Good Times, Bad Times.
by BabeParilli on Jun 10, 2009 11:52 AM EDT
22 comments
The first half of this decade saw the New England Patriots win 3 of 4 Superbowls. This, a feat accomplished by only one other team, ever. Being done in the cap/free agency era only added to the amazement of this prodigious achievement. Times were good indeed for a Patriot fan.
The second half of this decade has seen something entirely different. A keystone cops flurry of turnovers in Denver, a complete and historic collapse in the AFC Championship game, a ridiculous scandal perfectly suited to discredit despite lack of substance, a lackluster effort in THE game that would cap the greatest season ever played - topped off with a "man bites dog" fluke of an unhappy ending and a lost season of injuries upon injuries and THE injury. These have been the more recent plight of this team.
So, the question is why. Why has this team changed from the charmed, consummate winner, into the perfect storm of cursed failure?
I would appreciate any theories to be submitted. I have mine. It's a simple one.
Too many people on the field with gaudy jewelry. Too little hunger. Perhaps that tends to rear it's ugly head when it gets to finding out who wants it more. I recall an interview with Matt Light after the unlikely Superbowl loss to the Giants. He said he felt sorry for the guys who had not yet won a ring. I feel sorry for Matt Light.
I think this tells it all. What do you think?
The views expressed in these FanPosts are not necessarily those of the writers or SBNation.
0 recs |
22 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Good discussion topic!
FP’d and slightly edited to add distribution tags, etc…
Blogger at SBNation's Patriots blog, Pats Pulpit
by MaPatsFan on Jun 10, 2009 2:31 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Good question, but I have a different theory
It’s just hard to get to the Super Bowl – physically and mentally , and even harder to win it once a team makes it there.
A couple of missed plays, a key player having a bad game at the worst possible time, the flu, losing players and coaches, too many injuries to overcome and not enough depth to cover, a worthy opponent having the best game of their lives, the pressure of a perfect season (?)… the list of reasons, or excuses, continues in hindsight as to why the Patriots have been continual contenders, but haven’t won a Super Bowl since 2005.
There are enough players who weren’t on the 3 SB Patriots teams, and a bit more that were part of 1 or 2 of them, but I don’t get the same feeling you do about complacency being what has cost the team any more championships.
Keep the faith!
by Marima on Jun 10, 2009 3:07 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't lump all of these together.
The Super Bowl loss was against a team we had played twice already (once preseason with Welker and Moss playing). They devised a pretty good plan to slow the offense. They kept Tom off the field and wore the defense down. In that instance, I think they were hungry – to do something that had never been done before. If we had gone against Green Bay instead, they wouldn’t have had the hands-on familiarity, and I think we would have killed them.
Injuries happen all of the time, whether you’re hungry or not (Shawn Crable and Pierre Woods don’t have rings).
When you are looking for a new coach, are you going to get one from the best team in the league or the worst? In 2000, no one was hunting coaches in New England.
When you are looking for veteran players, you look for guys with proven success. New England makes them successful.
I guess what I’d point to more is being a victim of being successful. It has a price. Look at the moves that division teams make in the offseason, and see if they aren’t targeting the Patriots over say the Bills.
The success they’ve had while being in everyones sights is phenominal.
by SlotMachinePlayer on Jun 10, 2009 6:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
an example of this is with Heath Evans in New Orleans
One reason New Orleans head coach Sean Payton wanted Heath Evans was because he was coming from the Patriots organization:
“Evans is a guy that has won a lot of games, and any time that you can get a player from a successful organization, I think it adds to your team chemistry, " Payton said. “He’s a good leader, and he’s a guy that works hard. He does all the little things right. I think that’s all a plus.”
And Heath Evans painted a “team-first” picture of his years in New England, which didn’t sound like there was much complacency:
“If you’re going to win football games in this league, you got to have 53 guys that could care less about individual recognition. Guys who say, ‘Hey, I’m going to bust my butt for the sake of the team, I’m going to bust my butt for the sake of this practice, for the sake of this play.’ That’s what it comes down to. The ‘Patriot way’ was a very humble, selfless attitude, and I see that same thing here.”
Keep the faith!
by Marima on Jun 10, 2009 7:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"the perfect storm of cursed failure"
Are you insane?
