PDA

View Full Version : My Take on the Patriots



TheDOCTORdre
02-07-2005, 08:12 PM
They are not that great. Yes I realize they have won 3 out of the last 4 Super Bowls, and nearly everyone in America is calling them a dynasty. But when you look at it, the pats arent as good as theyre are made out to be, they dont even compare with the true past dynasties. You nay wonder why I dont like the Patriots, well heres why.
1. They have won there 3 championships by 3 points, and in two of those games the Patriots did not win, but their opponents lost the game. Last year SB XXXVIII, after a game tying touchdown, the Carolina kicker, kicked the ensuing kickoff out of bounds and gave NE the ball at the 40 yd line givingthe Patriots a short field to work with to get in position for the game winning field goal. This year the Eagles managed the clock poorly, and did not take advantage of key opportunities in the 1st half. The Patriots didnt win either of these games, and I have a point that I will make about SB XXXVI later on.
2. Bill Belichick is not the greatest coach of all time. If he was we might as well rename it the "Bellichick trophy" instead of the Lombardi. Also, if he was the greatest, when he coached the Browns they would made at least a little noise in the playoffs. But you say Belichick didnt have great players with the Browns like he does now, but that brings me to my next point...
3. New England does have good players. Anytime I watch ESPN, they make out the Patriots to be some team that has players that shouldnt even be playing the game. They are in the NFL, they're not many pushovers in the NFL, these people are good players, its not a bunch of guys off the streets. But when they aren't underestimating the players they are doing something that brings me to my next point.
4. They make Tom Brady out to be the best thing since sliced bread. He's not, hes a good quaterback, but not this Messiah figure that analyst make him out to be. When looking on ESPN before the game, they had a breakdown of each postion and the strengths and weaknesses of each player at that position. However, when analyzing Brady, they failed to mention any weaknesses. He is a good qb but I hardly believe he is perfect. Also everyone is talking about how Brady played a great game, yet no one hardly mentions the fumble he had that could have been costly, although it wasn't it could have been.
5. The Patriots are not the class act that media proclaims them to be. A real classy bunch would have had no comment when Freddie Mitchell made his boneheaded statements. They wouldnt call Colt's kicker Mike VanderJERK"(even though he is) they would keep their mouth shut. Also, they would not have mocked T.O.'s Eagle dance if they really were the class act that I always hear of.
6. I told ya'll I had a point for Super Bowl XXXVI and heres what it is, "SB XXXVI was rigged" There is no factual evidence to support this but I believe it is strongly possible. THe Patriots start of the season 0-2. The Tuesday of Week 2 in the NFL September 11th occurs. For that year the Super Bowl was in New Orleans, and the theme was supposed to be Mardi Gras. After September 11th the theme was change from Mardi Gras to a Patriotic theme. Bledsoe went out with an injury and here comes former 6th round draft pick Tom Brady to replace him as QB. After thei 0-2 start the Pats finish the regular season with an 11-5 record and a first round playoff bye. In their divisional game, it appeared that the Pats dream season had come to an end. With 1:47 left in regulation and the Pats trailing 10-13, Raiders defender Charles Woodson knocks the ball out of Brady's hand and the ball is recovered by the Raiders, GAME OVER, or so we thought. IMO Belichick would have never challenged the play but since it was inside of 2 minutes the play was challenged from upstairs. When the referee reviewed the play he reversed the call based on the "tuck" role. No one had ever heard of the tuck rule before, and IMO the league was looking for any rule in the books that would have ensured the Patriots victory. The Pats would tie the game with a field goal in win it in OT by a count of 16-13. After defeating the Steelers in the AFC Championship game the Pats dream season landed them in the SB. Everywhere you looked you saw red white and blue , and at midfield there was an emblem of the United States to go with the whole Patriotic theme of the SB. Everyone kept saying that it is only fitting for the Patriots to win the Super Bowl after all America had been through, the Pats were 14 point underdogs and but everyone kept saying how the Pats were going to pull it out in some sort of poetic justice be a symbol of America's power to overcome. There was no doubt in my mind that the game had been decided by a higher power.
To compare the New England Patriots so called dynasty to the true dynasties of the past is a joke. The Pats wouldn't come close to giving these teams a decent game. Yes they have done a good job, but they are nowhere near the caliber of team as the 60's Packers, 70's Steelers, 80's 49ers and the 90's Cowboys. Thats just my opinion though

