I hate to feel this way about my team just like anyone hates to feel this way about their team but it really DOES seem like when the Pats win, they do just enough to get it done. Except for a few playoff games and the very rare Cincy-type games they seem to do just enough to get the win. Take this season for example. They "came back" to beat the Bills 19-17 and they "held on" to beat the Jets 24-17. They "held on" to beat the Dolphins 20-10. I've heard it said before and I agree that it seems like the Pats play up to or down to the level of competition they are supposedly facing when they win. Take this year for instance. They played intense, hard football against Cincy and beat them pretty badly and Cincy is considered stiff competition in the NFL by many. Then they played the Dolphins, who have been pretty bad this year so far and have a lot of negativity toward them and they barely pulled out a 20-10 win. Before the Dolphins game many Pats fans and other fans thought that the Pats would CREAM the Dolphins because of how they played against Cincy and how the Dolphins played against the Texans. I knew better than this but I still can't help but feel like the Pats have ALWAYS been inconsistent. They're up, they're down, they're up, they're down. Hell, even their "dynasty" Super Bowl wins have only been by 3 points. I guess I shouldn't complain because a win is a win but why can't they play like they played against Cincy every week? People would be comparing the Pats to the Bears if they could do that.
It is frustrating as a fan when your expectations aren't even remotely what is put forth on the field. It's not a matter of effort thankfully, but they almost seem to be in preseason mode still. It's especially hard to see Brady struggle to get on track with his WRs. I think the OL is partly to blame. In the Buffalo game he was getting rushed way too much & in this last game against Miami he had way too many ball batted down by the DL. Defensively the frustration is with the continued mistackling in the secondary. It seems like players would rather be seen on highlights for making a big hit than simply limiting the opponent's YAC.
The Patriots' "Dynasty" is a product of intangibles. It's a combination of skill, luck and good timing. Think about it... 1. Tuck rule game against the Raiders. 2. Mike Martz too stupid to run the ball in the Superbowl 3. Brady gets hurt in the playoffs and Bledsoe has to get them to the big game 4. Panthers take the lead and then KICK THE BALL OUT OF BOUNDS on the kickoff! It truly is a game of inches... The Packers should be 3 - 2 right now, but instead they are 1 - 4. They can't close out games or win the "intangibles" battles that the Patriots do. So consider yourself lucky... It's always more fun to back your team when they're winning than when they're frustrating the $hit out of you.
No sorry I'm not going to buy that all the success we've had is soley based on luck. That's just the kind of crap we've had to hear after SB36. I think that theory went out the window when we won 38 & was not even a thought after 39. The Patriots success is directly related to Bob Kraft's dedication to bringing in smart football minds & demanding they only take on the highest of quality character players. The kind of players that think of the team 1st & themselves 2nd. Does this result in a sacrifice of talent? Of course, but in the end they've established a winning tradition so how can anyone argue with it? Has their been some lucky bounces? Sure, but you make it seem like everything had to go their way in order to win when in reality they faced plenty of adversity with each of their SB runs.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Pack Attack)</div><div class='quotemain'>The Patriots' "Dynasty" is a product of intangibles. It's a combination of skill, luck and good timing. Think about it... 1. Tuck rule game against the Raiders. 2. Mike Martz too stupid to run the ball in the Superbowl 3. Brady gets hurt in the playoffs and Bledsoe has to get them to the big game 4. Panthers take the lead and then KICK THE BALL OUT OF BOUNDS on the kickoff! It truly is a game of inches... The Packers should be 3 - 2 right now, but instead they are 1 - 4. They can't close out games or win the "intangibles" battles that the Patriots do. So consider yourself lucky... It's always more fun to back your team when they're winning than when they're frustrating the $hit out of you.</div> You have Brady and Bledsoe mixed up there but other than that you're pretty much right. The Pats have been lucky with a combination of different things over the last 5 years. However, there is a lot of skill and "team 1st" attitudes around the Pats organization. Their bragging rights have been that they've won when it mattered the most except for the loss to Denver in the playoffs. Many teams envy a 10-1 playoff record. I know that the Pats are off to a "shaky" 4-1 start if you can even call 4-1 "shaky" but I won't lose faith in them unless they start a losing streak in the most important games. Until then I'll be optimistic even if I see Brady tying a noose around his neck, lol. Like Pats fans love to say, anything is possible under Brady and Belichick.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Pack Attack)</div><div class='quotemain'>The Patriots' "Dynasty" is a product of intangibles. It's a combination of skill, luck and good timing. Think about it... 1. Tuck rule game against the Raiders. 2. Mike Martz too stupid to run the ball in the Superbowl 3. Brady gets hurt in the playoffs and Bledsoe has to get them to the big game 4. Panthers take the lead and then KICK THE BALL OUT OF BOUNDS on the kickoff! It truly is a game of inches... The Packers should be 3 - 2 right now, but instead they are 1 - 4. They can't close out games or win the "intangibles" battles that the Patriots do. So consider yourself lucky... It's always more fun to back your team when they're winning than when they're frustrating the $hit out of you.</div> You forgot 5. Mcnabb autochoking in big game
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Pats_Fan420)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Pack Attack)</div><div class='quotemain'>The Patriots' "Dynasty" is a product of intangibles. It's a combination of skill, luck and good timing. Think about it... 1. Tuck rule game against the Raiders. 2. Mike Martz too stupid to run the ball in the Superbowl 3. Brady gets hurt in the playoffs and Bledsoe has to get them to the big game 4. Panthers take the lead and then KICK THE BALL OUT OF BOUNDS on the kickoff! It truly is a game of inches... The Packers should be 3 - 2 right now, but instead they are 1 - 4. They can't close out games or win the "intangibles" battles that the Patriots do. So consider yourself lucky... It's always more fun to back your team when they're winning than when they're frustrating the $hit out of you.</div> You have Brady and Bledsoe mixed up there but other than that you're pretty much right. The Pats have been lucky with a combination of different things over the last 5 years. However, there is a lot of skill and "team 1st" attitudes around the Pats organization. Their bragging rights have been that they've won when it mattered the most except for the loss to Denver in the playoffs. Many teams envy a 10-1 playoff record. I know that the Pats are off to a "shaky" 4-1 start if you can even call 4-1 "shaky" but I won't lose faith in them unless they start a losing streak in the most important games. Until then I'll be optimistic even if I see Brady tying a noose around his neck, lol. Like Pats fans love to say, anything is possible under Brady and Belichick.</div> He didn't get Brady and Bledsoe mixed up. Brady got hurt in the Championship Game against the Steelers and Bledsoe came in and led them to victory. Pack Attack made a lot of great points with this post.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>No sorry I'm not going to buy that all the success we've had is soley based on luck.</div> Did I say anywhere in my post that the Patriots have been lucky? Re-read it. The first thing I said was "skill." You can't be a shit team and just luck into Superbowl wins. If I had to write the post over again, I would also add "good coaching" to my list.
