The Patriots

[SYB]

Collins was a budding star on the Pats. Like so many Patriots, they go to other teams, underwhelm, & get overpaid. Patrick Chung suddenly got good again back on the Patriots.

Who overpaid for Trey Flowers?

He went to the Lions and ex-DC Patricia. He should do just fine there.

[Guest]

I'm not really sure what your point here is. They also always have a winning record outside of the division as well. The Patriots win a lot of games.

I think the 2004 Patriots are probably a top 5-10 all-time team in the SB era and the best team we've seen in the 21st century. They went 14-2 in an absolutely loaded AFC in the regular season. Even the AFC East you are dismissing produced a 10-6 and 9-7 team that year outside of the Patriots. They then held a Colts team that featured an historic offense and held it to 3 points. They then went on the road into Pittsburgh and dominated a 15-1 Steelers team with an elite defense. Even though the Pats only beat the Eagles by 3, it should be noted that they were pretty much in control of that game the entire second half and the score was 24-14 until the Eagles scored a very late touchdown with under 2 minutes left.

And even if you don't think that the 2004 Patriots weren't among the greatest SB winners, what does that matter? 18 years ago the Patriots were a franchise just like the Chargers who had never won a SB before. Now they have passed franchises like the Cowboys and 49ers in SB wins and have tied the Steelers. The Patriots in 18 seasons have won 6 SB's, gone to 9 SB's and 13 AFC Championship games. Even the other elite franchises like the Cowboys, 49ers and Packers have won as much in the entire SB era as the Patriots have in 18 years. If you really don't think anything is notable or special about that, I don't know what to tell you. You'll never see a team be so consistently excellent ever again.

My point is that outside of the Patriots, the AFC East has been garbage in most of the seasons during the Brady/Belichick era. This has contributed to the ability of the Patriots to secure numerous first round byes during that time period. Without a first round bye, the Brady/Belichick Patriots have not reached even a single Super Bowl.

That the Patriots have never had any truly dominant Super Bowl winners matters because it tends to demonstrate my position that the Patriots are overrated--much more right place, right time, right circumstances involved than truly dominating greatness. That is not to say that they have not been very good for a long period of time. They have been. It is merely that they are somewhat overrated.

And no, I do not consider the 2004 Patriots to be an all time great team. I also find it pretty probative of my point that you found only one cherry picked example that is not even all that impressive. Yes, they beat the Steelers by 2 TDs, but they also lost to the Steelers by two TDs. It just happened that they won the game that occurred in the playoffs. It certainly does not make that Patriot team some sort of dominant team relative to that Steeler team. Split results with identical margins make the teams appear pretty close. That is not the image of one team being dominatingly superior to another.

Finally, I never saw the Patriots be "consistently excellent" at all. You are talking about a team that went a full decade between Super Bowl wins.

They have been consistently very good, almost always having a playoff caliber team, but they have benefitted tremendously from playing in a division that has been impressively weak over the years, which has allowed them to secure playoff byes with regularity. Further, in 6 of their 9 Super Bowl appearances, the Patriots had home field advantage throughout the playoffs. So, they have needed fewer wins to reach the Super Bowl and mostly played at home. This gave them a built-in advantage over teams of a similar caliber.

I disagree with your take in that I think I will see a truly great team in the future, better than the Patriots ever were. It is just a matter of time. I would love for that team to be a Chargers team.

[boltfanseattle]

My point is that outside of the Patriots, the AFC East has been garbage in most of the seasons during the Brady/Belichick era. This has contributed to the ability of the Patriots to secure numerous first round byes during that time period. Without a first round bye, the Brady/Belichick Patriots have not reached even a single Super Bowl.

That the Patriots have never had any truly dominant Super Bowl winners matters because it tends to demonstrate my position that the Patriots are overrated--much more right place, right time, right circumstances involved than truly dominating greatness. That is not to say that they have not been very good for a long period of time. They have been. It is merely that they are somewhat overrated.

And no, I do not consider the 2004 Patriots to be an all time great team. I also find it pretty probative of my point that you found only one cherry picked example that is not even all that impressive. Yes, they beat the Steelers by 2 TDs, but they also lost to the Steelers by two TDs. It just happened that they won the game that occurred in the playoffs. It certainly does not make that Patriot team some sort of dominant team relative to that Steeler team. Split results with identical margins make the teams appear pretty close. That is not the image of one team being dominatingly superior to another.

Finally, I never saw the Patriots be "consistently excellent" at all. You are talking about a team that went a full decade between Super Bowl wins.

They have been consistently very good, almost always having a playoff caliber team, but they have benefitted tremendously from playing in a division that has been impressively weak over the years, which has allowed them to secure playoff byes with regularity. Further, in 6 of their 9 Super Bowl appearances, the Patriots had home field advantage throughout the playoffs. So, they have needed fewer wins to reach the Super Bowl and mostly played at home. This gave them a built-in advantage over teams of a similar caliber.

I disagree with your take in that I think I will see a truly great team in the future, better than the Patriots ever were. It is just a matter of time. I would love for that team to be a Chargers team.

Me thinks you underestimate the team with 9 SB appearances and 6 rings. But yes, they have benefitted. Think about it though, to be consistently excellent, don't you need to somewhat benefit from a weak division? Name a consistently excellent team and maybe I'll understand your point.

[Bolts223]

My point is that outside of the Patriots, the AFC East has been garbage in most of the seasons during the Brady/Belichick era. This has contributed to the ability of the Patriots to secure numerous first round byes during that time period. Without a first round bye, the Brady/Belichick Patriots have not reached even a single Super Bowl.

