The Good Ole Days?

by plubius on Oct 25, 2009 5:24 AM EDT Comment 9 comments

Does anyone miss the New England Patriots of the start of the decade? I do.

The ones who were perennial underdogs, had no individuals coveted by fantasy owners, and had some young, scrawny, late-round quarterback leading them? (Rather than the 14-point favorites, fantasy superstars, and the golden-boy QB married to Gisele)

The ones who had a defense of unheralded no-names, who somehow, despite being slower, older and underpaid, found a way to make that huge stop, after spending the entire game bending-but-not-breaking? (Rather than a young, exuberant, hard-hitting defense led by the exciting-but-inexperienced Meriweather-Mayo-Wilfork)

The ones who just managed to stay in the game, mount a couple fourth-quarter drives, then hit a field goal as the clock expired to win the game? (Rather than forty-five point leads before halftime and "F-U" touchdowns)

Don't take me wrong, I enjoy seeing the offense firing on all cylinders. But throughout 2007, I felt like I was watching a team that was somehow different from the one I had fallen in love with, the one that had won three Super Bowls by the slightest of margins.

It was like witnessing a teenage guy who had just lost his V-card, and had a whole new perspective on the world and how to live in it. While he may have enjoyed the next few months prancing around with every girl he met, scoring at will, eventually he just run out of steam. Stamina finally failed him. That was our 2007 Patriots, a team that discovered how much fun scoring was, and how sometimes you can lose yourself, and the Super Bowl, within it.

So when the Patriots started this year winning less-often, and in a far-uglier fashion, I got excited. I thought we might be back to early-decade form, with a team that knew how to get the job done in whatever fashion was necessary.

I was ready for another Super Bowl.

Then last week, 59-0, happened. Brady came back in the second half for the "F-U" score. And my worst nightmare is now back.

Do I have any reason to be worried?

The views expressed in these FanPosts are not necessarily those of the writers or SBNation.

0 recs | Comment 9 comments | Add comment

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

This is where it’s hard to fight perception with reality.

It is a common practice – not just for the Patriots but for any team in that situation – to put their starting QB back in for the first series in the second half to see if the opponent changed up it’s defense or came up with a completely different plan. That is to protect the backup from getting killed out there. Last week, the Titans didn’t do anything to change it up so Brady came out after the first series. He played only 35 minutes in a 60 minutes game.

And 59-0 didn’t just happen. The Patriots were ready to prove the nay-sayers wrong, that the offense could connect and could score. Remember Brady overthrowing Moss and Welker the first quarter of the season? Remember that the Patriots offense hadn’t had a passing play over 40 yards before that? The Titans didn’t come to play at all.

This year is NOTHING like 2007.

Keep the faith!

by Marima on Oct 25, 2009 9:21 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

There’s also the prospect of a comeback. If you could score 40 points in the first half, your opponent could theoretically score 40 in the second half. Big comebacks are rare but they’re not impossible, so you send out your starters for the start of the second half for all the reasons you just cited plus the two added ones that doing so keeps them warmed up if the opponent starts showing signs of life and that having your starters stay in a little longer makes it that much harder for the other team to come back.

I’d also like to add that there is no such thing as a “F-U touchdown” in the third quarter. Further, I seem to recall guys like Kyle Eckel scoring the so-called “F-U touchdowns” in 2007. But what was he, the eleventeenth string running back? What do people want, for the Pats to start taking fans out of the stands and put them in the game against lousy teams?

by RSNexile on Oct 25, 2009 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Remember the 2006 Colts game – ugh. Granted the Titans of last week are not the Colts, but still… stranger things have happened. And if the Pats quit in the second quarter, the Titans began to mount a comeback, the Pats would be labeled as arrogant for taking their starters out so early. It’s a no-win to the always-looking, ever-present critics.

It’s also a bit like telling your daughter not to get quite so many A’s in her classes because then the boys won’t date her and the girls will be too jealous to be her friend, except this isn’t anything personal, this is professional football.

Keep the faith!

by Marima on Oct 25, 2009 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sounds like my sisters, only our parents liked that so many boys wouldn’t date them because they were “too smart.”

And they were smart enough to know that anyone who didn’t like them because they were “too smart” was too stupid to be worth their time. Kind of like the ever-present critics.

by RSNexile on Oct 25, 2009 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This isn't coming from a critic...

Die-hard Pats fan since the age of 6 here, just reminding you.

I just think that the playoffs require you to be able to win the close games, and I think the Patriots who were so successful earlier this decade had a mold more suitable for championship runs. It is fun to watch the offense in sync, though.

I still believe in our team this year, I just don’t want to see repeat-2007 (on the plus side, our defense is much younger and shouldn’t break down later in the year this time around).

by plubius on Oct 25, 2009 2:08 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs