Spygate Today ? ? ?

[Jesus Christ 0]

The Patriots have played 68 games since that fateful day in the old Meadowkands when the NFL confiscated video of the patriots taping signals of the opposing team.

 

3 teams have been crowned champion since, a 4th in less the two weeks.

 

What are your thoughts on spygate today?Have your thoughts changed any?

[cbfalcon 824]

I haven't researched it, but I bet they easily have the best record in the NFL since Spygate.

 

I remember here in Dallas after we won our 3rd title in 4 years being pretty confident we''d get to 5 or 6 within that dynasty. As I've gotten older I've realized that it's pretty insane to even get 3 within a run, since only 3 franchises have more than 3 total.

[redtodd 7]

Let me predict the thread:

 

Pats Fans - Spygate had no affect.

 

Pats Haters - Spygate had an affect.

 

Others - Ratsass

 

[Jesus Christ 0]

Including playoffs:

 

Pats record pre-spygate 87-39 (69 win %). Post-spygate 53-16 (76%)....

 

Though:

 

Pre - 3 Super Bowls 12-2 playoff record

Post- 0 Super Bowls 2-3 playoff record

[redtodd 7]

Including playoffs:

 

Pats record pre-spygate 87-39 (69 win %). Post-spygate 53-16 (76%)....

 

Though:

 

Pre - 3 Super Bowls 12-2 playoff record

Post- 0 Super Bowls 2-3 playoff record

 

But that would try and suggest that is only has an effect on playoff games and not regular season games. If it had an effect, both would have drastically dropped.

 

Also, they went two season with no championship before being caught, then they were an helmet catch away from 19-0 after being caught.

[WhiteWonder 2,249]

Patriots are a good team with or without spygate. Taping other teams signals isn't going to signle handedly win you games.

 

but its still really focking pathetic and they got off too easy.

[jaxjag 43]

Never phased me much. I'd like to know how wide spread the practice was and what it accomplished. Jimmy Johnson stated that it was done by multiple teams and of course, before the season began, there was a "league wide" memo. What prompted that?

[IGotWorms 3,475]

The Patriots have played 68 games since that fateful day in the old Meadowkands when the NFL confiscated video of the patriots taping signals of the opposing team.

 

3 teams have been crowned champion since, a 4th in less the two weeks.

 

What are your thoughts on spygate today?Have your thoughts changed any?

 

Pats have done very well during the regular season since SpyGate. That makes me think that it really had no impact at all. Now they have done a lot worse in the post-season, but I think that goes back to 2006 when the Colts came back on them in the AFC Championship game. They just haven't had the same killer instinct since, IMO.

[three out of four 0]

The only reason why this was such a big deal was because Goddell just stepped in as Commissioner and he wanted to show everyone who was boss. Teams have been breaking the rules since then and have only received a slap on the wrist. It's a bigger joke than the "enhanced season" that Goddell keeps trying to force feed us. How about this Goddell, tell the owners to stop forcing the season ticket holders to pay full price for pre-season games. Maybe people would stop complaining if they didn't have to pay $100 to see a scrimmage.

[davidbostonisgood 2]

My opinion on it hasn't changed much. Those Patriots teams were solid, and their "advantage" was probably enough to get them over the top and give them 1-3 superbowls they probably would not have otherwise won.

[Boston Three Party 6]

The Patriots have played 68 games since that fateful day in the old Meadowkands when the NFL confiscated video of the patriots taping signals of the opposing team.

 

3 teams have been crowned champion since, a 4th in less the two weeks.

 

What are your thoughts on spygate today?Have your thoughts changed any?

 

That's all you got champ? That's ALL YOU GOT?!

 

Everything I had was finished on your chin, about 10 minutes ago. Try and clean it up, k? Thanks.

 

We'll be back, we're young, we choked this year, it is what it is. Regardless we're still in the hunt every year. This "killer instinct" we lack nowadays - love to know what that is. WTF ever that is. I just see good play when it counts!

[PackYourNut 47]

They're good enough to beat up on mediocre teams in the regular season, but when the cream rises to the top in the playoffs, they clearly can't win without help!