That the Patriots have never had any truly dominant Super Bowl winners matters because it tends to demonstrate my position that the Patriots are overrated--much more right place, right time, right circumstances involved than truly dominating greatness. That is not to say that they have not been very good for a long period of time. They have been. It is merely that they are somewhat overrated.

And no, I do not consider the 2004 Patriots to be an all time great team. I also find it pretty probative of my point that you found only one cherry picked example that is not even all that impressive. Yes, they beat the Steelers by 2 TDs, but they also lost to the Steelers by two TDs. It just happened that they won the game that occurred in the playoffs. It certainly does not make that Patriot team some sort of dominant team relative to that Steeler team. Split results with identical margins make the teams appear pretty close. That is not the image of one team being dominatingly superior to another.

Finally, I never saw the Patriots be "consistently excellent" at all. You are talking about a team that went a full decade between Super Bowl wins.

They have been consistently very good, almost always having a playoff caliber team, but they have benefitted tremendously from playing in a division that has been impressively weak over the years, which has allowed them to secure playoff byes with regularity. Further, in 6 of their 9 Super Bowl appearances, the Patriots had home field advantage throughout the playoffs. So, they have needed fewer wins to reach the Super Bowl and mostly played at home. This gave them a built-in advantage over teams of a similar caliber.

I disagree with your take in that I think I will see a truly great team in the future, better than the Patriots ever were. It is just a matter of time. I would love for that team to be a Chargers team.

In that 10 years they never were worse than 10-6, they appeared in 5 AFC Championship games and 2 SB's. They were one miracle catch away from completing the first 19-0 season ever. Super Bowl or not, that's pretty consistent and pretty excellent.

In all but one of those scenarios the Pats were able to secure HFA because they were just the best team in the AFC that year. 2011 is the ONE exception I'll give you. And even then that had more to do with them getting to play the NFC East and AFC West that year (Two very weak divisions in 2011) rather than just the AFC East being weak.

You act as if winning 6 SB's and going to 9 in 18 seasons in no big deal. Literally no other franchise has ever done it. The 49ers run in the 80's/90's is the closet thing we've ever seen to this and they still won 1 less and went to 4 less SB's than the Pats did. And before you mention the AFC East being weak: The Falcons, Saints and Rams were far from tough competition during those years.

The Patriots just own the entire NFL.

In this decade the Patriots are 47-13 against the AFC East and 76-24 against the rest of the NFL. That's very very close to the same winning %.

That isn't to mention some intangible factors that causes a certain degree of ineptitude among the other 3 franchises. The Pats act as a buffer for those teams every winning the division. When you get last place that very often leads to your HC being fired, and those other 3 teams basically take turns getting last place. They go through HC's like crazy and its very difficult to establish stability.

Think of the AFC North as the opposite: With the Browns acting as the buffer that prevents the other teams from getting last place (Up until this year at least).

You had 3 HC's that have been employed for over a decade.

It goes back to my earlier point: If the Pats were in the AFC West the Broncos probably aren't able to attract Peyton Manning and the Chiefs aren't able to attract Andy Reid. Having the Pats in your division inherently keeps you down because high profile coaches and players that want to win will not want to have to get through the golden standard of the NFL every year to do so.


I hope so too. They have a good chance to be a very consistent team for as long as Tolesco is the GM. We have to hope that Stick pans out or we find another guy to be our franchise QB once Rivers retires. That being said if we can get 1 SB I'll be happy, let alone 6.

[Boltjolt]

these guys are killing me/it.... first they got Bundchen, and now in the draft they add the Ham Sandwich and Yodny, and here they go again in FA.... both She!ton and Co!!ins.

don't pay much attention to other teams, and.... can't say I won't have an eye out for the aforementioned in the seasons to come.

Meh, those guys have been available since March and no takers. It's like us signing Square for depth.
Suh wasn't a big signing by TB imo. Suh has been pretty mediocre lately.

[like54ninjas]

Again

FUCK the patsies!

:2cents:

:ygdr:

:idgaf:

[wu-dai clan]

Meh, those guys have been available since March and no takers. It's like us signing Square be for depth.
Suh wasn't a big signing by TB imo. Suh has been pretty mediocre lately.

Agreed, Boltjolt.
They have Vita Vea and Suh.
This protects Devin White, yes.
But they also have no pass rush inside or out, something McCoy would have provided a little of.
And here's the biggie...no Derwin James...by their choice.

[beachcomber]

Meh, those guys have been available since March and no takers. It's like us signing Square be for depth.
Suh wasn't a big signing by TB imo. Suh has been pretty mediocre lately.

so.... Square = Shelton and Nwosu = Collins ??

[Panamamike]

so.... Square = Shelton and Nwosu = Collins ??

i'll take nwosu over collins now, let alone looking at career stage/age. Square and shelton are both just dl depth pieces. I don't get your shelton love. There is a reason he hasn't stuck anywhwere and at his age just signed a bottom of the barrel contract with very low guaranteed money. There are teams with need and cap space, and he got peanut shells.

[Boltnut]

Agreed, Boltjolt.
They have Vita Vea and Suh.
This protects Devin White, yes.
But they also have no pass rush inside or out, something McCoy would have provided a little of.
And here's the biggie...no Derwin James...by their choice.

I woodn't be so sure. They have JPP on the outside. And with Suh and Vita Vea occupying IOL, they'll probably bring Devin White up the middle on blitzes. He could go crazy. He could be DROY...

[Boltnut]

It all depends on when JPP comes back from injury...

[SYB]

I woodn't be so sure. They have JPP on the outside. And with Suh and Vita Vea occupying IOL, they'll probably bring Devin White up the middle on blitzes. He could go crazy. He could be DROY...

His broke ass neck may have an effect on that. Box 'o' rocks that one...