The Brady/Belichick mystique... (1 Viewer)

[Evilgrin 72]

I'm talking about the widely held general perception of Brady as completely unflappable under pressure and Belichick as a schematic genius, who together were completely unstoppable. They started out with an unbelievable run of success, but the last two years, they've :

1) Completely self-destructed in Denver last year, committing a boatload of turnovers in a 14-point defeat.

2) Given up the largest comeback in AFCC history, squandering an 18-point lead, giving up 32 second half points to the Colts.

3) After a cakewalk over the Jets, Brady completed only 56% of his passes the last two weeks, with 3 TD/4 INT (including the game-ender on the final drive last night, and one that would have likely been a backbreaker last week had Troy Brown not stripped it on the INT return and given them another chance.)

So, is that mystique shattered now, or no? Or was it already shattered last year when the Belichick/Brady team was finally beaten after 10 (IIRC) straight playoff wins?

 

[MDSkinner]

I'm talking about the widely held general perception of Brady as completely unflappable under pressure and Belichick as a schematic genius, who together were completely unstoppable. They started out with an unbelievable run of success, but the last two years, they've :1) Completely self-destructed in Denver last year, committing a boatload of turnovers in a 14-point defeat.2) Given up the largest comeback in AFCC history, squandering an 18-point lead, giving up 32 second half points to the Colts.3) After a cakewalk over the Jets, Brady completed only 56% of his passes the last two weeks, with 3 TD/4 INT (including the game-ender on the final drive last night, and one that would have likely been a backbreaker last week had Troy Brown not stripped it on the INT return and given them another chance.)So, is that mystique shattered now, or no? Or was it already shattered last year when the Belichick/Brady team was finally beaten after 10 (IIRC) straight playoff wins?

Just my personal opinion, but I don't think it is shattered. Clearly the last two years have shown that they are not unbeatable in the playoffs, but I still will have a tough time picking against them in the playoffs when next year rolls around (assuming they make it again). So the mystique may be hurting a little, but I still think it will linger at some level.

 

[Tough As Nails]

I still would like to face every single other team/QB in the league before facing Brady/Belicheck in the playoffs. They are still the best. They have 3-rings and a 12-2 record. That's amazing. I don't think that changed. What did change is that the Colts are 3-0 against the Patriots in the last 3 games. I think they erased that demon.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

I think yesterday was a ... "He's CUT !!! THE RUSSIAN'S CUT !!!" moment.

 

[kbreaker]

last year

 

[Evilgrin 72]

last year

Maybe that was the "He's cut!!" moment and this year was "You see? He's not a machine !!! He's a man !!"

 

[Sinrman]

I still would like to face every single other team/QB in the league before facing Brady/Belicheck in the playoffs. They are still the best. They have 3-rings and a 12-2 record. That's amazing. I don't think that changed. What did change is that the Colts are 3-0 against the Patriots in the last 3 games. I think they erased that demon.

What makes them the scariest to face in the NFL, in my opinion, is that they do it with such a lackluster receiving corps. And have for years! They really haven't had that marquee WR (and I don't consider Deion Branch "marquee"). Just imagine if they had a top WR or two on that team. They would be unstoppable each and every year...

 

[Jefferson the Caregiver]

This team overachieved this year. Brady and Belichick did everything they could do with what they had to work with.

I do think Belichick and Pioli got a bit arrogant. I'm not happy they didn't spend to the cap this year and I think this is what cost them a Super Bowl.

I hate blowing opportunities and this team was just about good enough to go to the Super Bowl. Kind of sucks that they didn't do everything they could to put the best team they could together.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

I think the "magic" has worn off, but they are still going to win that division next year and if they upgrade WR & LB in the offseason could still be a force next year.

Good run by the pats no doubt and really at the end of the first half I thought it was in the bag for them yesterday. Their run might over as a dynasty, but B&B could sneak in one more title before it's all over.

 

[David Yudkin]

As I see it . . .

The Pats have won titles with literally waiver wire STARTERS in the secondary and have remained competitve with multiple free agents or key figures moving on to other teams.

Last year (2005) the team had significant injuries and again had to survive with castoffs and retreads and came very close to beating Denver despite numerous turnovers and would have hosted the game against PIT to play in the SB again. Say what you want about the final score, but NE controlled the game and simply lost on turnovers alone. Denver was not mounting much offense or resistence on defense. The outcome was what it was, but NE had almost 150 more total yards on the day.

This year, the Pats again had major losses in the secondary, hardly any LB depth, and castoffs at WR for the entire season (Caldwell? Gaffney? Gabriel?). Against the Colts, several players were playing with the flu and they still were able to hold the lead or stay tied for 59 minutes. They simply ran out of gas on defense in the second half, plain and simple. Hats off to the Colts as they won the game, but they appeared to have the more talented team (as did the Chargers the week before despite the score).

In 2005 and 2006, the Pats made it as far as they did with major injuries, little depth, and less talent than their competitors. They basically got as far as they did both years based on the strength of coaching and sometimes Brady's will to win.

Sure, they didn't win . . . but how many teams would want to face the Patriots in the playoffs?

 

[Pat Patriot]

The air of invincibility is gone. The mystique, no. The history of greatness that Brady and Belichick have put together will last as long as they keep putting up 12 win seasons. There is no shame in making it to the AFC Championship game and losing to a great performance by Peyton Manning and the rest of the Colts.

However, over the past two years a number of Brady streaks have been broken:

1. First playoff loss at Denver last year.

2. First loss ever AT Indy

3. First loss in a Dome

4. First AFC Championship loss for the Pats

So yes, the air of invincibility is gone but the historical greatness of Brady and Belichick remains.

 

[bostonfred]

Ask San Diego if they felt there was a mystique.

 

[Workhorse]

With two first round picks in 2007 and approx. $33 million in cap space, I think you might see some renewed "mystique" next season.

 

[PatsWillWin]

This just in - Brady and Belichick are mortals.

 

[msommer]

As I see it . . .In 2005 and 2006, the Pats made it as far as they did with major injuries, little depth, and less talent than their competitors. They basically got as far as they did both years based on the strength of coaching and sometimes Brady's will to win.

Could it be that other coaches/GM are now copying Pioli/Belichick's approach to FA/WW (or, being aware of it cut less borderline players)? If so you could argue that they are depleting the pool of talent available for the Pats and thus they end up with slim pickings. In such a case you'd hope that Pioli/BB has a new wrinkle in their approach soon.Also, when injuries mount year after year, is it not time to look at the trainers and/or procedures for practice?

 

[H.K.]

As I see it . . .The Pats have won titles with literally waiver wire STARTERS in the secondary and have remained competitve with multiple free agents or key figures moving on to other teams.Last year (2005) the team had significant injuries and again had to survive with castoffs and retreads and came very close to beating Denver despite numerous turnovers and would have hosted the game against PIT to play in the SB again. Say what you want about the final score, but NE controlled the game and simply lost on turnovers alone. Denver was not mounting much offense or resistence on defense. The outcome was what it was, but NE had almost 150 more total yards on the day.This year, the Pats again had major losses in the secondary, hardly any LB depth, and castoffs at WR for the entire season (Caldwell? Gaffney? Gabriel?). Against the Colts, several players were playing with the flu and they still were able to hold the lead or stay tied for 59 minutes. They simply ran out of gas on defense in the second half, plain and simple. Hats off to the Colts as they won the game, but they appeared to have the more talented team (as did the Chargers the week before despite the score).In 2005 and 2006, the Pats made it as far as they did with major injuries, little depth, and less talent than their competitors. They basically got as far as they did both years based on the strength of coaching and sometimes Brady's will to win.Sure, they didn't win . . . but how many teams would want to face the Patriots in the playoffs?

Even the Patriots can't win it every year. They beat a superior team on the road and lost to another...barely...the following week away from home. They still made a strong run at the title this year with inferior talent. IMO, this helps add to their mystique.

 

[FFCrazy]

One game away from the Super Bowl with a lot less talent than most of the teams watching this weekend's games from their home.

Two 1st rounds picks, and a lot of cap room.....looks to me like the past 2 season's (which would be good seasons to most teams) might have just been a bump in the road.

Don't want to sound smug, because nothing is ever guaranteed, but I think the Pats future is pretty bright.

 

[faulkfan]

I don't see the mystique. BB is a good coach who schemes well. Brady is a solid QB who stays calm under pressure. THey have also had a little luck along the way as in the game against the Raiders where the tuck rule became all the rage and McCree's ignorance last week. This is not said to diminish their accomplishments, but it is important to step back and look at the entire story.

I think it is also a mistake to remember that the other coaches in the NFL aren't idiots (other than maybe Holmgren and that's more of a personal thing) and they make adjustments. Those adjustments don't always work, but teams do "figure out" one another over time.

In short, if McCree doesn't fumble that INT last week I don't think we would be having this conversation because that play and its effect on the outcome had nothing to do with mystique and everything to do with ignorance.

 

[IndyHavoc]

As a Colts fan, I'll just put it this way. I'll still NEVER bet against that Pats vs. anyone in the playoffs until that team has lost to them 2 or 3 times. There's just something about gaining experience and getting comfortable with playing against the Pats. The Jets and Chargers got to feel it for the first time in awhile this year. After some re-tooling and reloading by the Pats, I have no doubt they'll be cutting a path through the playoffs again next year.

 

[parasaurolophus]

I don't see the mystique. BB is a good coach who schemes well. Brady is a solid QB who stays calm under pressure. THey have also had a little luck along the way as in the game against the Raiders where the tuck rule became all the rage and McCree's ignorance last week. This is not said to diminish their accomplishments, but it is important to step back and look at the entire story.I think it is also a mistake to remember that the other coaches in the NFL aren't idiots (other than maybe Holmgren and that's more of a personal thing) and they make adjustments. Those adjustments don't always work, but teams do "figure out" one another over time.In short, if McCree doesn't fumble that INT last week I don't think we would be having this conversation because that play and its effect on the outcome had nothing to do with mystique and everything to do with ignorance.

If that fumble doesnt happen last week, the Pats would have keeled over in the playoffs two straight years. I think the Mystique would have been shattered.

 

[David Yudkin]

As I see it . . .In 2005 and 2006, the Pats made it as far as they did with major injuries, little depth, and less talent than their competitors. They basically got as far as they did both years based on the strength of coaching and sometimes Brady's will to win.

Could it be that other coaches/GM are now copying Pioli/Belichick's approach to FA/WW (or, being aware of it cut less borderline players)? If so you could argue that they are depleting the pool of talent available for the Pats and thus they end up with slim pickings. In such a case you'd hope that Pioli/BB has a new wrinkle in their approach soon.Also, when injuries mount year after year, is it not time to look at the trainers and/or procedures for practice?

The problem with the Pats in recent years is that they have gotten cheap. Had they spent to the cap this year they very well might still be playing. They still are excellent talent evaluators and motivators, but they have elected to not overpay in the sliggest to keep guys that have been big contributors and have not made a splash at all in free agency (save for Roosevelt Colvin).While next year the Pats have millions in cap space, if they don't spend it what good will it do them?And for the rest of the league to want to copycat, here's the Pats salary cap mantra in a nutshell:They savor first and third contracts and usually abstain from second contracts if at all possible. So they thrive on rookie contracts (usually 3-5 years long) and will let guys coming off of those contracts walk (Woody, Givens, probably Samuel, etc.) Then they like guys coming off their peak contracts (normally after their second contract) and they target guys with experience with gas still in the tank. For pure superstars like Seymour and Brady, they'll make an effort to keep them (but still tryiing to get them signed below market value).They also are big on signing bargain basement retreads that fit their system. While other teams may be able to scoop up these guys, they may not be worth anything to any other teams. The other 31 teams could have had Gaffney and Caldwell . . . but realistically who could have done much with them?The problem I forsee in the future for the Pats is that they have been getting bad publicity from their current and former players. Sure, guys that want to win may come to town, but anyone in it for the money won't bother to even talk to them. And even their own players can't get them to sign them and those guys will opt to go elsewhere.

 

[Despyzer]

For me, they will have to go two consecutive years without winning it all or winning a playoff game that they shouldn't have. Seeing they beat SD this year, they have renewed their lease for two more years.

 

[PsychoMan]

Between last years bad loss @ Denver & this years meltdown to the Colts, I think that Brady & Belicheck's legacy has been tarnished a bit, but it will still be considered one of the greater legacys we've seen. They've always had that "it" factor that no one can put their fingers on, and have been able to find a way to win the big games. Now that they've lost a couple in bad fashion, it at least makes them seem more human. I'll admit though, it is scary watching that "cool" look on Brady's face as he marches down the field amidst all that pressure. I was schocked when that last pass got picked off. I just had this feeling in my stomach we were about to see one of the greatest games end with another Brady touchdown in the closing seconds.

