.
None of them consistently made the key plays year in and year out.
Take away the helmet catch and Pittsburghs last second TD and you have 9 different winners in 9 years while the main contenders stayed relatively the same.

 

[Ring 6]

Ok, why do certain teams consistently make the necessary plays while others fail? Just saying 'they made plays' is kinda like saying they scored more points.

And to clarify, I am talking about contenders getting over the top and winning a championship. Clearly it takes talent to contend.
The idea that there is a formula that works better than others could be argued to the point of contending, but there is no evidence at all that any formula correlates with which contender wins it all. Ultimately ever SB Champ survives games against teams that are close to evenly matched.

 

[primetime]

Got to the playoffs with a good, healthy team... and then had a healthy dose of luck. Or in the case of 2001, basically lucked out the whole time.

That's the thing about building a team to succeed in a one-game playoff - a single fumble (or non-fumble thanks to the tuck rule) can make the difference between victory and defeat. You're building a team to get to the playoff roulette table, and the better your team and the higher your seed, the more chips you have to play with. But it's still coming down to the spin of the wheel.

vvv this vvv

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Ok, why do certain teams consistently make the necessary plays while others fail? Just saying 'they made plays' is kinda like saying they scored more points.

But the facts suggest that it does boil down to a few plays when it comes to getting to and winning the SB. That's what BB has said time and time again and he knows a lot more about winning Lombardi's than I can ever hope to know.

Look at 2001/02. "Tuck, tuck, tuck" and then Adam makes a freakin' impossible kick into a blizzard from the 45 to tie the game (he has since said that if he had that kick to make 100 times, he'd probably only make ten of them). Brady completes the passes he needs to complete with 1:23 left in the game and John Madden saying he should take a knee and puts Adam again in position to make a less difficult but still pressure-packed and demanding 48 yard kick with time running out in the Superdome.

2003/04. Who knows how things turn out if the Carolina KO doesn't go OB and TB doesn't get a chance to start from the 40? "Mo" was not heading in the right direction at that time, as we all recall.

2007/08: The magic helmet catch by a guy who never plays another down in the NFL.

2011/12. The Welker drop of a tough ball and Eli's perfect sideline pass to Manningham.

Beyond the Pats? "The Catch." "The Drive." Chuck Bednarik sitting on Paul Hornung with time running out in the NFLCG in 1960. Ameche's dive in 1958. The list is almost endless.

The more I think about the NFL, the more I think that Kraft has it right: he doesn't say his goal is to win the SB every year, but rather to be competitive to win the division and get to the playoffs. He understands that once you get there it's "one and done" and almost anything can happen and the better team on the field on a given day isn't always the better team...

And to directly answer your question, we don't know why some teams make the plays and others don't on "any given Sunday."

But, over time, all you can do is what Kraft does and put your guys in position to make those plays and if you do that often enough, you're going to make enough of them on enough "given Sundays" to win...five AFCCG's and three SB's in 13 seasons...not bad IMHO.

 

[1960Pats]

The NFL is a different league now than it was 10 years ago. But it still might be helpful to remember how they won those three Super Bowls.

1. Excellent defenses. Here were their points allowed ranking in 2001, 2003, and 2004: 6, 1, 2. They were not just good at keeping opponents off the score. They were playmakers. Came up with big plays at key times. Physical, punishing defense.

2. Balanced offense. Those were not the days when Brady threw and threw and threw. He was an excellent quarterback, but they ran the ball a lot and were very effective doing so. When they needed Brady to throw, he could do it. But they weren't so reliant on him to carry the offense.

3. Terrific leadership. Brady, Vrabel, Bruschi, Wilfork, Harrison, et al. Great group of leaders.

4. They did not have an all-star receiving corps. Guys like Brown, Patten, Givens, Graham, Fauria, Faulk. These were Brady's main weapons. There's no doubt in my mind that the current crop of weapons is every bit as good as those guys.

5. Luck. It has to be said. They were very UN-lucky in 2007 and 2011 in those Super Bowl losses, but they were very fortunate in 2001 and 2003 during those Super Bowl winning runs. You have to get the breaks, and NE got them in those SB-winning years, but not in some recent years when they haven't won it. Good health is a factor as well.

So I am all for a return to the days when they had a vicious defense, a balanced offense that can move the ball in the air or on the ground, and get some breaks and good health. That, to me, is a recipe for great success.

Great post.

As for the changes in the league, i used to study NFL stats for fun, and there was a time that the two most important factors for winning were running the ball and stopping the run. My how times have changed.

1. Excellent defenses. The shift has gone from great defenses to great point differential. The offense has become more important.

2. Balanced offense. It wasn't too long ago that I was being criticized for using the world "balance" when talking about the Pats. It used to be a common word around the NFL when it came to offense, and the lack of it was the reason we lost to the Giants twice. Pass happy wins records but not SBs. Don't get me started... again.

3. Leadership is big. McGinest was another one from that group. It's a natural thing that will come out of some of the kids now.

4. Receivers. I don't like the amount of drops that I see now compared to back then, but maybe it's all in my head.

5. Luck. Have to agree. One of the games they won in 2001 was up in Buffalo (one of the hardest hitting games that I can remember) and the key point in the game came with the Pats trying to catch the Bills when David Patten (I think) caught a pass along the right sideline and was knocked cold by a Bills LB. As Patten was falling down limp, the ball slid out of his hands, was picked up by one of the Bills and it looked like all was lost. But wait, as Patten was lying on the ground out cold the ball grazed his leg, and the ball belonged to the Pats with a... FIRST DOWN!

I'm buying what you're cooking.

 

[TruthSeeker]

You mention being lucky, And I think 2001 was the only season where luck might have been involved, but 2003 & 2004 ? It was sheer dominance, they went 34-4 over those 2 seasons (including playoffs and SB). They weren't always blowout games, it's just those teams were very clutch and confident and knew how to win. Great defenses (That were ALWAYS coming up with big plays) and good offenses with good running games win championships. Having Tom Brady as your QB doesn't hurt either. Those 2003 and 2004 teams had a swagger that I haven't seen since those years.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Got to the playoffs with a good, healthy team... and then had a healthy dose of luck. Or in the case of 2001, basically lucked out the whole time.

That's the thing about building a team to succeed in a one-game playoff - a single fumble (or non-fumble thanks to the tuck rule) can make the difference between victory and defeat. You're building a team to get to the playoff roulette table, and the better your team and the higher your seed, the more chips you have to play with. But it's still coming down to the spin of the wheel.

vvv this vvv

if i'd read this before i made the post directly above, i would just have said "ditto...what he said"

 

[primetime]

You mention being lucky, And I think 2001 was the only season where luck might have been involved, but 2003 & 2004 ? It was sheer dominance, they went 34-4 over those 2 seasons (including playoffs and SB). They weren't always blowout games, it's just those teams were very clutch and confident and knew how to win. Great defenses (That were ALWAYS coming up with big plays) and good offenses with good running games win championships. Having Tom Brady as your QB doesn't hurt either. Those 2003 and 2004 teams had a swagger that I haven't seen since those years.

They were dominant in 2007, too, if you recall.

Heck, they were dominant in 2010 and lost to Mark Sanchez in the playoffs.