Super Bowl 2006

[shrader]

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.

What position did he coach?

[Jason A]

What position did he coach?The defensive backs.

[Rover]

You know, I may take some heat for this, but I'm really not going to miss Weis. I understand that the team didn't need to score a lot of points to win during his tenure, but I always thought he was too conservative given the weapons that he had.

Anyway, I wonder who'll be challenging the Pats next year? The Colts seem to have the same issues, which is great offense/poor defense. I'll be interested if they sign some guys or try to improve through the draft.

Jets I'm not too worried about. Chad Pennington = Neil O'Donnell. :D Okay, maybe he's not that bad, but he doesn't exactly worry me back there.

San Diego seems like a one hit wonder, but they do have talent at QB and RB so maybe we'll meet them in the playoffs.

Pittsburgh interests me the most. Do they learn from their mistakes this year or does Roethlisberger go through a sophomore slump? Yes its easy to say, but I imagine they'll be the biggest challenge.

Then there's always Buffalo to contend with.... :eek: :cool: ;)

[shrader]

Then there's always Buffalo to contend with.... :eek: :cool: ;)

JP Losman will make the Bills a perennial powerhouse. :D

[Stillings]

You know, I may take some heat for this, but I'm really not going to miss Weis. I understand that the team didn't need to score a lot of points to win during his tenure, but I always thought he was too conservative given the weapons that he had.

Anyway, I wonder who'll be challenging the Pats next year? The Colts seem to have the same issues, which is great offense/poor defense. I'll be interested if they sign some guys or try to improve through the draft.

Jets I'm not too worried about. Chad Pennington = Neil O'Donnell. :D Okay, maybe he's not that bad, but he doesn't exactly worry me back there.

San Diego seems like a one hit wonder, but they do have talent at QB and RB so maybe we'll meet them in the playoffs.

Pittsburgh interests me the most. Do they learn from their mistakes this year or does Roethlisberger go through a sophomore slump? Yes its easy to say, but I imagine they'll be the biggest challenge.

Then there's always Buffalo to contend with.... :eek: :cool: ;)

The Pats were like 5th in the league in scoring, and played in a tough defensive division.

[Rover]

The Pats were like 5th in the league in scoring, and played in a tough defensive division.

Umm....again I base my observations by watching the games. IMO they had the ability to put up more points. I'm not saying they needed to blow everybody out, but with a receiving corps like they have, along with a top 5 RB and a stellar QB, I'm hoping they put some games away a bit earlier next year. They certainly have the ability to score when they need to (witness last year's Super Bowl, for example).

[Stillings]

Umm....again I base my observations by watching the games. IMO they had the ability to put up more points. I'm not saying they needed to blow everybody out, but with a receiving corps like they have, along with a top 5 RB and a stellar QB, I'm hoping they put some games away a bit earlier next year. They certainly have the ability to score when they need to (witness last year's Super Bowl, for example).

They scored a lot of points, among the tops in the league, in fact. Interesting that you call him conservative, most fans and journalists think he was very creative and if anything felt that he was too aggressive (trying to make a name for himself to become a head coach).

[Rover]

They scored a lot of points, among the tops in the league, in fact. Interesting that you call him conservative, most fans and journalists think he was very creative and if anything felt that he was too aggressive (trying to make a name for himself to become a head coach).

You hate to argue with success, and the Pats sure as hell have been successful. This year's Super Bowl was indicitive of what I'm talking about. Their inability to score points in the first half resulted a lot from shoddy play calling IMO. I think the Pats are in a lot of close games because 1) their D is obviously very good at not giving up the big play that loses the game (Miami being the only exception - the offense lost the Pittsburgh game on too many turnovers) and 2) the offense rarely jumps on a team and just buries them. I'm hoping the new coordinator does that next year.

[Stillings]

I thought it was shotty play, not the calls: 2 offsides penalties and a fumble!

But you're right, the D often put them in a position to bury the opponent (4 TOs from Philly) and they don't cash in enough. That game never should have been close, but give some credit to the Eagles D.

[scheids316]

The Star Tribune said today that next year Tice will be calling the plays for the Vikings next year, and his 2nd option will be Culpepper calling them.

I think we all now know who will take home the trophy next year. :D ;)

[thecomicbookguy]

I think we all now know who will take home the trophy next year. :D ;)

The Patriots? ;)

[BCeagle]

I was listenning to the radio this morning, I heard some team, I think it was Seattle offered to interview Scott Pioli for a GM position. It was not reported whether he wanted to go for the interview but I heard the Patriots gave him permission to talk to Seattle.

Hopefully, he stays with the Patriots. We can't lose him right now. We don't want another Grier-like player personal person like him right now when things are good. Scott Mangini is another potential assistant coach being wooed by another team, Miami.