As Mr. Sloan always says, there is no "I" in team, but there is an "I" in pie. And there's an "I" in meat pie. Anagram of meat is team... I don't know what he's talking about. --Shaun of the Dead
by JohnHannahRules on Jun 10, 2009 9:23 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I don't agree with that wording...
I know the Patriots have come up short the last few years, and it sucks to lose when you’re that close to reaching another Super Bowl ring, but other teams would kill right now to have the type of success we enjoy here in New England.
The goal is to win a Super Bowl each season, but to expect a title each year is crazy. It’s just not gonna happen. When Robert Kraft bought the franchise, his goal was to field a competitive team year in and year out (i.e. be in the hunt even if you don’t reach the top). I think he’s done that, and we should be proud of the team for what they’ve accomplished these last few years rather than calling their seasons cursed failures.
by NESilver on Jun 10, 2009 9:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not really.
I doubt any fans would like to see their team win 18 straight games in a season, including playoffs, and lose the final game. I can’t imagine anything worse than that, except maybe Detroit’s fate last season. Things like that will be the brunt of jokes for ETERNITY. It will make the highlight reel of screwups of all-time (and already has).
Correct me if I’m wrong, but no team in history has blown a bigger lead in the playoffs than the Pats did to the Colts in 2006.
Will people ever stop snickering about spygate?
So, if you want to call these things coming up short, be my guest. It’s a hell of a lot better way to look at it than the reality of it. I prefer not to kid myself.
by BabeParilli on Jun 11, 2009 3:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Different look at 2007
I doubt any fans would like to see their team win 18 straight games in a season, including playoffs, and lose the final game. I can’t imagine anything worse than that, except maybe Detroit’s fate last season. Things like that will be the brunt of jokes for ETERNITY. It will make the highlight reel of screwups of all-time (and already has).
I don’t agree with this view of 2007. It was an experince like no other and I actually don’t think I would trade it for a 12-4 record with a superbowl victory to seal the deal. In 2017 when only nerds and Colts fans will remember their superbowl victory of 2006 everybody will still remember that Patriots season.
by hythlodaeus on Jun 11, 2009 8:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely agree with you
It was an overwhelming disappointment to say the least, losing the SB, but it’s a shame and revisionist history to throw away or discount the entire season because of it. I especially notice this when viewing highlight clips of some games from 2007 from NFL Network. Immediately, the excitement and awe always come rushing back. It truly was a unique season and I wouldn’t trade that part of Patriots history for the world (and don’t take that to mean that I’m okay with losing the SB, I’m not.)
Keep the faith!
by Marima on Jun 11, 2009 9:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No.
Are you? But I do appreciate your apparent concern for my mental health. Thanks pal.
Perhaps you think the worst choke in playoff history or blowing the chance to finish the greatest season ever known should be described as “falling a little short”. That’s a little too “rose colored glasses” for me.
Perhaps you can spin for me how these things could be considered successes.
by BabeParilli on Jun 11, 2009 3:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure.
In a league where the margin between winning and losing is razor thin (unless you are the Lions), the sustained achievement of this team is not a “perfect storm of failure.” In the past 10 years, the franchise has more wins, more playoff wins and more playoff appearances than any other team.
This in spite of the fact that their success relative to the rest of the league means that every year they lose a key player or two to free agency and a coach or two to the job market.
If the franchise didn’t obviously try to improve itself each year — through that free agent market and by promoting from within to fill the coaching vacancies — I might be more concerned that complacency had some institutional root on the team. But there aren’t that many players left on the team who were there for SB win one.
If anything, I’d say that since their last super bowl victory, the team has struggled to find the special chemistry needed to make it through the whole gauntlet of the playoffs, not due to complacency but because leaders have shuffled in and out.
Their sustained success (yes, success) has meant that they’ve played more football over the last five years than any other team. In a game where the average career is 3 years and the average player lives only to his mid-fifties due to the pounding and abuse, this means that the team that lost the super bowl to the Giants was very simply tired. In other words, success breeds fatigue.
Finally, if you need a Super Bowl victory to define success, then every franchise in the league is essentially a failure, since none of them have won more SB’s than they have played seasons. If you’re successful enough to make the playoffs, unless you do win the SB, your season ends in a loss. Picking out three playoff losses and describing that as “the perfect storm of failure” is idiotic, especially when we’ve been gifted with the literally perfect example of what that really is: the persistent bumbling of the franchise in Michigan.