Don't intend to hijack here, but I think this game changed Manning's legacy more than Bradys. He basically overcame all odds by coming back from an 18 point deficit to Brady & the Pats. He defeated his arch-rival, won the biggest game of his life, and carried the entire team on his shoulders through the second half. He marched down the field against one of the best defenses several times and simply refused to lose even though his defense and special teams looked awful.

I think that game will be one that'll go down as one of the greatest playoff matchups. It definitely lived up to the hype. I'm pretty sure I had a boner most of the game and might have came at one point ...

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Between last years bad loss @ Denver & this years meltdown to the Colts, I think that Brady & Belicheck's legacy has been tarnished a bit, but it will still be considered one of the greater legacys we've seen. They've always had that "it" factor that no one can put their fingers on, and have been able to find a way to win the big games. Now that they've lost a couple in bad fashion, it at least makes them seem more human. I'll admit though, it is scary watching that "cool" look on Brady's face as he marches down the field amidst all that pressure. I was schocked when that last pass got picked off. I just had this feeling in my stomach we were about to see one of the greatest games end with another Brady touchdown in the closing seconds.

Don't intend to hijack here, but I think this game changed Manning's legacy more than Bradys. He basically overcame all odds by coming back from an 18 point deficit to Brady & the Pats. He defeated his arch-rival, won the biggest game of his life, and carried the entire team on his shoulders through the second half. He marched down the field against one of the best defenses several times and simply refused to lose even though his defense and special teams looked awful.

I think that game will be one that'll go down as one of the greatest playoff matchups. It definitely lived up to the hype. I'm pretty sure I had a boner most of the game and might have came at one point ...

[hot guitar lick]IN....AP....PROPRIATE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[PMENFAN]

I'm talking about the widely held general perception of Brady as completely unflappable under pressure and Belichick as a schematic genius, who together were completely unstoppable. They started out with an unbelievable run of success, but the last two years, they've :1) Completely self-destructed in Denver last year, committing a boatload of turnovers in a 14-point defeat.2) Given up the largest comeback in AFCC history, squandering an 18-point lead, giving up 32 second half points to the Colts.3) After a cakewalk over the Jets, Brady completed only 56% of his passes the last two weeks, with 3 TD/4 INT (including the game-ender on the final drive last night, and one that would have likely been a backbreaker last week had Troy Brown not stripped it on the INT return and given them another chance.)So, is that mystique shattered now, or no? Or was it already shattered last year when the Belichick/Brady team was finally beaten after 10 (IIRC) straight playoff wins?

So, because Brady doesn't have a dominant performance against the Chargers, and throws one pick against the Colts, to fall to 12-2 in the playoffs, the mystique is over? They still knocked off the #1 seed, in SD, and barely lost to the Colts, after their backup, excuse me, 3rd string, safety went down, and the 4th string safety that they picked up during the year, just wasn't up to snuff, and they couldn't stop the Colts. Given the reality that both starting safeties and one starting corner, both backup safeties (TBuck and Guss Scott) were out of the game, and then Hawkins went down, I'd say the team did a pretty admirable job getting to where they did. The colts are a great offense. The Pats were undermanned in the secondary to begin with, and the one more guy going down was just too much. If Hawking stays in, he likely makes the 4 point difference. There's plenty of career left to build on the Brady/Belichick sage. You can call it mystique if you like. There's no mystique to it to me. Considering most people had them unable to make the playoffs losing their top two receivers, I'd consider this season a success.

 

[redman]

I'm talking about the widely held general perception of Brady as completely unflappable under pressure and Belichick as a schematic genius, who together were completely unstoppable. They started out with an unbelievable run of success, but the last two years, they've :1) Completely self-destructed in Denver last year, committing a boatload of turnovers in a 14-point defeat.2) Given up the largest comeback in AFCC history, squandering an 18-point lead, giving up 32 second half points to the Colts.3) After a cakewalk over the Jets, Brady completed only 56% of his passes the last two weeks, with 3 TD/4 INT (including the game-ender on the final drive last night, and one that would have likely been a backbreaker last week had Troy Brown not stripped it on the INT return and given them another chance.)So, is that mystique shattered now, or no? Or was it already shattered last year when the Belichick/Brady team was finally beaten after 10 (IIRC) straight playoff wins?

Ask yourself this: would the Colts have won yesterday if the Pats defense wasn't flu-ravaged? I'm not bashing the win; I have no dog in that fight. The Colts fought hard and made plays, but it was only small differences that made the difference in the game. The loss of those defensive players couldn't have hurt the Colts' chances, right? Anyway, who among us wasn't thinking that Brady would somehow deliver a dagger to the Colts' heart on that final drive until he threw the pick? Is there anyone else in the NFL who you'd rather have leading your team on that kind of drive?

 

[cobalt_27]

I'm talking about the widely held general perception of Brady as completely unflappable under pressure and Belichick as a schematic genius, who together were completely unstoppable. They started out with an unbelievable run of success, but the last two years, they've :1) Completely self-destructed in Denver last year, committing a boatload of turnovers in a 14-point defeat.2) Given up the largest comeback in AFCC history, squandering an 18-point lead, giving up 32 second half points to the Colts.3) After a cakewalk over the Jets, Brady completed only 56% of his passes the last two weeks, with 3 TD/4 INT (including the game-ender on the final drive last night, and one that would have likely been a backbreaker last week had Troy Brown not stripped it on the INT return and given them another chance.)So, is that mystique shattered now, or no? Or was it already shattered last year when the Belichick/Brady team was finally beaten after 10 (IIRC) straight playoff wins?

So, because Brady doesn't have a dominant performance against the Chargers, and throws one pick against the Colts, to fall to 12-2 in the playoffs, the mystique is over? They still knocked off the #1 seed, in SD, and barely lost to the Colts, after their backup, excuse me, 3rd string, safety went down, and the 4th string safety that they picked up during the year, just wasn't up to snuff, and they couldn't stop the Colts. Given the reality that both starting safeties and one starting corner, both backup safeties (TBuck and Guss Scott) were out of the game, and then Hawkins went down, I'd say the team did a pretty admirable job getting to where they did. The colts are a great offense. The Pats were undermanned in the secondary to begin with, and the one more guy going down was just too much. If Hawking stays in, he likely makes the 4 point difference. There's plenty of career left to build on the Brady/Belichick sage. You can call it mystique if you like. There's no mystique to it to me. Considering most people had them unable to make the playoffs losing their top two receivers, I'd consider this season a success.