Bullaholic
02-07-2005, 08:57 PM
Dre, I think you make some good points. However, I think you may be speaking from the standpoint of a disappointed fan of another team that did not make it to or win the Superbowl. That is understandable. There is one big factor about the Patriots which I think makes them a "great" franchise. They have accomplished all that they have in the age of free agency. It is almost impossible to keep together the nucleus of a winning team, players and coaches, for more than 2 seasons, let alone 3 or more and compile the playoff record that the Pats own. I think the "dynasties" of the past such as the Packers, Steelers, and Cowboys had much more of the "old" qualities such as team loyalty and cohesion than any of the modern teams, and we will probably not ever see any team in the "modern" era which will be comparable enough to judge according to the old "dynasty" criteria, as too much has changed in pro football in order to be able to compare "apples" and "oranges".

big daddy russ
02-07-2005, 09:12 PM
Dre, there are some good points in there, but I'd have to disagree with one: Belicheck is the best coach the NFL's seen since Lombardi. Not Shula, not Noll, not Walsh, not JJ... none of them can compare. Belicheck's not only a manager, like most of today's coaches, but he actually coaches his players. If they have a bad habit, he coaches them to fix it and on top of that his coordinators and him all come up with great game plans that suit the talent that they have... which isn't much.

CRHSeagle
02-07-2005, 09:20 PM
LOL, whenever the won the first of three Super Bowls I would also say thought that it was a coincidence that an 0-2 team turned things around with their 2nd string qb to win the Super Bowl.

sahen
02-07-2005, 09:21 PM
im not belittling ur opinion Dre, however i think that the NFL isnt rigged...teh 2001 theory is nice and all but if that was ever found out, and in my opinion if it was rigged it would be found out because people would make too much money to spill that conspiracy, the NFL would crash...also the NFL i dont think would risk that because they would loose sooooo much money when poeple found out they have been rigging games...i know u can argue this the other way by saying they make a lot of money by rigging the games however i dont believe the Patriots have a huge fan base a la the Cowboys, 49ers, and Steelers....if the NFL were rigging games they would win every year and the Pats wouldve just had 2001 not 2002 and 2004 too....

also the reason why the Pats r considered to have no superstars is that they have no flashy players....like T.O. or Keyshawn...players in todays league are only considered superstars if they cause a stir now and then...T.O. wasnt a superstar before he took a sharpie to a ball..he was a superstar caliber player but did not have the hype around him...i havent seen any of the Patriot players do something on that scale, as a matter of fact i haven't seen them call anyone out so they consider them mediocre players being they have no hype around them, however if u compare stats they are very good...its a mircale the GM and Manager of the Pats could keep that team together, however they built their team on team players which are in it for the championships not the personal glory, or atleast that is how it apperas so thats y they r really good...

PhiI C
02-07-2005, 09:26 PM
Giving the Patriots credit for keeping the team in today's salary cap and free agency is overrated. Remember other teams went after Dallas assistant coaches and free agents right after their first two super bowl wins because Dallas blew out Buffalo twice. There was a sense of urgency because Dallas had such an easy time. The Patriots were not invaded right away because as Dre has said they barely won and didn't dominate the games like Dallas. However now that they have done it three times the invasion has started with two assistant coaches and start looking for players to be leaving.

Bullaholic
02-07-2005, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by PhiI C
Giving the Patriots credit for keeping the team in today's salary cap and free agency is overrated. Remember other teams went after Dallas assistant coaches and free agents right after their first two super bowl wins because Dallas blew out Buffalo twice. There was a sense of urgency because Dallas had such an easy time. The Patriots were not invaded right away because as Dre has said they barely won and didn't dominate the games like Dallas. However now that they have done it three times the invasion has started with two assistant coaches and start looking for players to be leaving.

