Anthony Cotton ("Cotton To The Core"), who was at the game last Sunday, writes in the Post today about the way the Pats keep losing players, and keep replenishing them. While you can sense an underlying tone that questions just what the Pats were about the first 2 games, it is by and large a repectful article. He seems to acknowledge that the Pats know what they're doing, that they'll be there in the thck of things no matter what, but, like fellow columnist Jim Armstrong, feels that this is a "Super Bowl year or bust" for the Broncos.
He is a good writer.
Bill Williamson, he of the Post's "Power Rankings" that appear each Sunday morning, and placed the Pats 5th last week (they were 9th before the first game, and "no longer a dangerous team" in the pre-season), wrote a short blurb this AM comparing this year's team after 2 games with last year's at the same juncture. It was interesting, but the tone was more hopeful than anything.
It is a little slow right now, but after Thursday I'm sure things will pick up.
Getting back to Cotton for a minute, I should add that while he does comment on all the changes that have occured with the team in the off-season (he acknowledges it's like that every year), he also acknoledges that the Broncos approach has been to "stand pat", largely keeping in tact a team that was 1 game, 1 win, removed from the Super Bowl.
This, I feel, is the gist of the philosophical differences which separate the Pats and other teams. We'll see how that philosophy withstands this particular test, and the longer term test the regular season will provide.