It's Belichick's arrogance that, in some small part, is probably responsible for losing their receivers. And, while I fully trust his ability to manage a gameplan (one of the best I've ever seen, in fact), it has to concern you a little bit that top-tier personnel doesn't interest BB much, no? I think the Patriots' future success is highly questionable.

 

[cobalt_27]

I'm talking about the widely held general perception of Brady as completely unflappable under pressure and Belichick as a schematic genius, who together were completely unstoppable. They started out with an unbelievable run of success, but the last two years, they've :

1) Completely self-destructed in Denver last year, committing a boatload of turnovers in a 14-point defeat.

2) Given up the largest comeback in AFCC history, squandering an 18-point lead, giving up 32 second half points to the Colts.

3) After a cakewalk over the Jets, Brady completed only 56% of his passes the last two weeks, with 3 TD/4 INT (including the game-ender on the final drive last night, and one that would have likely been a backbreaker last week had Troy Brown not stripped it on the INT return and given them another chance.)

So, is that mystique shattered now, or no? Or was it already shattered last year when the Belichick/Brady team was finally beaten after 10 (IIRC) straight playoff wins?

Ask yourself this: would the Colts have won yesterday if the Pats defense wasn't flu-ravaged? I'm not bashing the win; I have no dog in that fight. The Colts fought hard and made plays, but it was only small differences that made the difference in the game. The loss of those defensive players couldn't have hurt the Colts' chances, right?

Anyway, who among us wasn't thinking that Brady would somehow deliver a dagger to the Colts' heart on that final drive until he threw the pick? Is there anyone else in the NFL who you'd rather have leading your team on that kind of drive?

Yes. He's representing the AFC in the Super Bowl this year. I'd rather have Peyton Manning in that situation.I think the biggest component to the Pats getting gassed in the second half is the snowball effect of the Colts creating long, sustained, no-huddle drives that didn't allow personnel changes to shuffle guys in and out to catch a breather. Add to that, the Patriots got that long KO return that resulted in a quick TD to reclaim the lead, which in any other circumstance would be cause for celebration. But, I remember thinking, "that was too quick; the defense probably wishes they hung onto the ball a little longer." Time of possession in that 2nd half just didn't help the Patriots' defense, flu or no flu.

 

[My_Favorite_Team_is]

Evilgrin-

The one thing I want to ask you is this: Does the mystique of the steelers dominance in the 70s still remain?

I hope you answer yes, cause I sure would if I were a Steeler fan, I know my brother does.

For New England to come from where we came a short time ago (in smiley speak this would be ) to where we are now as franchise, everything is vanilla. Of course I am a bit pissed and fustrated but I believe there are some great things that came out of this season in which very little was supposed to come out of it. Sure, every fan and every team wants the Ring every year but to be able to compete like NE (or Indy or Philly for that matter) is amazing. The mystique is still alive, the dynasty (although not quite off life support) is still breathing...now it is just time for a reload.

I don't know where this aura of NE will win every time in the playoffs came from...those of you who believe that of any team must be in fantasy land or buying the boatload of crap the announcers say every game...but to say that the run is over for the remainder of BB and Brady's careers, not to mention their "mystique" is dead, is lunacy.

I, along with many other Patriot fans that I know, am just glad to be able to tagging along for the ride... many of my friends still get teary eyed thinking about the team's first win over Miami in Miami during the playoffs so long ago or our early exit against Da Raiders waaaay back or Drew Bledsoe waving off Pete Carroll's time out with a pin sticking out of his finger. This is what it's all about: mystique, presence, teamwork, commitment...no one who is a true fan of their team or the game ought to ever say that this ideal is dead on their team or their opponent's team ever because that is what we (as fans ) are about...

 

[anborn]

at least now we won't have to listen to an entire offseason debate about whether God or Brady created the universe.

great qb, coach and tandem... but the constant talk of Brady being the 2nd coming was getting ridiculous.

 

[Jagerbomber]

I'm talking about the widely held general perception of Brady as completely unflappable under pressure and Belichick as a schematic genius, who together were completely unstoppable. They started out with an unbelievable run of success, but the last two years, they've :1) Completely self-destructed in Denver last year, committing a boatload of turnovers in a 14-point defeat.2) Given up the largest comeback in AFCC history, squandering an 18-point lead, giving up 32 second half points to the Colts.3) After a cakewalk over the Jets, Brady completed only 56% of his passes the last two weeks, with 3 TD/4 INT (including the game-ender on the final drive last night, and one that would have likely been a backbreaker last week had Troy Brown not stripped it on the INT return and given them another chance.)So, is that mystique shattered now, or no? Or was it already shattered last year when the Belichick/Brady team was finally beaten after 10 (IIRC) straight playoff wins?

So, because Brady doesn't have a dominant performance against the Chargers, and throws one pick against the Colts, to fall to 12-2 in the playoffs, the mystique is over? They still knocked off the #1 seed, in SD, and barely lost to the Colts, after their backup, excuse me, 3rd string, safety went down, and the 4th string safety that they picked up during the year, just wasn't up to snuff, and they couldn't stop the Colts. Given the reality that both starting safeties and one starting corner, both backup safeties (TBuck and Guss Scott) were out of the game, and then Hawkins went down, I'd say the team did a pretty admirable job getting to where they did. The colts are a great offense. The Pats were undermanned in the secondary to begin with, and the one more guy going down was just too much. If Hawking stays in, he likely makes the 4 point difference. There's plenty of career left to build on the Brady/Belichick sage. You can call it mystique if you like. There's no mystique to it to me. Considering most people had them unable to make the playoffs losing their top two receivers, I'd consider this season a success.

It's Belichick's arrogance that, in some small part, is probably responsible for losing their receivers. And, while I fully trust his ability to manage a gameplan (one of the best I've ever seen, in fact), it has to concern you a little bit that top-tier personnel doesn't interest BB much, no? I think the Patriots' future success is highly questionable.

Highly questionable? Come on now. That's a bit of an exaggeration, no?I do think that the shine is off a bit. They're still damn good. They've just lost that aura of invincibility, but that could almost work to their advantage.