I wouldn’t trade 18-1 to be a fan of a team that enters each season hoping to break .500 and maybe compete for the division title. Losses are losses, and there’s no way to put a shine on the turd they laid against the Giants, the Colts or the Broncos in those years. But if this was a group of complacent players, they would never have been on those fields to begin with.
And no, I’m not concerned with your mental health.
As Mr. Sloan always says, there is no "I" in team, but there is an "I" in pie. And there's an "I" in meat pie. Anagram of meat is team... I don't know what he's talking about. --Shaun of the Dead
by JohnHannahRules on Jun 11, 2009 8:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You say
“in the last 10 years”. My point is the first half of that was awesome, the second half dismal. If you want to lump it together feel free. But “lately” has not been so great.
I like the Pats having a real shot year after year. But the way they have failed in recent years is very frustrating. It’s not just a matter of getting beat by better teams. It’s beating themselves. And that just ain’t acceptable to me, nor should it be to any Pat’s fan.
by BabeParilli on Jun 12, 2009 1:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
outsider perspective
IMO mathematically talking it is randomness or as most people would say “shit happens” or possiblely “Luck”. Also IMO the early Pats and late Pats were not much deferent in there performances. Just outcomes.
I look at it this way. The SB wins and the one loss were just one crucial play away from a different outcome. You know a tipped pass. A shotgun snap that slipped. Aholding penalty seen or unseen on third down.
Another aspect of randomness is playing the giants twice late in your perfect season minus one and Brady’s injury. Both were an ideal set up to alet down.
And agreed: the Pats are a victim of success. The wildcat debut was against the Pats not the Bills. And you better believe that the Colts, Steelers, Ravens ect. are bringing their A game at you.
by steelerstyle on Jun 10, 2009 9:39 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Reminds me of '07
When the Ravens were calling their game against the Pats their own version of the Super Bowl.
by NESilver on Jun 10, 2009 9:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tom's Kayak
FYI he jumped overboard when he heard Woodley and Harrison were aboard.
by steelerstyle on Jun 10, 2009 9:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
One difference
Now, I’m definitely not complaining about our success over the last four years – the 2007 season was a magical once-in-a-lifetime experience, no matter the ending.
But if there is one difference between early success and late failure, it is the balance between offense and defense. The superbowl wins were driven by great play by Brady and a superb defense, but ever since Brusci’s stroke the offense has had to carry the load IMO. I won’t say that a championship cannot be won with offense first, but it is one reason that I think improving the defense from last year is almost as important as having Brady back.
by hythlodaeus on Jun 11, 2009 1:58 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Good point.
The defense has been more the problem than the solution since the glory years. But they did hold the Giants pretty well, while the greatest offense in history didn’t do much, and they didn’t turn the ball over 5 times in Denver.
by BabeParilli on Jun 11, 2009 3:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Defense wins championships.
I’ve seen alot more teams win the Super Bowl with a top 5 defense and a top 20 offense, than I have a top 5 offense and a top 20 defense.
Actually, the perfect picture of that was last year’s Super Bowl. Arizona was an offensive giant and a defensive midget. The Steelers were the defensive giant, with enough offense to get it done.
Defense yields positive time off possession, turnovers, field position, and the opportunity to control your own destiny. We didn’t have that in the last Super Bowl. We were one dropped Asante Samuel interception, one Rodney Harrison pass defended, one D-line sack away from winning the game, but it never happened.
by SlotMachinePlayer on Jun 12, 2009 8:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe
But using last year might not be the best example. Not many teams get to the Super Bowl with a 9-7 record. The Cards just pretty much stank. Actually, last year was one of the most mediocre seasons in memory.
But certainly a bad defense will just about never win a championship, no matter how good the offense. There is so much parity in the league now it’s often getting down to who is hot at the right time.
by BabeParilli on Jun 16, 2009 1:47 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Karma
Cheating to get rings brings bad karma. Plus you used up all of the good will from the football gods with the “tuck rule” game.
Steelers rule, Phins are cool,
Pats and Jets blow donkeys
by closetphinphan on Jul 10, 2009 3:32 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Pats Pulpit
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