[kmbryant09 1]

I think we can all agree that SpyGate had some sort of effect on the team. How minimal or exactly how much? I don't think we can ever quantify.

 

Even though I hate the Patriots, I don't think it's logical to try and argue that those 3 SB rings shouldn't count. Discredit them slightly? Up for debate, but I don't think SpyGate turned an averaged team into a dynasty.

 

But comparing their pre-SpyGate and post-SpyGate success doesn't make a lot of sense...Their offensive line has blossomed into one of the league's best, with anchors such as Matt Light & Logan Mankins. They went out and got the 2nd best WR of all-time (Randy Moss), still in his prime, for the past 3 seasons. They also went out and got perhaps the best compliment to Moss, Wes Welker - who may be the best underneath/possession WR in the game. Did Belichick go out and make those moves to bolster his offense because he no longer had the advantage of spying on the opposing DEF?? Probably not...Either way, they were brilliant moves that helped complete Brady's transition from a solid QB into one of the game's elite QB's. So when you couple Brady's maturation (or rise to stardom), with the additions of some huge offensive firepower, you can't truly compare pre-SpyGate and post-SpyGate.

 

But one thing I'd hope the Patriots' fans took away from all this: In the end, DEFENSE wins. Trust me, as a Colts fan - I'd give up some of our offensive firepower for a top5-10 DEF any day of the week. But for some reason, offenses can succeed in the regular season, but usually lose out to a great DEF in the post-season. Pre-SpyGate?? That Patriots DEF was scary. They had pro-bowlers at every level of the defense (barring the Troy Brown @ CB era). Bill Belichick out-schemed every other coach. They gave multiple looks that confused even the best QB's (Peyton Manning). And while their offense was solid, they depended on their DEF for much of their SB runs. After SpyGate, their DEF has been in rebuilding mode. They've lost the likes of Richard Seymour, Ty Law, Rodney Harrison, Vrabel, Bruschi, Asante Samuel, etc. etc. So while their offense has been one of the league's best, ultimately, their DEF needed to be better in the post-season. And of all teams, I'm surprised the Patriots didn't realize that 4 years ago.

[Pavlov 0]

A lot of people in this thread need to learn the difference between correlation and causation. That might actually be true for the board in general.

[MedStudent 56]

But one thing I'd hope the Patriots' fans took away from all this: In the end, DEFENSE wins. Trust me, as a Colts fan - I'd give up some of our offensive firepower for a top5-10 DEF any day of the week. But for some reason, offenses can succeed in the regular season, but usually lose out to a great DEF in the post-season. Pre-SpyGate?? That Patriots DEF was scary. They had pro-bowlers at every level of the defense (barring the Troy Brown @ CB era). Bill Belichick out-schemed every other coach. They gave multiple looks that confused even the best QB's (Peyton Manning). And while their offense was solid, they depended on their DEF for much of their SB runs. After SpyGate, their DEF has been in rebuilding mode. They've lost the likes of Richard Seymour, Ty Law, Rodney Harrison, Vrabel, Bruschi, Asante Samuel, etc. etc. So while their offense has been one of the league's best, ultimately, their DEF needed to be better in the post-season. And of all teams, I'm surprised the Patriots didn't realize that 4 years ago.

 

That defense was great and they totally shutdown manning in their championship seasons. And Spygate did NOTHING to help their defense. It would have only conceivably helped their offense.

[kmbryant09 1]

That defense was great and they totally shutdown manning in their championship seasons. And Spygate did NOTHING to help their defense. It would have only conceivably helped their offense.

I know...But my point was that at or around the time of SpyGate, New England started focusing a lot more on offense, and a lot less on defense.

 

They let guys like Asante Samuel, Richard Seymour, Mike Vrabel, Teddi Bruschi, Ty Law, among others leave the team on the defensive side of the ball. All while developing the OLine, bringing in a multitude of RB's, and signing the 2nd best WR of all-time, and the best possession WR in the game today.

