Jump to content

wow hahhaha. look at these predictions from pats fans.


Jetkid94

Recommended Posts

My point is, the Patriots had a scary team. They had that momentum. Then the Giants came in and had their way with Brady, just beat up on them. This year Brady got hurt and who knows where it will go from here. The dynasty is over.

They will make it to the playoffs. So what? If you can't win with the team you had last year you are not winning. No more rings in this decade. I'd say sorry but I'm not.

Did you watch the Super Bowl last year? Brady put the Pats in front with a little over 2 minutes remaining. It wasn't Brady's fault that Asante Samuel dropped the game clinching INT or that Tyree caught a ball pinned to his helmet.

The Pats won 11 games this season with Matt Cassel at QB and Maroney, Harrison and Thomas on the IR.

I'm sorry mate but Pats>Jets. You guys had everything lined up this season but still found a way to not make the playoffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Did you watch the Super Bowl last year? Brady put the Pats in front with a little over 2 minutes remaining. It wasn't Brady's fault that Asante Samuel dropped the game clinching INT or that Tyree caught a ball pinned to his helmet.

The Pats won 11 games this season with Matt Cassel at QB and Maroney, Harrison and Thomas on the IR.

I'm sorry mate but Pats>Jets. You guys had everything lined up this season but still found a way to not make the playoffs.

You just proved my point. It's not meant to be anymore. You guys had your day in the sun.

Btw, No **** the Pats are better. You being better than us does not get you rings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You just proved my point. It's not meant to be anymore. You guys had your day in the sun.

Btw, No **** the Pats are better. You being better than us does not get you rings.

I'm sorry the Pats haven't won the Super Bowl since 2004. The Pats have been terrible since then. 2 AFC Championships and 1 Super Bowl appearance proves the Pats suck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry the Pats haven't won the Super Bowl since 2004. The Pats have been terrible since then. 2 AFC Championships and 1 Super Bowl appearance proves the Pats suck.

Actually, it proves that the Pats have found a way to consistently lose the big game to different opponents.

The same thing happened to the Yankees from 2002 to 2007. They had the better record during the regular season every year, but found a way to lose games to different teams in big spots. That's how a dynasty ends.

The Pats have lost to the Broncos, Colts, and Giants, and missed the playoffs because they couldn't beat the Jets at home in prime time.

Four different teams have essentially ended the Pats' run in the last 4 season. That's a sign of a team good enough to play in a big game, but find a way to lose each one. Plus, we can't ignore that the AFC title lost was the biggest choke jobs in championship game history and the SB loss was one of the biggest upsets.

The Pats are not winning a big game again with this team. From now on, no matter what, a new team will end it for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, it proves that the Pats have found a way to consistently lose the big game to different opponents.

The same thing happened to the Yankees from 2002 to 2007. They had the better record during the regular season every year, but found a way to lose games to different teams in big spots. That's how a dynasty ends.

The Pats have lost to the Broncos, Colts, and Giants, and missed the playoffs because they couldn't beat the Jets at home in prime time.

Four different teams have essentially ended the Pats' run in the last 4 season. That's a sign of a team good enough to play in a big game, but find a way to lose each one. Plus, we can't ignore that the AFC title lost was the biggest choke jobs in championship game history and the SB loss was one of the biggest upsets.

The Pats are not winning a big game again with this team. From now on, no matter what, a new team will end it for them.

The 2005 Pats had a terrible defense (thanks Mangini). The 2006 Pats had Reche Caldwell as their leading receiver. The 2007 Pats were 2 minutes away from going 19-0.

The 2008 Pats went 11-5 with Matt Cassel.

You are right. The Pats suck balls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 2005 Pats had a terrible defense (thanks Mangini). The 2006 Pats had Reche Caldwell as their leading receiver. The 2007 Pats were 2 minutes away from going 19-0.

The 2008 Pats went 11-5 with Matt Cassel.

You are right. The Pats suck balls.

How stupid are you? Serious question.

How could you read what I wrote and equate it with me saying the Pats "suck balls"?

The Pats are an excellent team, but, unfortunately, they have entered the same phase as the late 90s Cowboys, Niners, Braves, and 00s Yankees.

Stop being an idiot. Unless, of course, that's your natural state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How stupid are you? Serious question.

How could you read what I wrote and equate it with me saying the Pats "suck balls"?

The Pats are an excellent team, but, unfortunately, they have entered the same phase as the late 90s Cowboys, Niners, Braves, and 00s Yankees.

Stop being an idiot. Unless, of course, that's your natural state.

The Braves suck balls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and let me add, Gainzo ...

Just like the 90s Cowboys, Niners, Braves, and 00s Yanks, that the Pats have gone from the team that "always found the way to win the big game" to "always finding the way to lose the big game."

The 2005 Pats lost because Brady threw a back-breaking INT and Vinatieri missed a crucial FG. It had nothing to do with Mangini.

The 2006 Pats lost because their vaunted defense fell apart against the Colts in blowing an 18 point lead.

The 2007 Pats lost because that defense, yet again, failed in a crucial spot in stopping Eli Manning.

The 2008 Pats lost because that defense, again, failed in a crucial spot in stopping Favre in OT. It had nothing to do with Cassel because he played great in that game. Tied in OT, the defense came up short.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How stupid are you? Serious question.

How could you read what I wrote and equate it with me saying the Pats "suck balls"?

The Pats are an excellent team, but, unfortunately, they have entered the same phase as the late 90s Cowboys, Niners, Braves, and 00s Yankees.

Stop being an idiot. Unless, of course, that's your natural state.

You are a good poster and I like you. But.......the Cowboys haven't won a playoff game in forever. At least the Pats go to AFC Championship Games and Super Bowls.

The Cowboys, Niners and Braves didn't deal with a salary cap. The Yankees didn't either and they have proved that spending the most money doesn't even equal a World Series berth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and let me add, Gainzo ...

Just like the 90s Cowboys, Niners, Braves, and 00s Yanks, that the Pats have gone from the team that "always found the way to win the big game" to "always finding the way to lose the big game."

The 2005 Pats lost because Brady threw a back-breaking INT and Vinatieri missed a crucial FG. It had nothing to do with Mangini.

The 2006 Pats lost because their vaunted defense fell apart against the Colts in blowing an 18 point lead.

The 2007 Pats lost because that defense, yet again, failed in a crucial spot in stopping Eli Manning.

The 2008 Pats lost because that defense, again, failed in a crucial spot in stopping Favre in OT. It had nothing to do with Cassel because he played great in that game. Tied in OT, the defense came up short.

Yep. The Pats haven't won the Super Bowl since 2004. They suck even though they have won more regular season and playoff games than the Jets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep. The Pats haven't won the Super Bowl since 2004. They suck even though they have won more regular season and playoff games than the Jets.

I can't prevent you from being stupid, but I have to ask you: what did I write which equalled me saying the Pats sucked? I simply can't see it.

The Pats' failure to win the SB does not mean they suck. It simply means that they are a very good team that finds different ways to lose the big game. That happens to all dynasties in the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't prevent you from being stupid, but I have to ask you: what did I write which equalled me saying the Pats sucked? I simply can't see it.

The Pats' failure to win the SB does not mean they suck. It simply means that they are a very good team that finds different ways to lose the big game. That happens to all dynasties in the end.

You wrote this:

Actually, it proves that the Pats have found a way to consistently lose the big game to different opponents.

How have the Pats consistently lost the big game? At least the team I support makes it to the playoffs and wins a game or 2. ;)

BTW: Don't call me stupid as you are better than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are a good poster and I like you. But.......the Cowboys haven't won a playoff game in forever. At least the Pats go to AFC Championship Games and Super Bowls.

The Cowboys, Niners and Braves didn't deal with a salary cap. The Yankees didn't either and they have proved that spending the most money doesn't even equal a World Series berth.

Uhm, actually, the Cowboys AND Niners dealt with the salary cap. Do you have any idea what teams I referring to and in what era?

You were born in 1972 just like I was. Did you start watching football in 2001?

The 1990s Cowboys and Niners were greatly affected by the salary cap. They both had consistently good records after they both won their last SBs (1994 for Niners, 1995 Cowboys), but other teams started to beat them in big games which ended their runs.

The salary cap is irrelevant in this discussion for the Braves and Yankees because dynasties before them suffered the same fate. The 70s Fins are a good example. This is what happens to dynasties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You wrote this:

How have the Pats consistently lost the big game? At least the team I support makes it to the playoffs and wins a game or 2. ;)

Yes, they have. Have you not been paying attention?

In 4 straight seasons, the Pats season has been ended by 4 different teams in big games (Broncos, Colts, Giants, Jets) where the Pats either had the lead and blew it or had the chance to win and failed to do so because the defense collapsed.

Again, only a fool ignores history. And since your custom user title is "stupid bloke" I guess you are. ;)

And, I'm only using the word "stupid" because it's in your user title AND only an idiot would claim that comparing the Pats to other sports dynasties is saying they "suck."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhm, actually, the Cowboys AND Niners dealt with the salary cap. Do you have any idea what teams I referring to and in what era?

You were born in 1972 just like I was. Did you start watching football in 2001?

The 1990s Cowboys and Niners were greatly affected by the salary cap. They both had consistently good records after they both won their last SBs (1994 for Niners, 1995 Cowboys), but other teams started to beat them in big games which ended their runs.

The salary cap is irrelevant in this discussion for the Braves and Yankees because dynasties before them suffered the same fate. The 70s Fins are a good example. This is what happens to dynasties.

The 49ers cheated the salary cap much like the Broncos did back in the day. The Cowboys fell apart in 1997 and have never recovered.

Can you please name a team, apart from the Pats, that has been to 5 AFC Championship games and 4 Super Bowls since 2001?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 49ers cheated the salary cap much like the Broncos did back in the day. The Cowboys fell apart in 1997 and have never recovered.

Can you please name a team, apart from the Pats, that has been to 5 AFC Championship games and 4 Super Bowls since 2001?

The Niners and Broncos cheating the cap have nothing to do with this discussion. And you really need to brush up on your history. The Cowboys made the playoffs in 1998 and 1999 so I don't know how they fell apart in 97. It was in 2000, Aikman's last year when the bottom fell out.

Plus, you know your question is just silly. The Pats going to 5 AFC title games since 2001 doesn't change the fact that they have shown the tell-tale signs of a dynasty in its twilight.

And getting to 5 championship games in 8 years is no unique feet. The Vikings, Steelers, Niners, and Broncos did it. The Bills actually went to 5 title games in 6 years.

You really need to become a fan of the NFL rather than just being a Pats homer. Let's be honest, you started rooting for the Pats in 2001, didn't you? That can only explain your posts in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Niners and Broncos cheating the cap have nothing to do with this discussion. And you really need to brush up on your history. The Cowboys made the playoffs in 1998 and 1999 so I don't know how they fell apart in 97. It was in 2000, Aikman's last year when the bottom fell out.

Plus, you know your question is just silly. The Pats going to 5 AFC title games since 2001 doesn't change the fact that they have shown the tell-tale signs of a dynasty in decline.

And getting to 5 championship games in 8 years is no unique feet. The Bills actually went to 5 title games in 6 years.

You really need to become a fan of the NFL rather than being a Pats homer. Let's be honest, you starting rooting for the Pats in 2001, didn't you? That can only explain your posts in this thread.

SMC, why are you even bothering?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SMC, why are you even bothering?

I don't know.

I simply don't understand how anyone could read my posts above and conclude that I'm saying the Pats suck. It's ridiculous.