That's true, Phil--- AFTER free agency started. Look back into Dallas Cowboy history, Phil, and I think you will find nearly all the starters of those early Dallas Cowboy teams retired as Cowboys. We know a guy named Landry was the coach for 29 years. Tex Schramm and the rest of the mangement team changed very little in those 29 years, also. Not the same case in the modern NFL for any team, so I feel the credit given to the Pats for keeping a winning team and coach together for 11 playoff victories and 3 Superbowls is very significant.

Old Tiger
02-07-2005, 09:42 PM
They function together as a team and are a better team instead of a bunch of stars put together.

Ranger05
02-07-2005, 10:08 PM
Originally posted by TheDOCTORdre
6. I told ya'll I had a point for Super Bowl XXXVI and heres what it is, "SB XXXVI was rigged" There is no factual evidence to support this but I believe it is strongly possible. THe Patriots start of the season 0-2. The Tuesday of Week 2 in the NFL September 11th occurs. For that year the Super Bowl was in New Orleans, and the theme was supposed to be Mardi Gras. After September 11th the theme was change from Mardi Gras to a Patriotic theme. Bledsoe went out with an injury and here comes former 6th round draft pick Tom Brady to replace him as QB. After thei 0-2 start the Pats finish the regular season with an 11-5 record and a first round playoff bye. In their divisional game, it appeared that the Pats dream season had come to an end. With 1:47 left in regulation and the Pats trailing 10-13, Raiders defender Charles Woodson knocks the ball out of Brady's hand and the ball is recovered by the Raiders, GAME OVER, or so we thought. IMO Belichick would have never challenged the play but since it was inside of 2 minutes the play was challenged from upstairs. When the referee reviewed the play he reversed the call based on the "tuck" role. No one had ever heard of the tuck rule before, and IMO the league was looking for any rule in the books that would have ensured the Patriots victory. The Pats would tie the game with a field goal in win it in OT by a count of 16-13. After defeating the Steelers in the AFC Championship game the Pats dream season landed them in the SB. Everywhere you looked you saw red white and blue , and at midfield there was an emblem of the United States to go with the whole Patriotic theme of the SB. Everyone kept saying that it is only fitting for the Patriots to win the Super Bowl after all America had been through, the Pats were 14 point underdogs and but everyone kept saying how the Pats were going to pull it out in some sort of poetic justice be a symbol of America's power to overcome. There was no doubt in my mind that the game had been decided by a higher power.
To compare the New England Patriots so called dynasty to the true dynasties of the past is a joke. The Pats wouldn't come close to giving these teams a decent game. Yes they have done a good job, but they are nowhere near the caliber of team as the 60's Packers, 70's Steelers, 80's 49ers and the 90's Cowboys. Thats just my opinion though ok first off y in the heck would the opposing team throw the game they can make up as many rules as possible but the other team still has to stop them and i promise u the raiders didnt try and lose and the rams i know for a fact didnt try to lose the super bowl. I had heard of the tuck rule before that game had ever happened so u can't really say that the game was "RIGGED" thats my opinion but dre u did have some very good point i agreed with all of them except #6

Ranger05
02-07-2005, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by CRHSeagle
LOL, whenever the won the first of three Super Bowls I would also say thought that it was a coincidence that an 0-2 team turned things around with their 2nd string qb to win the Super Bowl. all i have to say is look at what Kurt Warner did with the rams

Leopards,class of 75
02-07-2005, 10:49 PM
Originally posted by Tiger WR
They function together as a team and are a better team instead of a bunch of stars put together. I agree with you 100% Tiger WR. That was how the Super Bowl # 27 Cowboy's were, no stars but they were a complete team. The Patriots deserve credit where credit is due, winning 3 out of the last 4 Super Bowls.