 

In addition to that point, I was arguing that offense wins in the regular season, while defenses usually prevail in the postseason. And since their DEF was such an integral part of their 3 SB runs, I would have thought the Patriots, of all teams, would have known that.

 

All of that could help explain why New England has had more regular season success, with no post-season success since SpyGate.

[TD Ryan2 315]

I know...But my point was that at or around the time of SpyGate, New England started focusing a lot more on offense, and a lot less on defense.

 

They let guys like Asante Samuel, Richard Seymour, Mike Vrabel, Teddi Bruschi, Ty Law, among others leave the team on the defensive side of the ball. All while developing the OLine, bringing in a multitude of RB's, and signing the 2nd best WR of all-time, and the best possession WR in the game today.

 

first off, good discussion... time (and seeing someone else win) heals I guess... this is the first level-headed Spygate discussion I've ever really seen around here.

 

To your poing kmbryant, many in NE believe the the Pats tweaked their philosophy towards the offensive side of thing BECAUSE of how the game/rules were evolving/changing. The NFL is a passing league now more than ever. Bill Polian has done a lot to move the rules towards a more open, attacking game and defenses have it tougher every year, the league simply WANTS more offense, more passing, less hitting, less defensive contact.

 

As for the list of NE's departures and arrivals you pointed to... it's not as tidy as you present it... many of those defensive players were let go over the span of the last decade and many of them because of age. Though it may feel like it all happened instantly, it isn't like NE just decided to drop all those players in one or two years. And with 20/20 hindsight, the only one I really feel they should have kept was Asante Samuel, IMO he's the only real "mistake" they made.

AND Wes Welker was NOT the best possesion receive in NE when they signed him, in fact many felt NE overpaid for a SP Teams return man (2nd round pick to MIA?).... early on NE was riduculed by many for the Welker signing.

 

Really, I think Belichick felt that the game was going to continue to favor offensive teams and he steered his team in that direction.

[three out of four 0]

I know...But my point was that at or around the time of SpyGate, New England started focusing a lot more on offense, and a lot less on defense.

 

 

WRONG. All the players you mentioned earlier -Light, Mankins, Moss, Welker - were acquired before Spygate. Since Spygate they have been spending most of their attention on the defensive side of the field. They basically turned over their entire defense from '07 to '09. They had to do this because their entire D was getting old or was overpaid. The Pats weren't going to pay Samuel top dollar since he wasn't strong in run support. Seymour was no longer living up to his contract so they traded him. The rest just got old.

 

You know who the Pats big offensive additions have been since Spygate? Fred Taylor, BJGE, Danny Woodhead, Alge Crumpler, Tory Holt, Joey Galloway.

[kmbryant09 1]

first off, good discussion... time (and seeing someone else win) heals I guess... this is the first level-headed Spygate discussion I've ever really seen around here.

 

To your poing kmbryant, many in NE believe the the Pats tweaked their philosophy towards the offensive side of thing BECAUSE of how the game/rules were evolving/changing. The NFL is a passing league now more than ever. Bill Polian has done a lot to move the rules towards a more open, attacking game and defenses have it tougher every year, the league simply WANTS more offense, more passing, less hitting, less defensive contact.

 

As for the list of NE's departures and arrivals you pointed to... it's not as tidy as you present it... many of those defensive players were let go over the span of the last decade and many of them because of age. Though it may feel like it all happened instantly, it isn't like NE just decided to drop all those players in one or two years. And with 20/20 hindsight, the only one I really feel they should have kept was Asante Samuel, IMO he's the only real "mistake" they made.

AND Wes Welker was NOT the best possesion receive in NE when they signed him, in fact many felt NE overpaid for a SP Teams return man (2nd round pick to MIA?).... early on NE was riduculed by many for the Welker signing.

 

Really, I think Belichick felt that the game was going to continue to favor offensive teams and he steered his team in that direction.

