2010: A bridge year?

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

Yes, they were very close to 14-2 with the only losses to Jets and Saints. If you want to bring up the Bills game which is fair then you can say 13-3, but that's still good enough for 2 seed in AFC. The Ravens debacle happened because we were already thin at WR and when Welker went down it absolutely crippled our offense. The FO has already added Torry Holt to address that and there is a long way to go in the offseason, and still double digit amount of draft picks. Edelman has a year under his belt, Tate will hopefully recover, and Welker may not be finished as you assume. Brady has a year under his belt post-injury. As for TE/RB, I think you're forgetting what the situation was at those positions while winning our first 2 titles. Those positions are not going to cripple us and I'm sure TE won't be entirely neglected the rest of this offseason either. The other needs we have can be addressed there is plenty time/draft picks.

I'm sure many Saints fans had your sentiments about their team at this time last year. Same with the Steelers in '08, Giants in '07... list goes on. There are needs but it's not going to take a massive overhaul to get this team to the point where it can contend, not in today's league.

Sure this years team can contend......for a playoff berth that is, but the Super Bowl is quite an illusion at this time unless this is the draft of the century

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Come on. Do you not remember the Buffalo game, the (first) Ravens game? We won the former because of a big time ST error by the Bills and the second because of a dropped pass on the numbers in the fourth quarter. If we're honest, they were at least (!) as close to 8--8.

It's fair to say they could have gone either way, yes. My point was you compare our situations to previous SB champs in recent years, they were probably worse off than we are coming into this year and they turned it around without any kind of offseason splash.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Sure this years team can contend......for a playoff berth that is, but the Super Bowl is quite an illusion at this time unless this is the draft of the century

Like I said, nobody has any way of knowing that. I'm not sure how you can think Saints/Steelers/Giants fans thought any better the years they won it all. Every team is flawed even the champion teams.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

Yes, they were very close to 14-2 with the only losses to Jets and Saints. If you want to bring up the Bills game which is fair then you can say 13-3, but that's still good enough for 2 seed in AFC. The Ravens debacle happened because we were already thin at WR and when Welker went down it absolutely crippled our offense. The FO has already added Torry Holt to address that and there is a long way to go in the offseason, and still double digit amount of draft picks. Edelman has a year under his belt, Tate will hopefully recover, and Welker may not be finished as you assume. Brady has a year under his belt post-injury. As for TE/RB, I think you're forgetting what the situation was at those positions while winning our first 2 titles. Those positions are not going to cripple us and I'm sure TE won't be entirely neglected the rest of this offseason either. The other needs we have can be addressed there is plenty time/draft picks.

I'm sure many Saints fans had your sentiments about their team at this time last year. Same with the Steelers in '08, Giants in '07... list goes on. There are needs but it's not going to take a massive overhaul to get this team to the point where it can contend, not in today's league.

ahh....the 'everything goes right but nothing goes wrong theory'

replay the end of week 1 10 times, and it is 10 losses

replay the ravens game week 4 and the Ravens score late without an uncontested drop.....

8-8

biblical collapses such as Indy Miami and Houston need not apply

14-2 teams don't give up 350 yards to chad henne

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

Like I said, nobody has any way of knowing that. I'm not sure how you can think Saints/Steelers/Giants fans thought any better the years they won it all. Every team is flawed even the champion teams.

The difference between those teams and this years team is that there are going to be quite a few rookies involved in the success of this team in 2010 and hopes will go with that as well,sometimes thats alot to ask for in a short time.

Those teams you mentioned had some rookies involved in those titles but this team is going to have about 3 rookies on offense and about 4 on defense to play a good amount of time is my guess.

I am not sure of what ranking the Pats are going to be in when the final roster is done,but I bet the Pats will be among the top 15 youngest teams in the league when September rolls around

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

The difference between those teams and this years team is that there are going to be quite a few rookies involved in the success of this team in 2010 and hopes will go with that as well,sometimes thats alot to ask for in a short time.

Those teams you mentioned had some rookies involved in those titles but this team is going to have about 3 rookies on offense and about 4 on defense to play a good amount of time is my guess.

I am not sure of what ranking the Pats are going to be in when the final roster is done,but I bet the Pats will be among the top 15 youngest teams in the league when September rolls around

The starters should all be non-rookies except for maybe DE and OLB. TE too but when was that ever important. Lots of youth but still I think most of the transition was made last season at least with the starters... Theoretically yes it is most likely a season or 2 away but remember this is the NFL.

 

[patsfan-1982]

that maybe the case the pats get ther. DE/OLB next year. with a top 10 pick.



but let's face it if the pats don't draft. at least one guy who will be a starter by 2011 at 3-4 DE or OLB today in the draft they will be seting them selfs back 3 more years.



ther is just to much to learn. in this system for any rookie to come in and have the type of impact that will make the pats a super bowl team.