 

[PMENFAN]

I'm talking about the widely held general perception of Brady as completely unflappable under pressure and Belichick as a schematic genius, who together were completely unstoppable. They started out with an unbelievable run of success, but the last two years, they've :1) Completely self-destructed in Denver last year, committing a boatload of turnovers in a 14-point defeat.2) Given up the largest comeback in AFCC history, squandering an 18-point lead, giving up 32 second half points to the Colts.3) After a cakewalk over the Jets, Brady completed only 56% of his passes the last two weeks, with 3 TD/4 INT (including the game-ender on the final drive last night, and one that would have likely been a backbreaker last week had Troy Brown not stripped it on the INT return and given them another chance.)So, is that mystique shattered now, or no? Or was it already shattered last year when the Belichick/Brady team was finally beaten after 10 (IIRC) straight playoff wins?

So, because Brady doesn't have a dominant performance against the Chargers, and throws one pick against the Colts, to fall to 12-2 in the playoffs, the mystique is over? They still knocked off the #1 seed, in SD, and barely lost to the Colts, after their backup, excuse me, 3rd string, safety went down, and the 4th string safety that they picked up during the year, just wasn't up to snuff, and they couldn't stop the Colts. Given the reality that both starting safeties and one starting corner, both backup safeties (TBuck and Guss Scott) were out of the game, and then Hawkins went down, I'd say the team did a pretty admirable job getting to where they did. The colts are a great offense. The Pats were undermanned in the secondary to begin with, and the one more guy going down was just too much. If Hawking stays in, he likely makes the 4 point difference. There's plenty of career left to build on the Brady/Belichick sage. You can call it mystique if you like. There's no mystique to it to me. Considering most people had them unable to make the playoffs losing their top two receivers, I'd consider this season a success.

It's Belichick's arrogance that, in some small part, is probably responsible for losing their receivers. And, while I fully trust his ability to manage a gameplan (one of the best I've ever seen, in fact), it has to concern you a little bit that top-tier personnel doesn't interest BB much, no? I think the Patriots' future success is highly questionable.

Been hearing that for years, and yet here they were in the AFC Championship without Deion Branch, when everybody said they wouldn't make the playoffs without him. Deion got to watch the game from Home. I doubt he makes the difference yesterday. Defensively, they just tired. Flu? Too many injuries. Colts just too good? Many factors. But, signing marginal talent to huge contracts isn't going to keep them in the top tier of teams in the long run. I don't think they'll regret the move one bit. Seattle on the other hand? Saddled with that huge contract for a second tier talent? I think they will.

 

[billyjoe]

Did Walsh and Montana win 8 straight super bowls? Go look at all the great coach/QB HOFers, they lost more then they won. With free agency, what the Pats have done is pretty amazing. So they've only won 3 SBs in 6 years. Uh, yeah, shockingly bad. (And didn't they just play in the AFC title game?)

Here's a news flash, it's hard to win in the NFL.

 

[redman]

I'm talking about the widely held general perception of Brady as completely unflappable under pressure and Belichick as a schematic genius, who together were completely unstoppable. They started out with an unbelievable run of success, but the last two years, they've :

1) Completely self-destructed in Denver last year, committing a boatload of turnovers in a 14-point defeat.

2) Given up the largest comeback in AFCC history, squandering an 18-point lead, giving up 32 second half points to the Colts.

3) After a cakewalk over the Jets, Brady completed only 56% of his passes the last two weeks, with 3 TD/4 INT (including the game-ender on the final drive last night, and one that would have likely been a backbreaker last week had Troy Brown not stripped it on the INT return and given them another chance.)

So, is that mystique shattered now, or no? Or was it already shattered last year when the Belichick/Brady team was finally beaten after 10 (IIRC) straight playoff wins?

Ask yourself this: would the Colts have won yesterday if the Pats defense wasn't flu-ravaged? I'm not bashing the win; I have no dog in that fight. The Colts fought hard and made plays, but it was only small differences that made the difference in the game. The loss of those defensive players couldn't have hurt the Colts' chances, right?

Anyway, who among us wasn't thinking that Brady would somehow deliver a dagger to the Colts' heart on that final drive until he threw the pick? Is there anyone else in the NFL who you'd rather have leading your team on that kind of drive?

Yes. He's representing the AFC in the Super Bowl this year. I'd rather have Peyton Manning in that situation.I think the biggest component to the Pats getting gassed in the second half is the snowball effect of the Colts creating long, sustained, no-huddle drives that didn't allow personnel changes to shuffle guys in and out to catch a breather. Add to that, the Patriots got that long KO return that resulted in a quick TD to reclaim the lead, which in any other circumstance would be cause for celebration. But, I remember thinking, "that was too quick; the defense probably wishes they hung onto the ball a little longer." Time of possession in that 2nd half just didn't help the Patriots' defense, flu or no flu.

After Manning's performance yesterday that's fair, but Brady's done it repeatedly on the biggest stage. Keep in mind that Manning also has the benefit of arguably the best WR tandem and TE tandem in the game, whereas Brady has other teams' retreads at WR and some good-but-not-great TE's. I think you have to take that into account when looking at the two guys. No doubt that the long drives contributed, but recall that the Colts were beneficiaries of a lucky break as it turned out in the form of getting the ball to start the second half. They effectively put together two long drives back to back, and that really contributed as well to the Pats' fatigue. It of course didn't help that Brady couldn't get his offense going during that time.

Again, I'm not in this thread to diminish Manning or the Colts. I just think that this "end-of-mystique" garbage has more to do with hatred/envy of the success of the Pats (and, after five years, finally the ability to gloat at them) than it has anything to do with any true shortcomings.

 

[switz]

What makes them the scariest to face in the NFL, in my opinion, is that they do it with such a lackluster receiving corps. And have for years! They really haven't had that marquee WR (and I don't consider Deion Branch "marquee"). Just imagine if they had a top WR or two on that team. They would be unstoppable each and every year...

I'm really tired of the "weak WR corps" argument. It's not like Brady's been playing with a bunch of talentless scrubs.Let's see...Reche Caldwell was a 2nd round pick, who never blossomed in SD because of injury problems. But he is a very talented WR.Jabar Gaffney was a 2nd round pick, whom everyone expected to be a superstar. He is extremely talented. Belicheck just got him to actually work hard.Branch was a 2nd rounder, who Seattle obviously considers a very good WR.The list could go on...Never mind that Brady has had some very highly drafted TEs at his disposal.If anything, Brady's WRs have been extremely UNDERRATED.