[CLS]

I was listenning to the radio this morning, I heard some team, I think it was Seattle offered to interview Scott Pioli for a GM position. It was not reported whether he wanted to go for the interview but I heard the Patriots gave him permission to talk to Seattle.

Hopefully, he stays with the Patriots. We can't lose him right now. We don't want another Grier-like player personal person like him right now when things are good. Scott Mangini is another potential assistant coach being wooed by another team, Miami.
Ya' mean Eric Mangini, right? Well one piece of good news for Pats fans:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=1990178

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/football/nfl/02/12/bc.fbn.patriots.mangini.ap/index.html

Now we need to hope that Pioli isn't interested.

[snively]

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.I don't much care what you call them -- (Super Bowl champions will probably suffice).

But it's worth pointing out that it is virtually impossible for any team in the salary cap era to ever be a "dynasty" again, given how you've chosen to define that word. How convenient for a Packers fan ("given that there can't be any more true dynasties, we were one of the last ones".

What would it take to satisfy you -- 4 crowns in 5 years? 6 in 8? 8 in 10? The latter two ain't ever gonna happen under salary cap parity. And if any team manages to do the former, it'll be the Pats.

And how could that happen, if it does? This leads us to your second specious contention: teams generally lose to New England because they "haven't prepared properly" to face them.

It goes without saying that teams prepare for the Pats at least as hard as they do for anyone else. When they get outcouched (thus out-"prepared") by Belichik et al -- as the vast majority of opponents will -- they've lost not because the Pats (coaches factored in) are, on balance, simply better. Instead, they've lost because they've chosen not to "prepare" adequately. Here again, you've chosen to make an argument that's true by (your own) definition. (Duh -- being outcoached and outplayed pretty much MEANS you weren't properly "prepared", eh? :D ).

Here's another bold prediction: in the 50's and early 60's, the Canadiens had a lock on all the great francophone hockey talent in the NHL. This won't ever happen again... simply because it can't, as the signing/drafting process has changed fundamentally from what it was 40-50 years ago. A similar, and equally obvious, dynamic underlies your own flawed and self-serving analysis of NFL dynasties.

[Stillings]

I don't much care what you call them -- (Super Bowl champions will probably suffice).

But it's worth pointing out that it is virtually impossible for any team in the salary cap era to ever be a "dynasty" again, given how you've chosen to define that word. How convenient for a Packers fan ("given that there can't be any more true dynasties, we were one of the last ones".

What would it take to satisfy you -- 4 crowns in 5 years? 6 in 8? 8 in 10? The latter two ain't ever gonna happen under salary cap parity. And if any team manages to do the former, it'll be the Pats.

And how could that happen, if it does? This leads us to your second specious contention -- one that is, on its face, laugh out loud absurd. Teams generally lose to New England because they "haven't prepared properly" to face them.

Let's see -- who do we play next week? Looks like it's the defending SB champs, with just two losses (32 wins) since September of 2003. OK -- obviously not much prep work needed for this opponent, then.

It goes without saying that teams prepare for the Pats at least as hard as they do for anyone else. When they get outcouched (thus out-"prepared") by Belichik et al -- as the vast majority of opponents will -- they've lost because they've chosen not to "prepare" adequately. So here again, you've chosen to make an argument that's true by (your own) definition.

Here's another bold prediction: in the 50's and early 60's, the Canadiens had a lock on all the great francophone hockey talent in the NHL. This won't ever happen again.

Brazen, outspoken and courageous as that assertion is, you can take it to the bank. Simply because it can't, as the signing/drafting process has changed fundamentally from what it was 40-50 years ago.

A similar, and equally obvious, dynamic underlies your own flawed, self-serving analysis of NFL dynasties.

I don't think there has ever been a football dynasty. But if there have been dynasties, then the Pats are surely one of them.

[Jason A]

Peter King: Pats Won't Release Law; Trade Likely

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/peter_king/02/13/mmqb2/index.html

[pucksntape]

I don't think there has ever been a football dynasty. But if there have been dynasties, then the Pats are surely one of them.

During last night's Pro-Bowl, the announcers had the New England Patriots listed as a dynasty. Yes Ciskie, the Pats are a dynasty. :D

They also listed:

Green Bay 1960's 2 SB :)
Pittsburg 1970's 4 SB :)
Dallas 1980's 3 SB :)
San Francisco 1990's X SB :)
New England 2000's 3 SB :) :D :cool:

I am sure some people are still angry of the domination by the New England Patriots int he NFL this century, but then again when you are from New England, superiority is commonplace so I understand why others suffer inferioirty complexes.

[Bruce Ciskie]

I don't much care what you call them -- (Super Bowl champions will probably suffice).