Yeah, this is very true - But there are a few questionable decisions on the DEF side of the ball...Like you said, elder guys like Bruschi & Harrison retiring, there's not much you can do about that. But they let Ty Law go with a few years left, let Asante Samuel walk away, and now he's a star, Vrabel is at least a starter on a good DEF in KC...and I can't help but ask how much of a difference Richard Seymour woulda been for this team the past 2 seasons.

 

I guess I'm surprised they let them all go, without backups/draft picks to replace them....which is what they're doing now - just a year or 2 later than it probably should have been done. And like I said, since guys like Bruschi/Samuel/Seymour/Harrison were such big reasons for their post-season success, I'm surprised they let them all go without a Plan B.

 

WRONG. All the players you mentioned earlier -Light, Mankins, Moss, Welker - were acquired before Spygate. Since Spygate they have been spending most of their attention on the defensive side of the field. They basically turned over their entire defense from '07 to '09. They had to do this because their entire D was getting old or was overpaid. The Pats weren't going to pay Samuel top dollar since he wasn't strong in run support. Seymour was no longer living up to his contract so they traded him. The rest just got old.

 

You know who the Pats big offensive additions have been since Spygate? Fred Taylor, BJGE, Danny Woodhead, Alge Crumpler, Tory Holt, Joey Galloway.

Like I said, at or around the time of...SpyGate was 'officially' leaked to the public in October, 2007 (I believe?). Weren't Moss & Welker brought in to play that 2007 season? I know the acquisitions were long before the start of the season, but isn't it plausible that Goodell warned the Patriots about a pending investigation that offseason? This is pure speculation for discussion purposes. But really, about 4-5 years ago it seemed the Patriots were at a cross-roads. Spend money to retain guys like Samuel on the DEF side of the ball, or move towards a more offensive approach. I think there was a clear window there that they clearly focused on Offense. Bringing in Moss/Welker/Maroney/OLine, and losing guys like Law/Samuel/Seymour/Vrabel/Harrison/Bruschi without much of a backup plan. Now the past 3 drafts have been spent to replace the guys that they lost 4-5 years ago.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Yeah, this is very true - But there are a few questionable decisions on the DEF side of the ball...Like you said, elder guys like Bruschi & Harrison retiring, there's not much you can do about that. But they let Ty Law go with a few years left, let Asante Samuel walk away, and now he's a star, Vrabel is at least a starter on a good DEF in KC...and I can't help but ask how much of a difference Richard Seymour woulda been for this team the past 2 seasons.

 

I guess I'm surprised they let them all go, without backups/draft picks to replace them....which is what they're doing now - just a year or 2 later than it probably should have been done. And like I said, since guys like Bruschi/Samuel/Seymour/Harrison were such big reasons for their post-season success, I'm surprised they let them all go without a Plan B.

 

 

Like I said, at or around the time of...SpyGate was 'officially' leaked to the public in October, 2007 (I believe?). Weren't Moss & Welker brought in to play that 2007 season? I know the acquisitions were long before the start of the season, but isn't it plausible that Goodell warned the Patriots about a pending investigation that offseason? This is pure speculation for discussion purposes. But really, about 4-5 years ago it seemed the Patriots were at a cross-roads. Spend money to retain guys like Samuel on the DEF side of the ball, or move towards a more offensive approach. I think there was a clear window there that they clearly focused on Offense. Bringing in Moss/Welker/Maroney/OLine, and losing guys like Law/Samuel/Seymour/Vrabel/Harrison/Bruschi without much of a backup plan. Now the past 3 drafts have been spent to replace the guys that they lost 4-5 years ago.

 

I hear what you are saying and I think that agree with your basic premise. If you are saying that the Patriots post-2006 AFC Championship game debacle spent more time and resources on offense and that is the reason that they have not won, I would agree. I am not sure that they have forgotten completely about defense and I don't know that they have not tried to replace some of those defensive playmakers, but the reality is that the defense has not been a good defense since their last SB. Remember, Bruschi and Harrison retired. They were not let go. Samuel and Seymour were guys that were going to have to be franchised and there was concern that they could not keep other players if they held onto them.