 

[cobalt_27]

I'm talking about the widely held general perception of Brady as completely unflappable under pressure and Belichick as a schematic genius, who together were completely unstoppable. They started out with an unbelievable run of success, but the last two years, they've :1) Completely self-destructed in Denver last year, committing a boatload of turnovers in a 14-point defeat.2) Given up the largest comeback in AFCC history, squandering an 18-point lead, giving up 32 second half points to the Colts.3) After a cakewalk over the Jets, Brady completed only 56% of his passes the last two weeks, with 3 TD/4 INT (including the game-ender on the final drive last night, and one that would have likely been a backbreaker last week had Troy Brown not stripped it on the INT return and given them another chance.)So, is that mystique shattered now, or no? Or was it already shattered last year when the Belichick/Brady team was finally beaten after 10 (IIRC) straight playoff wins?

So, because Brady doesn't have a dominant performance against the Chargers, and throws one pick against the Colts, to fall to 12-2 in the playoffs, the mystique is over? They still knocked off the #1 seed, in SD, and barely lost to the Colts, after their backup, excuse me, 3rd string, safety went down, and the 4th string safety that they picked up during the year, just wasn't up to snuff, and they couldn't stop the Colts. Given the reality that both starting safeties and one starting corner, both backup safeties (TBuck and Guss Scott) were out of the game, and then Hawkins went down, I'd say the team did a pretty admirable job getting to where they did. The colts are a great offense. The Pats were undermanned in the secondary to begin with, and the one more guy going down was just too much. If Hawking stays in, he likely makes the 4 point difference. There's plenty of career left to build on the Brady/Belichick sage. You can call it mystique if you like. There's no mystique to it to me. Considering most people had them unable to make the playoffs losing their top two receivers, I'd consider this season a success.

It's Belichick's arrogance that, in some small part, is probably responsible for losing their receivers. And, while I fully trust his ability to manage a gameplan (one of the best I've ever seen, in fact), it has to concern you a little bit that top-tier personnel doesn't interest BB much, no? I think the Patriots' future success is highly questionable.

Highly questionable? Come on now. That's a bit of an exaggeration, no?I do think that the shine is off a bit. They're still damn good. They've just lost that aura of invincibility, but that could almost work to their advantage.

They need talented players to play around Brady. I don't think they can make it to the SB again, if they don't address core needs at WR (top priority), the O-line, LB, and Safety positions. This dime store approach is going to be their failing, if it continues. And, I put that squarely on BB's arrogant shoulders. I really believe he needs to accept that depleting the team of talent to save money is going to be a shameful legacy that will be shared by the great legacy he already owns as a head coach.

 

[Kevin Ashcraft]

The NFL is cyclical.....anyone who thinks they will be a force forever is short-sighted.

Look at the Steelers of 74-84...they fell hard for a couple seasons....The 49er's 81-98...they fell hard, and were horrible preceding the dynasty. The 192-98 Cowboys have dropped off. Even teams who were playoff fixtures like Buffalo 88-95...they have not won a playoff game since then.

And let us not forget what NE '89-about '95 were not anything great....even had a 1-15 season.

Things change, no one stays a playoff force forever.

 

[billyjoe]

It's Belichick's arrogance that, in some small part, is probably responsible for losing their receivers. And, while I fully trust his ability to manage a gameplan (one of the best I've ever seen, in fact), it has to concern you a little bit that top-tier personnel doesn't interest BB much, no? I think the Patriots' future success is highly questionable.

The problem is, when you win 3 superbowls in 4 years, everyone wants your players. You simply can't go matching every offer from every wanna-be team in the NFL. 49ers? Titans? Ever heard of salary cap hell? That stuff takes 4-5 years to recover from, if you ever do. With free agency, when you win SBs, you are going to lose key players. Other teams want guys who have playoff experience, players with rings, players who know what it takes. It's not his "ego" that is letting the players go. It's the salary cap. You don't think Bill likes Branch? Are you kidding? To sustain success, you simply have to let people go. If you start trying to match every offer, you start turning into a win-now situation, where you'll end up paying for it for years.The Pats are constantly in the mix for the SB, are the model franchise in the free agency era, and I just don't see where you can find much fault with them.

 

[lions327]

As I see it . . .The Pats have won titles with literally waiver wire STARTERS in the secondary and have remained competitve with multiple free agents or key figures moving on to other teams.Last year (2005) the team had significant injuries and again had to survive with castoffs and retreads and came very close to beating Denver despite numerous turnovers and would have hosted the game against PIT to play in the SB again. Say what you want about the final score, but NE controlled the game and simply lost on turnovers alone. Denver was not mounting much offense or resistence on defense. The outcome was what it was, but NE had almost 150 more total yards on the day.This year, the Pats again had major losses in the secondary, hardly any LB depth, and castoffs at WR for the entire season (Caldwell? Gaffney? Gabriel?). Against the Colts, several players were playing with the flu and they still were able to hold the lead or stay tied for 59 minutes. They simply ran out of gas on defense in the second half, plain and simple. Hats off to the Colts as they won the game, but they appeared to have the more talented team (as did the Chargers the week before despite the score).In 2005 and 2006, the Pats made it as far as they did with major injuries, little depth, and less talent than their competitors. They basically got as far as they did both years based on the strength of coaching and sometimes Brady's will to win.Sure, they didn't win . . . but how many teams would want to face the Patriots in the playoffs?

 

[switz]

Ask yourself this: would the Colts have won yesterday if the Pats defense wasn't flu-ravaged?

And this is why I can't stand Pats fans... as if they were the only team on the field with injuries to their defense. Surprisingly, the Colts actually had more players on the injury report than the Pats, and more DBs on the injury report than the Pats. And to be honest, does anyone not think perhaps the "flu" story was a bit exaggerated to give the Pats an excuse if they lost.

 

[msommer]

As I see it . . .

In 2005 and 2006, the Pats made it as far as they did with major injuries, little depth, and less talent than their competitors. They basically got as far as they did both years based on the strength of coaching and sometimes Brady's will to win.

Could it be that other coaches/GM are now copying Pioli/Belichick's approach to FA/WW (or, being aware of it cut less borderline players)? If so you could argue that they are depleting the pool of talent available for the Pats and thus they end up with slim pickings. In such a case you'd hope that Pioli/BB has a new wrinkle in their approach soon.

Also, when injuries mount year after year, is it not time to look at the trainers and/or procedures for practice?

The problem with the Pats in recent years is that they have gotten cheap. Had they spent to the cap this year they very well might still be playing. They still are excellent talent evaluators and motivators, but they have elected to not overpay in the sliggest to keep guys that have been big contributors and have not made a splash at all in free agency (save for Roosevelt Colvin).While next year the Pats have millions in cap space, if they don't spend it what good will it do them?

