When it came down to it, the defense didn't make the stop at the big moment that they needed to make. Both times. I have no doubt the 01,03 and 04 D's would have. Both times.
Same with the Ravens AFC Championship game. The D failed in that one too as the Ravens were marching down the field for the game tying or winning score. They were just lucky Evans dropped the game winning TD pass and Cundiff shanked the FG.
The Patriots with a strong D: 3 titles. With Brady as the focus: 0 titles. Fact. Indisputable.
So yes, let's load up again on offense and leave the D as an afterthought like it's been the last several years. Why on earth should I think the end result will be any different?
The Pats haters will of course be happy to chirp about spygate when the real reason for the lack of titles is right there in black and white.
Great offenses have been shut down by defenses in the playoffs again and again and again and again and again and again. Why insist on sticking with a losing strategy when there's proof of a more successful one? It makes no sense.
I know a lot of people around here want Brady to get his stats. I'd rather have titles with a game manager QB than none with an all world QB. Titles will do a lot more for Brady's legacy than stats.
So Welker's drop and Samuel's missed interception represent the failing of the offense? It's "air Brady" that caused the problem?
People have tunnel vision on this subject after the last game. Making the last stop is no more or less a cause of those losses than was making the last catch and putting the game away. If the defenses played better earlier, then there is no need to make the last stop. The same is true of the offense - play better and the defense is a non-issue. Dillon in 2004 showed an offense can stop another offense by keeping it off the field.
Lousy defenses often prevent playoffs. Supernatural defenses can offset lousy offenses, to some extent. There are 3 phases to football. Balance wins championships, as a general rule. Neglect one too much, and you lose. But this game is played within evolving rules, and the vaunted 2003 defense played within a different, more tolerant, rule set. If you believe that defense would enjoy the same degree of success today, guess again.
1996 showed special teams can win titles. 1985 and 2000 showed a great enough defense can win titles. 2001 showed great coaching can win titles.
I am not saying dedicate more to the offense. My point was responding to your theory that defense was a cause of the losses when the more logical argument is the offense, not the defense, came up short in the losses. The Pats have been putting resources to the D, in the secondary, on the line and in the linebackers very recently (Wilson, Kelly, Talib and multiple draft picks last year). We will never know what this might have done if it could remain healthy all year. The same is true of the offense. Misses on draft picks are not about "Air Brady" or the need to scuttle the offense to make this team a title winner. The best teams compete for titles every year, and only one wins. The fact the Pats came up short in the last two opportunities does not mean the team strategy is wrong somehow. This team, as a whole, competes every year, and in the salary cap era that is astounding. No team is gifted the playoffs, and some of our resdent doubters labeled this an 8-8 or 9-7 team in the preseason.
If the heavyweight champion and number 1 contender square off in the ring, one is going to win. If the champion loses, then he doesn't scrap his training and shift to MMA because he lost. Everyone wants the easy out here - get a better defense, and we will win more titles just like the Hawks. The Hawks were a catch away from losing at home and not playing the final game of the year. Let's not deify the Hawks model, and make it the model of success now and forever. They won the game. Rosters are built with 53 players, and winning titles often comes down to a substantial percentage of the best players on the roster moving in the same direction at the end of the season.
