Disagree with the premise that the team lost focus or did things wrong in 2007. That was an incredible team that unfortunately peaked a little too soon and suffered a couple unfortunate injuries late (Brady and Neal) Winning the Super Bowl is difficult but that team was certainly in a much better position to win than the 2016 team was. Fortunately the refs called a crucial hold that took the Falcons out of FG range while in 2007 they did not on the Tyree play. Does that mean the team was constructed wrong? I don't think so. Manning made an incredible throw to Manningham in 2011. Gronk was gimpy. Stuff happens. Both those team (plus several others) were good enough to win it all but just came up short. While winning it all is ultimately what matters I am not one for creating the narrative that some of our teams lost focus or went off the rail because of a few plays. The Pats were not necessarily the best team every year but they never ceded "best franchise" to a different team at any point during this run. To me the Dynasty if 2001 - Present.
Good points, but I do disagree.
In 2006, Goodell and the owners started to change rules to favor offenses, so BB and other wise GMs/Coaches, realized this is now a game of offensive attrition. Offense wins championsips now, IMO.
A lot of these playoff games end up in the high 20s, consistently, or more. So, you need a lot on offense, even with a HOF QB, and a good defense. The great defense concept does not always hold up. See Seattle and how they've built it. They had a small window, got 1 SB, but now watch the big fade as they got old, have bad contracts and now carry the 20 mil per year QB.
So, it's about depth and versatility within how you can play, and these 2014, 2016 and 2017 teams have that. In 2013 and 2015 , we might have, but the injuries were so large, there's not much you can do at that point, but those teams get big kudos for battling.
Since 2014, realy since 2010 into the Lockout. BB has managed to use the rookie cap to keep costs down, develop, sign and trade for key players, even in smaller roles, a lot better than what he was able to do from 2006-2012, for example. An obvious transition started in 2009 byb dealing Vrabel and then Seymour, with a rebuild in 2010 and 2011, and into a lot of draft picks used to build this.
So, in 2007, the D was OLD. Very old, but also very experienced. And, we know bout the predictability of the offense. It was basically all Moss/Welker since Week 6 in Dallas where a guy like Stallworth, was never really targeted again. The run game was an afterthought and Brady was throwing every week 45+ times, which in 2007, was unheard of.
So, I disagree that the teams were balanced and deep back then.
I think they're much more liable to morph and use the versatility on both sides of the ball, than what they could have used in 2007 or 2011. I mean, I liked the 2011 team more in some ways because they battled their balls off on D, knowing they were not that talented, rebuilding, had injury issues on top of it, but it felt like they would learn their lesson from SB 42, but they unfortunately didn't on offense.
Basically, my point is, BB has been even more brilliant as a GM since 2009/2010, as his built this, to the point we are in this position and can even talk about these things.
The JimmyG pick lighting a fire under Brady, was even more so a stroke of genius, too.
Keep in mind, Ted Thompson just got fired after years of being the Soup Du Jour GM of the decade, only winning 1 SB and fielding a horrible D for about 7 straight years, due to terrible drafts on defense.
Makes you appreciate how great BB is as the architect of this, and maybe acknowledging the 2007 and 2011 teams weren't quite as worthy as a SB winner as they could have been.