 

[Badger]

It's fair to say they could have gone either way, yes. My point was you compare our situations to previous SB champs in recent years, they were probably worse off than we are coming into this year and they turned it around without any kind of offseason splash.

Are you serious? Last I checked Bruschi, Vrabel, McGinest, Harrison, Law, Samuels, Graham, Watson, Dillon, Troy Brown, Seymour, Vinateiri are all gone. I would hardly say that this team enters the season with less question marks than the Super Bowl teams. Those teams were stacked with players and playmakers. This team is very thin on them. The current team has 8-8 written all over it, especially without Welker (who almost certainly will not be effective this year).

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Are you serious? Last I checked Bruschi, Vrabel, McGinest, Harrison, Law, Samuels, Graham, Watson, Dillon, Troy Brown, Seymour, Vinateiri are all gone. I would hardly say that this team enters the season with less question marks than the Super Bowl teams. Those teams were stacked with players and playmakers. This team is very thin on them. The current team has 8-8 written all over it, especially without Welker (who almost certainly will not be effective this year).

I'm not talking about our super bowl teams I'm talking about the ones from '07-'09. Heck even the '06 Colts were mightily flawed, one of the worst run defenses I've seen. But that year and last year also we saw how Peyton Manning can make up for their deficiencies and take them deep. If Brady is back on his game he's always capable of the same.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

It's fair to say they could have gone either way, yes. My point was you compare our situations to previous SB champs in recent years, they were probably worse off than we are coming into this year and they turned it around without any kind of offseason splash.

OK, I take your point, but you'll never get me to agree that "either way" includes 14--2...I might have accepted your statement if you'd said 12--4; they weren't a 14--2 team...a 14--2 team shows up for its Playoff Games, even if it just suffered a big injury.

Otherwise, I agree. A "bridge" implies a big gap, whereas I think the Pats are going through a process which could yield results quickly. Plus, even as they go through the process, they will be competitive.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

The risk of implementing that thought process is that you are going to have an empty stadium. $40 to park, $125/ticket adds up fast. Plus the Corp suites could go empty. There are 5-7 corporate suites in the garden that are not rented.

There is a risk.

Two thoughts.

One, the Pats will still be fielding a competitive team as they retool, so I doubt that will happen.

Two, if it does, good riddance to those "fans" and does it mean that others of us might be able to get good season tickets?

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Not to disagree with your post, because I don't. But the flip side to "building the next dynasty" mantra is you're burning multiple prime years of Brady's career in the process. QBs like that don't come around very often and he isn't getting any younger.

Other than that, I got no issue with what you're saying.

I take a different perspective.

Brady has five trips to the AFCCG, four to the Super Bowl and three rings. Only Elway went to more SB's (5) and only Bradshaw (6), Montana (7) and Elway (6) managed to get to one or two more Conference Championships. Even Roger Staubach only got to five CG's and four SB's, winning two. Kenny Stabler went to five CG's, but only one SB.

Brady is already in the stratosphere of NFL QB's.

In other words, a second decade with another group of Players is very, very rare. If anyone can engineer it, I believe Belichick can and I am inclined to trust how he's going about it, but no one else has ever pulled it off for his money QB.

I see 2000--2008 as a nine year continuum, with 2008 cut short by Tommy's injury, even though they still went 11-5 with a guy who hadn't started at QB since HS. BB started a process last year and I think it comes together this season or next, which is why losing a year to a strike will be a bad thing for TB and the Pats. (Of course, Belichick will respond that he's ALWAYS retooling, but I think this is different.)

 

[Ring 6]

Sure this years team can contend......for a playoff berth that is, but the Super Bowl is quite an illusion at this time unless this is the draft of the century

When was the last time that anyone could accurately predict who was going to win the SB in December, much less April?

Last year was the only time in recent memory that the 2 top teams at Thanksgiving even made the SB, and the Saints were coming from 8-8.

2009 Saints win after 8-8 2008
2008 Steelers were not the favorite in the AFC, and THE CARDINALS got to the SB.
2007 Giants were what 5-5 at one point?Something like that and I think they were the underdog in every playoff game.
2006 Well we know no one expected the Colts to actually win a big game.
2005 Steelers were a 6 seed


Whether or not we have the talent to be a firm contender is debatable. I think the 'how close we were to 14-2' is better described as we could have been 14-2 if we didnt hand away games late. The gap of improvement to shore up that weakness, arguably is small.

But really, this team needs to develop into what its going to be. We have had the same players have widely different impacts from season to season.

I would suggest that Brady in his prime means we dont have to have the best other 52 to win it all, so a SB can't be out of the question.
I know that we didn't look better on April 23 of 2001 or 2003 or 2006 (shoulda, coulda, woulda season) than we do today, so I can't dismiss that.

