Super Bowl 2006

[pucksntape]

Come on Bruce, you know the answer to this.

The Packers had a real dynasty in the 60's and this wannabe dynasty the Patriots have going is clearly the greatest occurrance in the history of the NFL - so you and your Packer loyalties are a threat and an insult to anyone who's ever cheered for the Boston/New England Patriots. How dare you disrespect and question anything that is said about the current champions.

The Emperor has no clothes on! The Emperor has no clothes on!

How can you not say the Pats are a dynasty? My bias aside, 3 of the last 4 Superbowls the New England Patriots earned a victory. Again, I am astonished and amused by the lack of respect - then again this lack of respect is how the Pats win games tas it seems teams underestimate New England.

FWIW, I think they will peter-out in '05, but find a nice groove in '06. EIther way kid, dynasty.

[GreatLakerMohawk]

How can you not say the Pats are a dynasty? My bias aside, 3 of the last 4 Superbowls the New England Patriots earned a victory. Again, I am astonished and amused by the lack of respect - then again this lack of respect is how the Pats win games tas it seems teams underestimate New England.

FWIW, I think they will peter-out in '05, but find a nice groove in '06. EIther way kid, dynasty.

Thanks for replying to my sarcasm-ladened post - you're all aces with me bucko.

[Bruce Ciskie]

How can you not say the Pats are a dynasty? My bias aside, 3 of the last 4 Superbowls the New England Patriots earned a victory. Again, I am astonished and amused by the lack of respect - then again this lack of respect is how the Pats win games tas it seems teams underestimate New England.

I have a few thoughts, not that you care what I think (already established):

1. To me, a dynasty involves more than three championships in four years. Listen to your own quarterback. Tom Brady, always classy and willing to deflect praise, had the best answer to the dynasty questions after the game: "Maybe someday". If they keep this up for another three or four years (not winning a title every year, but making the playoffs and making their presence felt in the playoffs). YMMV, but I'm a worthless hack Packer fan, so I'm automatically wrong.

2. I can't help that it does seem that teams have not prepared properly to play New England. I think it's ridiculous to think that anyone in the NFL (except maybe the Jets :D) would underestimate a team as powerful and well-coached as the Patriots...and only a crazily biased Patriots fan would ever seriously think that this is happening.

3. How does denying the presence of a "dynasty" where one doesn't feel there is a "dynasty" present indicate any lack of respect? I've said all the good things I'm capable of saying about this team. They are the model franchise right now in the NFL. But that doesn't change my definition of "dynasty" and my standards for a dynasty, and the Patriots don't meet them under any circumstances after a four-year run. It doesn't mean I don't respect them. It means I'm not going to define this run with a word that doesn't yet fit what's been accomplished.

[shrader]

Thanks for replying to my sarcasm-ladened post - you're all aces with me bucko.

So then the emperor does have clothes on? Rover's going to be very disappointed.

[Kenny L Parker]

2. I can't help that it does seem that teams have not prepared properly to play New England. I think it's ridiculous to think that anyone in the NFL (except maybe the Jets :D) would underestimate a team as powerful and well-coached as the Patriots...and only a crazily biased Patriots fan would ever seriously think that this is happening.

Sorry to differ with you, but it's a bit silly to think that this is still the case. In 2001? Sure. Last year? Maybe a little. This year? Absolutely not. The Patriots are simply the best team, and this long-time Jets fan can assure you that the Patriots are very prominently on the radar screen.

[Rover]

So then the emperor does have clothes on? Rover's going to be very disappointed.

:confused:

[Bruce Ciskie]

The Patriots are simply the best team

No one denies that. However, I subscribe to the TMQ philosophy on the Patriots. I can figure out what other teams are going to try to do against them. If I can figure it out, they sure as hell can. And if the Patriots know what you are going to try doing against them, they will be well-prepared to stop it.

To win against them, you have to be unpredictable, efficient, always attacking, and, to a certain extent, lucky.

[DavidB]

Say what you want, but that move has worked out for Buffalo. It's not like his $3.9 million cap figure is killing the Bills.

If by "worked out for Buffalo" you mean fail to make the playoffs yet again, then I agree.... :D

[Stillings]

No one denies that. However, I subscribe to the TMQ philosophy on the Patriots. I can figure out what other teams are going to try to do against them. If I can figure it out, they sure as hell can. And if the Patriots know what you are going to try doing against them, they will be well-prepared to stop it.

To win against them, you have to be unpredictable, efficient, always attacking, and, to a certain extent, lucky.

TMQ???

[Jason A]

TMQ???Easterbrook's Tuesday Morning Quarterback. He has suggested this year, and I think he makes a decent case, that teams seem to prepare for New England based upon what the Patriots did the week before. But since the Pats put together very different game plans from week to week, that strategy doesn't work, and he thinks teams should instead throw out New England's tendencies and just game plan based on their strengths.

[Bruce Ciskie]

TMQ???

Go here. (http://www.superbowl.com/news/story/8173992)

[Stillings]

Easterbrook's Tuesday Morning Quarterback. He has suggested this year, and I think he makes a decent case, that teams seem to prepare for New England based upon what the Patriots did the week before. But since the Pats put together very different game plans from week to week, that strategy doesn't work, and he thinks teams should instead throw out New England's tendencies and just game plan based on their strengths.

The trouble is that the Pats have a bizarre ability to take away the essence of a team's strenghts: see Indy with no YACs; Rams with a dented up Marshall Faulk; Pitt with no running yards. My $0.02.