Then why did you waste your time with the rest of my post? You don't care, yet the remainder of your post makes it sound like you do indeed care (which is fine...just admit it :)).

But it's worth pointing out that it is virtually impossible for any team in the salary cap era to ever be a "dynasty" again, given how you've chosen to define that word. How convenient for a Packers fan ("given that there can't be any more true dynasties, we were one of the last ones".

There were at least two (maybe three) that came after the Packers' run in the 60s. And I'd say that the runs of Pittsburgh and San Francisco were at least equally impressive, if not more.

The Patriots can indeed be a dynasty. And if I had to wager on it, I'd bet that they would certainly reach my hard-to-define-in-words criteria. I have made that very clear all along.

This leads us to your second specious contention: teams generally lose to New England because they "haven't prepared properly" to face them.

It goes without saying that teams prepare for the Pats at least as hard as they do for anyone else. When they get outcouched (thus out-"prepared") by Belichik et al -- as the vast majority of opponents will -- they've lost not because the Pats (coaches factored in) are, on balance, simply better. Instead, they've lost because they've chosen not to "prepare" adequately. Here again, you've chosen to make an argument that's true by (your own) definition. (Duh -- being outcoached and outplayed pretty much MEANS you weren't properly "prepared", eh? :D ).

Even vastly superior teams lose once in a while. But look at some of the playoff games that New England has shaved by in:

Oakland--Raiders fail to attempt to move the ball aggressively in their last two possessions, instead leaning on a defense that spent most of the second half on its heels. Raiders get away from passing game that had been successful, even though the Patriots were stacking the line to stop the run.

St. Louis--Mike Martz refuses to run the ball, even though the Patriots are playing heavy coverage packages to stop the pass.

Indianapolis--Colts refuse to take shots downfield, even though the Patriots are banged up in the secondary and jumping the short and intermediate routes.

Pittsburgh--Steelers refuse to throw the ball on first downs in the first half, even though the Patriots are stacking the line against the run and daring them to throw.

Philadelphia--Eagles run the ball five times in 36 offensive plays in the second half, even though the game wasn't out of hand until the six-minute mark of the fourth quarter.

Are the Patriots better up and down than all these teams? Absolutely. That's how they won. But I have contested (and have plenty of evidence to back it up) that the Patriots have benefited from stubborn opposing coaches who stuck with their original game plans for too long and didn't adjust to what the Patriots were doing. The Patriots coaches are geniuses because they do the little things right in preparing their players.

I do think teams will catch up to this, but I don't think it will happen anytime soon.

Really...it's not meant as a shot to the Patriots. What they're doing is working so incredibly well that I CAN'T BELIEVE no one is copying it. Maybe now that Crennell has taken his act to Cleveland, we'll start to see someone pick up on what it is that has made New England the closest thing to a dynasty that we've seen in almost a decade.

A similar, and equally obvious, dynamic underlies your own flawed and self-serving analysis of NFL dynasties.

Of course it's self-serving. I'm not a Patriots fan.

You people are incredible. Any analysis that doesn't lead to your conclusion must be biased in some way. Because we all know a ****ing Patriots fan can objectively label their favorite team a "dynasty".

Unreal. :rolleyes:

[shrader]

I don't feel like looking for the other superbowl thread since this one is on the front page still. Here is a letter to the editor from this week's buffalo news. I figured most of you will get a good laugh out of this. I just can't tell whether or not the writer is being sarcastic.

I watched the Super Bowl postgame shows and read three newspapers. Am I the only one who figured out what really happened?

Every sportswriter/reporter is glorifying Terrell Owens. Well, here's a news flash for you: Terrell Owens lost the Super Bowl for the Eagles.

Consider: The Patriots have a single weakness - the secondary is depleted by injuries and they have to play rookies and inexperienced corners and safeties. But this is a serious weakness because the Eagles have a good quarterback and good receivers. But, Owens rescues the Patriots. Owens, in another display of his typical selfish and egotistical behavior, defies the team doctor and demands that Andy Reid play him.

The Patriots suddenly have an answer to their dire secondary problem. They can get away with playing a rookie man-to-man on, allegedly, the best receiver in football today. They can do this because Owens has bullied his way into the game even though he has not recovered from his injury.

Pats coach Bill Belichick, in one of the greatest coaching coups in history, allowed the other team's prima donna to seriously hurt his own team, which enabled the Patriots to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

[shrader]

Of course it's self-serving. I'm not a Patriots fan.

You people are incredible. Any analysis that doesn't lead to your conclusion must be biased in some way. Because we all know a ****ing Patriots fan can objectively label their favorite team a "dynasty".

Unreal. :rolleyes:

Welcome to my world, Bruce.