 

Some of it is that they have lost players, some of it is related to the type of offense (quick strike vs. ball control). I think that part of the transformation this season was a reverting back to the old way of doing things. They have changed the offense to be more ball control oriented and they have spent considerable resources in trying to restock the defense. Unfortunately, that transformation does not happen overnight and there are still quite a few holes to fill.

 

However, the original premise that you can derive any conclusion on Spygate as part of that is weak. Your point that it is just a coincidence in timeframe is true, although I think that the timeframe where their playoff success took a hit was starting the season before Spygate.

 

I would also add that some of this is related to losing key coaches and personnel guys. While many of those folks have not achieved great success as head coaches themselves, it has affected continuity and at least a couple of the personnel guys have had very good success (Dmitroff, Pioli).

[parrot 789]

Keep in mind too that the Patriots did make more moves to replace the denfensive pieces than they are getting credit for, some of them just didn't work out all that well. I remember being one of the dumbasses who thought that bringing in Adalius Thomas was bigger for the Pats than bringing in Moss.

 

In 2007 they took Meriweather in the first, their only high pick. In 2008 they went LB (Mayo), CB (Wheatley), and LB (Crable) in the first three rounds. Two of those guys are no longer with the team. In 2009 they again went defense with their first three picks.

[kmbryant09 1]

I hear what you are saying and I think that agree with your basic premise. If you are saying that the Patriots post-2006 AFC Championship game debacle spent more time and resources on offense and that is the reason that they have not won, I would agree. I am not sure that they have forgotten completely about defense and I don't know that they have not tried to replace some of those defensive playmakers, but the reality is that the defense has not been a good defense since their last SB. Remember, Bruschi and Harrison retired. They were not let go. Samuel and Seymour were guys that were going to have to be franchised and there was concern that they could not keep other players if they held onto them.

 

Some of it is that they have lost players, some of it is related to the type of offense (quick strike vs. ball control). I think that part of the transformation this season was a reverting back to the old way of doing things. They have changed the offense to be more ball control oriented and they have spent considerable resources in trying to restock the defense. Unfortunately, that transformation does not happen overnight and there are still quite a few holes to fill.

 

However, the original premise that you can derive any conclusion on Spygate as part of that is weak. Your point that it is just a coincidence in timeframe is true, although I think that the timeframe where their playoff success took a hit was starting the season before Spygate.

 

I would also add that some of this is related to losing key coaches and personnel guys. While many of those folks have not achieved great success as head coaches themselves, it has affected continuity and at least a couple of the personnel guys have had very good success (Dmitroff, Pioli).

Well stated, I agree with all of this. I think the loss of Weiss/Crennel has been overlooked for the most part.

 

Like I said, I'm not sure if any of this has to do with SpyGate - but mostly that the comparisons people make - the pre-SpyGate success and post-SpyGate success isn't very relative. That's mostly because the team has developed their offense while depleting their DEF - and as we've learned (something the Patriots SHOULD HAVE learned earlier) is that DEF's often win in the post-season, not offenses.

 

 

Keep in mind too that the Patriots did make more moves to replace the denfensive pieces than they are getting credit for, some of them just didn't work out all that well. I remember being one of the dumbasses who thought that bringing in Adalius Thomas was bigger for the Pats than bringing in Moss.

 

In 2007 they took Meriweather in the first, their only high pick. In 2008 they went LB (Mayo), CB (Wheatley), and LB (Crable) in the first three rounds. Two of those guys are no longer with the team. In 2009 they again went defense with their first three picks.

I agree - but when you lose guys like Law/Samuel/Harrison in the secondary around '05-'06 (I don't know exactly when), and don't replace them until the 2007 & 2008 drafts, you're not doing it right. When you lose Vrabel & Bruschi a few years back with no replacements until the 2008 draft, you're not doing it right. Part of keeping up a continued level of success is drafting a year or 2 or 3 in advance, letting players develop so they are READY when the time comes.

[jaxjag 43]

Well stated, I agree with all of this. I think the loss of Weiss/Crennel has been overlooked for the most part.