Plus, these Chowds act the Pats are unique team. Other teams have done what they've done in the past and others will do it in the future. And every one of those teams in the past followed the same pattern: rise, peek, decline.

The SB loss was devastating in dynasty terms because a victory would have moved the peek from 2004 to 2007. Instead, it's just another point along the slope of decline. If they can't win when they're 18-0 against a far inferior opponent, then they're not going to win another championship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know.

I simply don't understand how anyone could read my posts above and conclude that I'm saying the Pats suck. It's ridiculous.

What's even more ridiculous is that you're confused as to why he still doesn't understand your point after explaining it several different times in plain English. It's really not that hard to figure out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Pats are an amazing franchise whom I hate. Bottom line: they've been the best team of the salary cap era bar none. Looking back at whether or not they've won or lost the big games is irrelevent as a team that makes it to so many big games in so short a span is undeniably superior to most. HOWEVER. I honestly think the run is ending. Even Rome crumbled eventually. The team is a year older, the best QB in the game is now mortal, the coaching staff has been gutted year-in and year-out, particularly this year. And most of all, Troy Brown is retired. No way they can be great again without Troy Brown.

So, I have a crush on Garb. So what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhm, actually, the Cowboys AND Niners dealt with the salary cap. Do you have any idea what teams I referring to and in what era?

You were born in 1972 just like I was. Did you start watching football in 2001?

The 1990s Cowboys and Niners were greatly affected by the salary cap. They both had consistently good records after they both won their last SBs (1994 for Niners, 1995 Cowboys), but other teams started to beat them in big games which ended their runs.

The salary cap is irrelevant in this discussion for the Braves and Yankees because dynasties before them suffered the same fate. The 70s Fins are a good example. This is what happens to dynasties.

Oh, and let me add, Gainzo ...

Just like the 90s Cowboys, Niners, Braves, and 00s Yanks, that the Pats have gone from the team that "always found the way to win the big game" to "always finding the way to lose the big game."

The 2005 Pats lost because Brady threw a back-breaking INT and Vinatieri missed a crucial FG. It had nothing to do with Mangini.

The 2006 Pats lost because their vaunted defense fell apart against the Colts in blowing an 18 point lead.

The 2007 Pats lost because that defense, yet again, failed in a crucial spot in stopping Eli Manning.

The 2008 Pats lost because that defense, again, failed in a crucial spot in stopping Favre in OT. It had nothing to do with Cassel because he played great in that game. Tied in OT, the defense came up short.

First, I agree with you to a point. I have said before, the Patriots are lacking play makers on D. They have failed to get off the field or make a play in the AFC Championship Game and last year's Superbowl.

Second, I disagree to a point with your take. The salary caps first year was 1993. The Boyz and Niners were well into their dynasties by then. Plus, the salary cap was not as refined as it is today. By this I mean, the Curtis Martin poison pill type of contract has been legislated out. Signing Bonuses paid increased 500% the first five years of the cap as teams learned to manipulate the cap. The Patriots are the first dynasty born entirely during the salary cap era.

Lastly, I think the Patriots are a bit different then the Boyz and Niners in one regard.

-After the Boyz won in 1995, their wheels came off and they have not sniffed a NFC Championship game much less a Superbowl since.

-The Niners after winning in 1994, have been to one Championship game but were eliminated by the best team of that ERA (Packers).

The Patriots four years removed from their last title, have been to a Superbowl and a AFC Championship game. They are a Troy Brown dropped pass and a miracle catch from having five titles. Yes, they did not make the plays, but they are still relevant and a threat. The 2005 and 2008 teams were not good. In 2005, the D did suck and the Patriots turned the ball over 5 times in the loss to Denver. Plus, you give your Jets a little too much credit. That game did not knock them out. The Phins beating the Chargers and the Patriots losing was the biggest difference in losing the tie breakers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's even more ridiculous is that you're confused as to why he still doesn't understand your point after explaining it several different times in plain English. It's really not that hard to figure out.