And for the rest of the league to want to copycat, here's the Pats salary cap mantra in a nutshell:

They savor first and third contracts and usually abstain from second contracts if at all possible. So they thrive on rookie contracts (usually 3-5 years long) and will let guys coming off of those contracts walk (Woody, Givens, probably Samuel, etc.) Then they like guys coming off their peak contracts (normally after their second contract) and they target guys with experience with gas still in the tank. For pure superstars like Seymour and Brady, they'll make an effort to keep them (but still tryiing to get them signed below market value).

They also are big on signing bargain basement retreads that fit their system. While other teams may be able to scoop up these guys, they may not be worth anything to any other teams. The other 31 teams could have had Gaffney and Caldwell . . . but realistically who could have done much with them?

The problem I forsee in the future for the Pats is that they have been getting bad publicity from their current and former players. Sure, guys that want to win may come to town, but anyone in it for the money won't bother to even talk to them. And even their own players can't get them to sign them and those guys will opt to go elsewhere.

This I believe could be a huge issue in terms of morale. Hard to keep an organisation running full speed when the players know that they will have to go elsewhere to get a raise...

 

[msommer]

Ask yourself this: would the Colts have won yesterday if the Pats defense wasn't flu-ravaged?

And this is why I can't stand Pats fans... as if they were the only team on the field with injuries to their defense. Surprisingly, the Colts actually had more players on the injury report than the Pats, and more DBs on the injury report than the Pats. And to be honest, does anyone not think perhaps the "flu" story was a bit exaggerated to give the Pats an excuse if they lost.

Pretty sure Redman roots for the 'skins

 

[redman]

Ask yourself this: would the Colts have won yesterday if the Pats defense wasn't flu-ravaged?

And this is why I can't stand Pats fans... as if they were the only team on the field with injuries to their defense. Surprisingly, the Colts actually had more players on the injury report than the Pats, and more DBs on the injury report than the Pats. And to be honest, does anyone not think perhaps the "flu" story was a bit exaggerated to give the Pats an excuse if they lost.

I'm not a Pats fan. I truly am agnostic about both the Pats and the Colts. I'm here to talk football.

 

[switz]

Ask yourself this: would the Colts have won yesterday if the Pats defense wasn't flu-ravaged?

And this is why I can't stand Pats fans... as if they were the only team on the field with injuries to their defense. Surprisingly, the Colts actually had more players on the injury report than the Pats, and more DBs on the injury report than the Pats. And to be honest, does anyone not think perhaps the "flu" story was a bit exaggerated to give the Pats an excuse if they lost.

I'm not a Pats fan. I truly am agnostic about both the Pats and the Colts. I'm here to talk football.

Well, I apologize for calling you a Pats fan then

 

[redman]

What makes them the scariest to face in the NFL, in my opinion, is that they do it with such a lackluster receiving corps. And have for years! They really haven't had that marquee WR (and I don't consider Deion Branch "marquee"). Just imagine if they had a top WR or two on that team. They would be unstoppable each and every year...

I'm really tired of the "weak WR corps" argument. It's not like Brady's been playing with a bunch of talentless scrubs.Let's see...

Reche Caldwell was a 2nd round pick, who never blossomed in SD because of injury problems. But he is a very talented WR.

Jabar Gaffney was a 2nd round pick, whom everyone expected to be a superstar. He is extremely talented. Belicheck just got him to actually work hard.

Branch was a 2nd rounder, who Seattle obviously considers a very good WR.

The list could go on...

Never mind that Brady has had some very highly drafted TEs at his disposal.

If anything, Brady's WRs have been extremely UNDERRATED.

You're helping to make the point. A WR who was drafted in the 2nd round is not projected to be a star, and far more of them fail than succeed in the NFL. Caldwell and Gaffney were both failures in the NFL until they came to the Pats, as the fact that they were discarded by the teams they drafted attests. There's simply no other way to cut it. For perspective, here are the WR's drafted in the 2nd round from 2000-2003:

Dennis Northcutt

Todd Pinkston

Jerry Porter

Quincy Morgan

Chad Johnson

Robert Ferguson

Chris Chambers

Jabar Gaffney

Josh Reed

Tim Carter

Andre Davis

Reche Caldwell

Antwaan Randle El

Antonio Bryant

Deion Branch

Taylor Jacobs

Bethel Johnson

Anquan Boldin

Tyrone Calico

Teyo Johnson

Yes, teams can strike gold there, but you'll notice that in every case they did, the player remains on their roster.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Let me clear something up. I'm not suggesting that the Patriots aren't still a good team or a model franchise. I'm not suggesting their achievement this year wasn't substantial. I'm not suggesting more success in the coming years is unfathomable.

All I'm asking is if the "air of invincibility" has diminshed greatly. The Montana-led 49ers, the Dallas teams of the early 90s, the Steelers of the 70s, and the Pats if the early 2000s all had that intimidation factor to them, like they couldn't be beaten. Much like the Jordan-led Bulls of the 90s, or Mike Tyson in his prime, or Woods and Federer now, when a team or player has that air, often their opponents can be all but defeated before taking the field. Tyson (though as an individual rather than a team sport is different, it's just the purest example I could think of) won many of his fights before they even began, because his mere presence instilled a fear of loss in his opponents which forced them out of their normal strategy and into a shell, trying not to be embarassed. Once Buster Douglas knocked him out, that air was gone, and he was a punching bag for much of his career after that.

What I'm asking is if, to an obviously lesser degree, the playoff games of the last two years were a Buster Douglas to the early 2000s Patriots Tyson.

 

[redman]

Ask yourself this: would the Colts have won yesterday if the Pats defense wasn't flu-ravaged?

And this is why I can't stand Pats fans... as if they were the only team on the field with injuries to their defense. Surprisingly, the Colts actually had more players on the injury report than the Pats, and more DBs on the injury report than the Pats. And to be honest, does anyone not think perhaps the "flu" story was a bit exaggerated to give the Pats an excuse if they lost.

I'm not a Pats fan. I truly am agnostic about both the Pats and the Colts. I'm here to talk football.

Well, I apologize for calling you a Pats fan then

It's all good- it's actually a nice break from (accurately) being called a Redskins fan this year.

 

[redman]

Let me clear something up. I'm not suggesting that the Patriots aren't still a good team or a model franchise. I'm not suggesting their achievement this year wasn't substantial. I'm not suggesting more success in the coming years is unfathomable.