Building on what PA said, Luck IMO is preparation meeting opportunity so good coaching is inferred. Pats fans; just enjoy the ride. It seems the good teams do whatever is necessary to win and by whatever means necessary. One year, the pats are a running team, the next they rely on the pass. The constant is; the defense is real good. I believe that is what Belichick's pal is trying to do in S Florida. Elsewhere, Dale mentioned how quick fixes often don't work out. So true. I would rather have a dynasty like the 49ers did back in the day or a run of dominance like the Pats have currently then a meteoric rise like the Rams did who pretty much have settled back into mediocrity.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I would rather have a dynasty like the 49ers did back in the day or a run of dominance like the Pats have currently then a meteoric rise like the Rams did who pretty much have settled back into mediocrity.</div> The difference between the 2 dynasties is that the Pat's is during an era where every owner is on an equal playing field when it comes to spending. Therefore a greater importance is placed on player personel decisions & teams can't just dominate with their wallets. Which is exactly what you see in MLB despite the fact that the Yankees haven't won in 7 years. lol I just had to throw that in there.
I agree. Not because I am a fins fan, but, it did not feel completely right to call the Pats a dynasty...though in this era they (for all intents) are. Yeah. how bout them Yankees? No subway series -- that almost ensures I'll watch the WS.
I don't think New England is done. I say this because Brady is pretty young. Belichek could coach 10+ years if he wanted and Maroney is really an up and coming. Top that off they've locked up Seymour and I believe Wilfork and Samuel are next in line. I think they can contend this year and beyond. Also keep in mind there right in the thick of the things in the AFC. The Colts look weaker this year because they can't stop the run or run the ball very well for that matter. So New England is right up there with Denver, Baltimore, San Diego, Indy, and Cincy in my opinion.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (blackadder)</div><div class='quotemain'>Building on what PA said, Luck IMO is preparation meeting opportunity so good coaching is inferred. Pats fans; just enjoy the ride. It seems the good teams do whatever is necessary to win and by whatever means necessary. One year, the pats are a running team, the next they rely on the pass. The constant is; the defense is real good. I believe that is what Belichick's pal is trying to do in S Florida. Elsewhere, Dale mentioned how quick fixes often don't work out. So true. I would rather have a dynasty like the 49ers did back in the day or a run of dominance like the Pats have currently then a meteoric rise like the Rams did who pretty much have settled back into mediocrity.</div> Yeah, kind of like the Bucs in '02. If Gruden and the gang could have kept that team intact the Pats would never have had a dynasty. That was a bad ass team.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (blackadder)</div><div class='quotemain'>I agree. Not because I am a fins fan, but, it did not feel completely right to call the Pats a dynasty...though in this era they (for all intents) are. Yeah. how bout them Yankees? No subway series -- that almost ensures I'll watch the WS.</div> The Yankees suffered a blow yesterday, didn't they? Apparently the pitcher was only a pilot for 7 months or so.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Pats_Fan420)</div><div class='quotemain'>I hate to feel this way about my team just like anyone hates to feel this way about their team but it really DOES seem like when the Pats win, they do just enough to get it done. Except for a few playoff games and the very rare Cincy-type games they seem to do just enough to get the win. Take this season for example. They "came back" to beat the Bills 19-17 and they "held on" to beat the Jets 24-17. They "held on" to beat the Dolphins 20-10. I've heard it said before and I agree that it seems like the Pats play up to or down to the level of competition they are supposedly facing when they win. Take this year for instance. They played intense, hard football against Cincy and beat them pretty badly and Cincy is considered stiff competition in the NFL by many. Then they played the Dolphins, who have been pretty bad this year so far and have a lot of negativity toward them and they barely pulled out a 20-10 win. Before the Dolphins game many Pats fans and other fans thought that the Pats would CREAM the Dolphins because of how they played against Cincy and how the Dolphins played against the Texans. I knew better than this but I still can't help but feel like the Pats have ALWAYS been inconsistent. They're up, they're down, they're up, they're down. Hell, even their "dynasty" Super Bowl wins have only been by 3 points. I guess I shouldn't complain because a win is a win but why can't they play like they played against Cincy every week? People would be comparing the Pats to the Bears if they could do that.</div> i read an article about this one time... the guy who wrote calls it the "kitchen sink theory". Where sometimes good teams sace thier best plays, best Defensive schemes and such for the big games...
I think in the AFC, they always play to win...No "saving" plays for other games...You have to win every game you can in the AFC..