 

Like I said, I'm not sure if any of this has to do with SpyGate - but mostly that the comparisons people make - the pre-SpyGate success and post-SpyGate success isn't very relative. That's mostly because the team has developed their offense while depleting their DEF - and as we've learned (something the Patriots SHOULD HAVE learned earlier) is that DEF's often win in the post-season, not offenses.

 

 

 

I agree - but when you lose guys like Law/Samuel/Harrison in the secondary around '05-'06 (I don't know exactly when), and don't replace them until the 2007 & 2008 drafts, you're not doing it right. When you lose Vrabel & Bruschi a few years back with no replacements until the 2008 draft, you're not doing it right. Part of keeping up a continued level of success is drafting a year or 2 or 3 in advance, letting players develop so they are READY when the time comes.

 

You seem to be convinced they've built their offense at the expense of their defense. While each has moved in the direction you state, things don't always go to plan. Guys get older, hurt, want to get paid, free agents under perform... Samuel makes a pick in the SB and they finish 19-0. As it is, they've won close to 80% of their games over the past four seasons. And that includes seasons were Brady was out/coming back from injury. They have a young defense and are stock piled with draft picks.

 

To suggest, they haven't learned that defense is important is kind of presumptuous. To be blunt... I'm envious of their sustained sucess. Other teams go into clear rebuilding stages. NE has been able to retool on the fly.

 

People make a big deal of 3 straight play-off losses. Manning - incidentally - is on the same trajectory as he followed up a SB loss with a first round exit. I take it with a grain of salt; there is ebb and flow in the NFL. Speaking of which, how about Bill Polian? Several years back, he had the Midas touch. However, many question his recent draft picks. I give him the benefit of the doubt... many variables and too easy to second guess with the benefit of hindsight.

 

I used to look forward to Jimmy Johnson's draft day wheeling and dealing. Moving down, picking up picks, grabbing talent late, etc. Now I find BB fascinating. Not just on draft day but in the clinical way he runs his team. Moving Moss this season is a great example. Hard to believe that both coaches who touched Moss after that have lost their jobs.

 

I suspect the Patriots and Colts will be competitive as long as their franchise QBs stay upright. However, it really takes a lot of luck to win a SB. Most teams don't even sniff it. It's just the one and done nature of the sport coupled with high injury rates and, sometimes, the bounce of an oddly shaped ball.

 

ETA: Given what NE has accomplished and how they're positioned, do you want to reevaluate this advice: "Part of keeping up a continued level of success is drafting a year or 2 or 3 in advance, letting players develop so they are READY when the time comes"

[three out of four 0]

 

 

I agree - but when you lose guys like Law/Samuel/Harrison in the secondary around '05-'06 (I don't know exactly when), and don't replace them until the 2007 & 2008 drafts, you're not doing it right. When you lose Vrabel & Bruschi a few years back with no replacements until the 2008 draft, you're not doing it right. Part of keeping up a continued level of success is drafting a year or 2 or 3 in advance, letting players develop so they are READY when the time comes.

 

You really need to stop because it is obvious that you don't have your facts straight. Samuel played thru the '07 season and Harrison thru the '08 season. The Pats spent draft picks on the secondary in '05 and '06 but those players just never panned out. Ellis Hobbs is one example of a guy who just never reached that elite level.

 

I think your confusing success with focus. The Pats have spent more draft picks on D over the last 5 years but most of those guys haven't been as good as the guys they were replacing. Meanwhile, the Pats O line consists of guys who were all there before Spygate(except Vollmer). Just because the offense has improved since Spygate doesn't mean that the Pats have shifted their focus from defense to offense.

[pittnthat 0]

That defense was great and they totally shutdown manning in their championship seasons. And Spygate did NOTHING to help their defense. It would have only conceivably helped their offense.

Oct 7th 2001 vs Miami was one tape recovered via spygate that would have helped the Pats.(d help)

This was the one "recovered"

[kmbryant09 1]

You seem to be convinced they've built their offense at the expense of their defense. While each has moved in the direction you state, things don't always go to plan. Guys get older, hurt, want to get paid, free agents under perform... Samuel makes a pick in the SB and they finish 19-0. As it is, they've won close to 80% of their games over the past four seasons. And that includes seasons were Brady was out/coming back from injury. They have a young defense and are stock piled with draft picks.