All I'm asking is if the "air of invincibility" has diminshed greatly. The Montana-led 49ers, the Dallas teams of the early 90s, the Steelers of the 70s, and the Pats if the early 2000s all had that intimidation factor to them, like they couldn't be beaten. Much like the Jordan-led Bulls of the 90s, or Mike Tyson in his prime, or Woods and Federer now, when a team or player has that air, often their opponents can be all but defeated before taking the field. Tyson (though as an individual rather than a team sport is different, it's just the purest example I could think of) won many of his fights before they even began, because his mere presence instilled a fear of loss in his opponents which forced them out of their normal strategy and into a shell, trying not to be embarassed. Once Buster Douglas knocked him out, that air was gone, and he was a punching bag for much of his career after that.

What I'm asking is if, to an obviously lesser degree, the playoff games of the last two years were a Buster Douglas to the early 2000s Patriots Tyson.

Maybe, but you'll note that in almost every case, the team's or individual's loss of mystique coincided with a decline in their performance. I'll use one of your examples, however, to point out a losing team that didn't lose its mystique. After 1977 the Steelers were 1-2 in their last three playoff games and hadn't won a Super Bowl in two years. They of course went on to win the next two Super Bowls. Was their mystique gone, or were their lossses more a product of playing in the most competitive conference (like the Pats do) and simply knowing that no matter how good you are you simply won't win them all?

I don't think this year's Pats are significantly different in terms of overall quality from a couple of years ago. I do think that on the third, fourth and fifth tries against them in the playoffs, Manning's Colts had to have learned enough from their prior experiences to put that to good use.

 

[PMENFAN]

I'm talking about the widely held general perception of Brady as completely unflappable under pressure and Belichick as a schematic genius, who together were completely unstoppable. They started out with an unbelievable run of success, but the last two years, they've :1) Completely self-destructed in Denver last year, committing a boatload of turnovers in a 14-point defeat.2) Given up the largest comeback in AFCC history, squandering an 18-point lead, giving up 32 second half points to the Colts.3) After a cakewalk over the Jets, Brady completed only 56% of his passes the last two weeks, with 3 TD/4 INT (including the game-ender on the final drive last night, and one that would have likely been a backbreaker last week had Troy Brown not stripped it on the INT return and given them another chance.)So, is that mystique shattered now, or no? Or was it already shattered last year when the Belichick/Brady team was finally beaten after 10 (IIRC) straight playoff wins?

So, because Brady doesn't have a dominant performance against the Chargers, and throws one pick against the Colts, to fall to 12-2 in the playoffs, the mystique is over? They still knocked off the #1 seed, in SD, and barely lost to the Colts, after their backup, excuse me, 3rd string, safety went down, and the 4th string safety that they picked up during the year, just wasn't up to snuff, and they couldn't stop the Colts. Given the reality that both starting safeties and one starting corner, both backup safeties (TBuck and Guss Scott) were out of the game, and then Hawkins went down, I'd say the team did a pretty admirable job getting to where they did. The colts are a great offense. The Pats were undermanned in the secondary to begin with, and the one more guy going down was just too much. If Hawking stays in, he likely makes the 4 point difference. There's plenty of career left to build on the Brady/Belichick sage. You can call it mystique if you like. There's no mystique to it to me. Considering most people had them unable to make the playoffs losing their top two receivers, I'd consider this season a success.

It's Belichick's arrogance that, in some small part, is probably responsible for losing their receivers. And, while I fully trust his ability to manage a gameplan (one of the best I've ever seen, in fact), it has to concern you a little bit that top-tier personnel doesn't interest BB much, no? I think the Patriots' future success is highly questionable.

Highly questionable? Come on now. That's a bit of an exaggeration, no?I do think that the shine is off a bit. They're still damn good. They've just lost that aura of invincibility, but that could almost work to their advantage.

They need talented players to play around Brady. I don't think they can make it to the SB again, if they don't address core needs at WR (top priority), the O-line, LB, and Safety positions. This dime store approach is going to be their failing, if it continues. And, I put that squarely on BB's arrogant shoulders. I really believe he needs to accept that depleting the team of talent to save money is going to be a shameful legacy that will be shared by the great legacy he already owns as a head coach.

They clearly had no chance at the SB this year. They were out of the playoffs early this year. Lucky to even with their division at 12-4. Seriously, what model is putting their team in a better position to win every year? What tean has been to 4 of the last 6 conference championships? You can't sign all of your players. They made a decision, that I agree with, on Branch and Givens. Many said Branch would put Seattle over the top. They barely won a weak division in a weak conference. NE went 12-4 in a very tough division in a very tough conference. Your theory just isn't holding water. Love to hate him, but bring logic to the table. People say the morale is hurt? I'd say the morale was pretty good in going to SD and knocking off the #1, and then to INdy and damn near taking out the #3. Remember, this is a team that is in a rebuilding phase, having lost their OC two years ago, and their DC each of the last two years. Their twp two receivers last year, and many other role players, and not to mention, they've won 3 or the last five SuperBowls. Nobody had them projected to be in the Conference Championship. You may say the models broken, but they're the most successful franchise in the league over the last 5, 10 or 14 years. Take your pick on what you want to measure. I stop at 14, because that's when Kraft bought the team. That's 5 converence Championships in the last 14 years, with a complete overhaul, and the Pete Carroll era thrown in there. Any other franchise in the league would love to have their success. Knock it, envy it, whatever; but at least be intellectually honest in assessing it. It's a coaches league. You don't need top tier talent to be #1. I think they've proven that time and again. A couple of plays here and there, and they win that game yesterday, and they're in another Superbowl against a team they've already beaten this season. It didn't happen, but it's not like they were blown out yesterday, or uncompetitive, or unmotivated because of a lack of morale. I'd much rather see them be competitive each year, and not win it all, than to dole out huge contracts (a la Washington) and not make the playoffs, or exit early year in and out. Paying your players a lot, or getting the most sought after talent, doesn't equate to winning. I would think most people would realize that.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

I'll use one of your examples, however, to point out a losing team that didn't lose its mystique. After 1977 the Steelers were 1-2 in their last three playoff games and hadn't won a Super Bowl in two years. They of course went on to win the next two Super Bowls. Was their mystique gone, or were their lossses more a product of playing in the most competitive conference (like the Pats do) and simply knowing that no matter how good you are you simply won't win them all?

This is the essence of what I am asking. Obviously, the Steelers of that era maintained that intimidation factor. Will the Patriots as well, or does the rest of the league now believe going into a big game vs. New England - "I really think we can beat these guys." Because although most wouldn't want to admit it, I think many teams/fans felt that way for 3-4 years there.