 

[Ring 6]

OK, I take your point, but you'll never get me to agree that "either way" includes 14--2...I might have accepted your statement if you'd said 12--4; they weren't a 14--2 team...a 14--2 team shows up for its Playoff Games, even if it just suffered a big injury.

Otherwise, I agree. A "bridge" implies a big gap, whereas I think the Pats are going through a process which could yield results quickly. Plus, even as they go through the process, they will be competitive.

I think you have to consider that under BB before last year, we almost never (I think once) lost with 4th quarter leads. So its not really a perfect scenario where we hold those leads, but that in any season except 2009 the BB team holds that lead
I think thats what makes it a razors edge difference. The question is what do you do to get that back?

 

[TriplecHamp]

I can live with that, as long as the Jets, Colts, or Dolphins dont win the superbowl.

 

[Joker]

a bridge year???...hmmm...yeah, I'd say a good 40% of the board will be jumping off the Tobin if the Patriots don't go 19-0 and win the Super Bowl by five TD's.

 

[Raymond]

I just don't get the bashing with barely beating Buffallo in that 09 opener.

It was Brady's first full game in 19 months and Welker was out.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I think you have to consider that under BB before last year, we almost never (I think once) lost with 4th quarter leads. So its not really a perfect scenario where we hold those leads, but that in any season except 2009 the BB team holds that lead
I think thats what makes it a razors edge difference. The question is what do you do to get that back?

looking back at 09, we had fourth quarter leads in three games that we lost, plus the last game of the season: @Denver, @Indy, @Dolphins (they surrendered a fourth quarter lead in the Houston loss, but they put Brady in and out, rested some players and had seen Welker go down)

--In the Denver game, they were shut out from Halftime on, losing in OT.
--In the Indy game, they surrendered 21 fourth quarter points, including after the famous "4th and two" call (which I still think was the right call). But they also put up ten points.
--In the Dolphins game, they were shut out in the fourth quarter and gave up FG after leading all game.

I remember watching all three games and I'm not sure what in common I'd read into them.

The Indy game was just a really good football game between two very good, well-coached teams, where Peyton got into a groove at the end, but which could have gone either way.

The Dolphins game came on the road after the Monday night blowout in New Orleans. I remember it was unexpectedly humid and the Pats were holding on for dear life at the end.

The Denver game came after a tough win at home against Baltimore, they played well in the first half but stayed in the lockerroom for the second half.

I know you said out here last season that you thought the Pats had lost the ability to "close." I disagreed then and I disagree in this case, as the only game where you might make that argument is the Dolphins game, but there were other factors at work there as well.

 

[SoonerPatriot]

I take a different perspective.

Brady has five trips to the AFCCG, four to the Super Bowl and three rings. Only Elway went to more SB's (5) and only Bradshaw (6), Montana (7) and Elway (6) managed to get to one or two more Conference Championships. Even Roger Staubach only got to five CG's and four SB's, winning two. Kenny Stabler went to five CG's, but only one SB.

Brady is already in the stratosphere of NFL QB's.

In other words, a second decade with another group of Players is very, very rare. If anyone can engineer it, I believe Belichick can and I am inclined to trust how he's going about it, but no one else has ever pulled it off for his money QB.

I see 2000--2008 as a nine year continuum, with 2008 cut short by Tommy's injury, even though they still went 11-5 with a guy who hadn't started at QB since HS. BB started a process last year and I think it comes together this season or next, which is why losing a year to a strike will be a bad thing for TB and the Pats. (Of course, Belichick will respond that he's ALWAYS retooling, but I think this is different.)

The fact that he has achieved so much has absolutely no bearing on his future health. We cannot determine that. That's my point, there are no givens. Lest we forget about the 2008 season opener.

Brady will turn 33 in August. My guess is he has 4 prime years left. Then you get to his late 30s and all bets are off. Not every player is like Favre in that their self worth is tied exclusively to playing football. Brady will be able to give it up when he thinks the time is right. That may be earlier than we expect or later but I'm inclined to believe he's not the type of guy who will hang on just to hang on, like Favre.

So bottom line: He, like every player who has laced up a pair of cleats, has a very finite amount of time to play.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

The fact that he has achieved so much has absolutely no bearing on his future health. We cannot determine that. That's my point, there are no givens. Lest we forget about the 2008 season opener.

Brady will turn 33 in August. My guess is he has 4 prime years left. Then you get to his late 30s and all bets are off. Not every player is like Favre in that their self worth is tied exclusively to playing football. Brady will be able to give it up when he thinks the time is right. That may be earlier than we expect or later but I'm inclined to believe he's not the type of guy who will hang on just to hang on, like Favre.

So bottom line: He, like every player who has laced up a pair of cleats, has a very finite amount of time to play.

not sure what that has to do with my post, but, for what it's worth, i agree 100%