This is a good column though. Few reporters and analysts actually break down the X's and O's. They just make broad brush statements that anyone could make....and are so often wrong. I was thoroughly unimpressed with the quality of football reporting and analysis this year. Every now and then Salisbury will draw up a play, but few and far between. Simms could probably do it more if they let him???? I digress.

[Bruce Ciskie]

The trouble is that the Pats have a bizarre ability to take away the essence of a team's strenghts: see Indy with no YACs; Rams with a dented up Marshall Faulk; Pitt with no running yards.

St. Louis: Martz would only throw to Faulk because he thought that was where he could attack the Patriots. When it failed, he refused to run the ball when the Patriots were basically giving up the run to St. Louis.

Indianapolis: The Patriots sat on the short routes because they knew the Colts wouldn't throw deep in the bad weather. The Colts refused to throw deep, thus playing right into the Pats' hands.

Pittsburgh: The Steelers refused to throw on first down until they were almost hopelessly behind. There were two exceptions, and Ben Roethlisberger hit on both passes for big yardage. The predictable play-calling, again, played right into the Patriots' hands, as they stacked the line to stop the run on the early downs, and they dared Ben to throw into heavy coverage on the passing downs.

[Stillings]

St. Louis: Martz would only throw to Faulk because he thought that was where he could attack the Patriots. When it failed, he refused to run the ball when the Patriots were basically giving up the run to St. Louis.

Indianapolis: The Patriots sat on the short routes because they knew the Colts wouldn't throw deep in the bad weather. The Colts refused to throw deep, thus playing right into the Pats' hands.

Pittsburgh: The Steelers refused to throw on first down until they were almost hopelessly behind. There were two exceptions, and Ben Roethlisberger hit on both passes for big yardage. The predictable play-calling, again, played right into the Patriots' hands, as they stacked the line to stop the run on the early downs, and they dared Ben to throw into heavy coverage on the passing downs.

You can't stop everything. The Pats are great at taking the first option away and daring the opponent to try and beat them "left handed."

[thecomicbookguy]

No one denies that. However, I subscribe to the TMQ philosophy on the Patriots. I can figure out what other teams are going to try to do against them. If I can figure it out, they sure as hell can. And if the Patriots know what you are going to try doing against them, they will be well-prepared to stop it.
How is this really any different from any other great team in the history of the NFL?

To win against them, you have to be unpredictable, efficient, always attacking, and, to a certain extent, lucky.
How many teams are capable of doing this though? And how many can be unpredictable enough to overcome the adjustments the Pats make during the game?

[Bruce Ciskie]

You can't stop everything. The Pats are great at taking the first option away and daring the opponent to try and beat them "left handed."

Agreed.

But there aren't a lot of one-dimensional teams in the NFL. The Eagles knew that New England was crippled in the secondary, so they tried to throw the ball. But New England was compensating for their weakness, and they practically asked the Eagles to run the ball. How did Andy Reid respond? Out of 36 offensive plays in the second half, the Eagles called exactly five running plays.

[Rover]

Agreed.

But there aren't a lot of one-dimensional teams in the NFL. The Eagles knew that New England was crippled in the secondary, so they tried to throw the ball. But New England was compensating for their weakness, and they practically asked the Eagles to run the ball. How did Andy Reid respond? Out of 36 offensive plays in the second half, the Eagles called exactly five running plays.

The problem for teams is that the Pats front guys are great at stopping the run. Its not like they have to bring the secondary up to fill the running lanes. When your players can take care of the run themselves without any help, it leaves few openings in the secondary unless Earthwind Moreland is back there. Fortunately he was inactive for the playoffs.... :cool:

[Jason A]

Fauria is there for his hands (not his blocking). I think Watson can replace him nicely. Plus early in the year Graham caught a ton of passes. All of this adds up to Fauria's expendability (is that a word???). Remember, it is not all salary cap, these guys are taking up valuable roster spots. The Pats do not carry a whole lot of specialists....I do remember a few stories earlier in the year that said the Patriots wanted to throw out of a lot more two-tight-end sets this year but scrapped that idea when Watson went down. So that could be a consideration here -- but with a new offensive coordinator, it might not be.

A Graham-Watson-Fauria TE combo would take up about $3.5 million of salary cap room and three of the spots on the 53-man roster. I'm not sure if that's likely but I think it's possible.

[Stillings]

Agreed.

But there aren't a lot of one-dimensional teams in the NFL. The Eagles knew that New England was crippled in the secondary, so they tried to throw the ball. But New England was compensating for their weakness, and they practically asked the Eagles to run the ball. How did Andy Reid respond? Out of 36 offensive plays in the second half, the Eagles called exactly five running plays.

The Pats shut down the running game early. They weren't going to come from behind by doing something which they know won't work. The Pzts secondary only became vulnerable when Wilson left the game injured.

[Jason A]

Patriots COO Andy Wasynczuk is leaving for Harvard Business School: http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2005/02/11/boston_sampler/

Among the many hats Wasynczuk wore for the Krafts: He ran the old Sullivan Stadium when the Krafts bought it out of bankruptcy in 1989, and led the campaign to sell a new stadium to the Town of Foxborough. He oversaw the day-to-day construction of the new stadium for two years and then played a key role in negotiating the naming rights. He also managed the player negotiations and the team's salary cap before Bill Belichick and Scott Pioli took over.

In other news, we should know any day now whether New England will retain Eric Mangini and promote him to defensive coordinator; he is reportedly considering signing with Crennel in Cleveland or Saban in Miami.