 

To suggest, they haven't learned that defense is important is kind of presumptuous. To be blunt... I'm envious of their sustained sucess. Other teams go into clear rebuilding stages. NE has been able to retool on the fly.

 

People make a big deal of 3 straight play-off losses. Manning - incidentally - is on the same trajectory as he followed up a SB loss with a first round exit. I take it with a grain of salt; there is ebb and flow in the NFL. Speaking of which, how about Bill Polian? Several years back, he had the Midas touch. However, many question his recent draft picks. I give him the benefit of the doubt... many variables and too easy to second guess with the benefit of hindsight.

 

I used to look forward to Jimmy Johnson's draft day wheeling and dealing. Moving down, picking up picks, grabbing talent late, etc. Now I find BB fascinating. Not just on draft day but in the clinical way he runs his team. Moving Moss this season is a great example. Hard to believe that both coaches who touched Moss after that have lost their jobs.

 

I suspect the Patriots and Colts will be competitive as long as their franchise QBs stay upright. However, it really takes a lot of luck to win a SB. Most teams don't even sniff it. It's just the one and done nature of the sport coupled with high injury rates and, sometimes, the bounce of an oddly shaped ball.

 

ETA: Given what NE has accomplished and how they're positioned, do you want to reevaluate this advice: "Part of keeping up a continued level of success is drafting a year or 2 or 3 in advance, letting players develop so they are READY when the time comes"

To address your last point - no I don't want to reconsider that...It's exactly why I'm petrified of the Patriots in the coming years. But I also think they wasted 2-3 SB opportunities. Brady (& Manning's) window is closing, giving the Patriots another 4-5 good seasons. Even assuming they continue to hit on draft picks, they're going to have a 2 or 3 year overlap of Brady's ending and the beginning of all these young players...which is fine. But they let Samuel walk. They traded Seymour for a first rounder. You don't think he woulda made any difference the past 2 one-and-done's? Usually, I'd say what the Patriots did was genius. When you look at it on paper - they got great value in nearly every move they made. They won nearly every trade. But when your side of the trade doesn't come to fruition for another 2-3 years, and you have a 33 (?) year-old QB nearing the end of his career, you can't afford to forfeit some of the present for a better future.

 

Anyways - yeah Bill Polian has been off his game, so to speak. His 1st round pick this year (Jerry Hughes), might pan out and be the next Mathis/Freeney in a few years. But our SuperBowl window is now. If we had spent that on a bookend Offensive Tackle (say, Roger Saffold), our team would be much better. He's missed on some high draft picks. Hughes, Donald Brown, Tony Ugah, Anthony Gonzalez (although it's hard to predict 2 freak injuries). To his credit, he's found some mid-round gems, such as Collie, Garcon, Powers, Lacey, Kavell Conner, to name a few...but I can't help but wonder how good our team could be if he had hit on those picks and/or actually utilized free agency. I'm hoping he's learned how valuable off-season improvement can be, and has taken notice that he hasn't drafted well (especially OLine), and steals one of your lineman (Mankins or Light) thru free agency, because our line needs 2-3 new starters.

[IGotWorms 3,475]

To address your last point - no I don't want to reconsider that...It's exactly why I'm petrified of the Patriots in the coming years. But I also think they wasted 2-3 SB opportunities. Brady (& Manning's) window is closing, giving the Patriots another 4-5 good seasons. Even assuming they continue to hit on draft picks, they're going to have a 2 or 3 year overlap of Brady's ending and the beginning of all these young players...which is fine. But they let Samuel walk. They traded Seymour for a first rounder. You don't think he woulda made any difference the past 2 one-and-done's? Usually, I'd say what the Patriots did was genius. When you look at it on paper - they got great value in nearly every move they made. They won nearly every trade. But when your side of the trade doesn't come to fruition for another 2-3 years, and you have a 33 (?) year-old QB nearing the end of his career, you can't afford to forfeit some of the present for a better future.

