If that article was garbage, then so was your comment.
BTW- it's not like the article wasn't flawed, it was. Like most discussions on the VERY complex job of building and REbuilding what amounts to a different team every single year, posters and writers have all too often tried to simplify it into black and white perimeters.
There are just so many factors that play into the job that BB does, that the success and failure of INDIVIDUAL decisions don't really matter in the great scheme of things. The bottom line is what THAT season's team produces. Will it have the talent, the chemistry, the mental toughness, the resiliency to overcome adversity, and the luck (yes that's a factor too) to compete for a championship on a year in and year out basis. I should be noted that "talent" is just only ONE of the many factors that factor into the whole of the equation.
But lets discuss that ONE dimension further. Because you can break down that even further to Bill the college talent evaluator and Bill the NFL talent evaluator. Overall I think Bill does a better at the latter job, but both are obviously important.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that WHATEVER the "secret sauce" is that has allowed the Pats to continue this 20 year run of UNPRECEDENTED success, it is a culmination of so many different things that cannot be explained in full without factoring in so many other ingredients. Maybe a better way to say it is, you cannot write a definitive "book"on what makes this work. It has to be an ENCYCLOPEDIA
So there in lies my criticism of your remark. It was too dismissive, too flippant. It is something that you could say about anything written about the Pats, because it will ALWAYS be found wanting due to brevity and incompleteness.
Am I making any sense here, or am I just stringing together words.