 

Anyways - yeah Bill Polian has been off his game, so to speak. His 1st round pick this year (Jerry Hughes), might pan out and be the next Mathis/Freeney in a few years. But our SuperBowl window is now. If we had spent that on a bookend Offensive Tackle (say, Roger Saffold), our team would be much better. He's missed on some high draft picks. Hughes, Donald Brown, Tony Ugah, Anthony Gonzalez (although it's hard to predict 2 freak injuries). To his credit, he's found some mid-round gems, such as Collie, Garcon, Powers, Lacey, Kavell Conner, to name a few...but I can't help but wonder how good our team could be if he had hit on those picks and/or actually utilized free agency. I'm hoping he's learned how valuable off-season improvement can be, and has taken notice that he hasn't drafted well (especially OLine), and steals one of your lineman (Mankins or Light) thru free agency, because our line needs 2-3 new starters.

 

The Patriots have not made many mistakes over the past few years, but a few that they did make were quite costly. Letting Deion Branch go after the '05 season wasthe worst of those decisions. The Patriots had a very good team in '06 except Tom Brady didn't have anyone to throw the damn ball to. That was the year he had Reche Caldwell and Jabar Gaffney as his "top" targets. They barely lost to the Colts in the AFC Championship that year. If Brady had some decent targets (including Deion Branch), I think they win that Superbowl.

 

Letting Richard Seymour go has clearly hurt them in the last two playoffs. I'm not sure that they would have won last year with Richard Seymour, after all Baltimore thoroughly kicked their butts in the playoffs. But I think Seymour could've made the difference in that Jets game this year.

 

Letting Asante Samuel go probably wasn't that bright either. It took them a couple years to replace him. If the Pats had kept him they could have focused their free agency and draft efforts on another position. Maybe they'd have a decent OLB at this point.

 

Then there are the veterans they have relied on to play critical roles even though they were clearly washed up. Duane Starks in 2005 comes to mind. Derrick Burgess last year and going into this year is another example.

 

But all in all, Pats fans obviously don't have much to complain about. It's frustrating because some years (like this year and '06), the Pats end up being potential Championship contenders but they get killed by an achilles heel in the playoffs. This year it was their lack of a pass rush, in '06 it was the lack of any decent receivers. The reason its frustrating is because Pats fans go into the season KNOWING that these are going to be problems and baffled at why Belichick hasn't resolved them. But still, to be just one or two players short of a Superbowl victory is the kind of position a lot of teams would kill to be in.

[Matt Mueller 146]

I rewatched the Raiders-Pats 'tuck rule' game in the snow recently.

 

I wonder what the Pats legacy would be if that ruling, along with the snow and Vinateri, hadn't helped catapult them to their first championship.

[IGotWorms 3,475]

I rewatched the Raiders-Pats 'tuck rule' game in the snow recently.

 

I wonder what the Pats legacy would be if that ruling, along with the snow and Vinateri, hadn't helped catapult them to their first championship.

 

What exactly is your point?

[Matt Mueller 146]

What exactly is your point?

 

The Pats had this dynasty, 3 titles in a row, and it all got started on a very lucky break.

 

They obviously gained experience from that first run that helped them in the next 2 years.

 

I was wondering how the course of NFL history might have changed had the 'tuck rule' gone the Raiders way.

[IGotWorms 3,475]

The Pats had this dynasty, 3 titles in a row, and it all got started on a very lucky break.

 

They obviously gained experience from that first run that helped them in the next 2 years.

 

I was wondering how the course of NFL history might have changed had the 'tuck rule' gone the Raiders way.

 

You could probably say that about any team that ever won the Superbowl. "If this were different and that were different, then maybe they wouldn't have won it." So I guess I just don't see what your point is. Did the Pats catch a couple of lucky breaks along the way to their first Superbowl win? Yes. But doesn't nearly every Superbowl winning team catch a lucky break here and there? Luck is often what separates the best from the other serious contenders.