True. My bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, I agree with you to a point. I have said before, the Patriots are lacking play makers on D. They have failed to get off the field or make a play in the AFC Championship Game and last year's Superbowl.

Second, I disagree to a point with your take. The salary caps first year was 1993. The Boyz and Niners were well into their dynasties by then. Plus, the salary cap was not as refined as it is today. By this I mean, the Curtis Martin poison pill type of contract has been legislated out. Signing Bonuses paid increased 500% the first five years of the cap as teams learned to manipulate the cap. The Patriots are the first dynasty born entirely during the salary cap era.

Lastly, I think the Patriots are a bit different then the Boyz and Niners in one regard.

-After the Boyz won in 1995, their wheels came off and they have not sniffed a NFC Championship game much less a Superbowl since.

-The Niners after winning in 1994, have been to one Championship game but were eliminated by the best team of that ERA (Packers).

The Patriots four years removed from their last title, have been to a Superbowl and a AFC Championship game. They are a Troy Brown dropped pass and a miracle catch from having five titles. Yes, they did not make the plays, but they are still relevant and a threat. The 2005 and 2008 teams were not good. In 2005, the D did suck and the Patriots turned the ball over 5 times in the loss to Denver. Plus, you give your Jets a little too much credit. That game did not knock them out. The Phins beating the Chargers and the Patriots losing was the biggest difference in losing the tie breakers.

On the points you disagree, the first being the salary cap: so what? Seriously. Okay, the Pats are the first team to do it during the salary cap era. Guess what? The Steelers are now the second. And before the Pats there was the Rams who were derailed by the Pats. It's just a different era in football, but the types of stories remain the same. So the distinction is irrelevant to the declining dynasties in the past.

That's why I bring up the 00s Yanks. You and Gainzo bring up the lack of salary cap, but guess what? That doesn't matter either because sports dynasties take the same path regardless of cap. Look at the Devils. They have a cap and they followed the same path as the Pats are on now.

So, of course, there are distinctions that can be made with the Niners and Boys, but those distinctions you mention does not distinquish them in the overall scheme of a dynasty in decline. Age/injury, roster turnover, and "hungrier" opponents are a common thread for these declining dynasties.

The Pats are good enough to get to the big game. But now, different opponents are showing up and beating them. That's the sign of a once great team that "found a way to win the big game" turning into a team that "finds a way to lose the big game."

Finally, I'm not giving the Jets too much credit. You know the tie breaking rules don't you? For division title the tie breaker after head-to-head is Division Record.

The Pats and Fins went 4-2 in the Division. The Pats beat the Jets and they're 5-1 in the division. The Chargers loss immediately becomes irrelevant because it's the 3rd tiebreaker while the Pats could have controlled the 2nd.

So how can the third tiebreaker in the Chargers game be more important than the second tiebreaker? The Pats beat the Jets AT HOME and the Chargers game is irrelevant. You should know that.

The bottom line is that the Pats had the division in their hands at home and couldn't get it done, just like they couldn't get it done against the Giants and Colts. Again, if a Perfect Team with a golden opportunity to close out a perfect season can't win a championship, which Pats team from here on out with a reconstructed Brady and aging and injured roster is going to do it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it funny Patsie fans making predictions about next season when you don't know what Cindy will give them

He could come back fine, but more than likely he comes back like Carson Palmer

Carson Palmer had to recover from mid January to September, without Training Camp.

Tom Brady has an extra four months.

He will be fine.

If not, Matt Cassel can lead them to 11, 12 wins.

Brady just is the guy who puts them over the top to win 14, 15, 16 games.

He is the difference between great and good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the points you disagree, the first being the salary cap: so what? Seriously. Okay, the Pats are the first team to do it during the salary cap era. Guess what? The Steelers are now the second. And before the Pats there was the Rams who were derailed by the Pats. It's just a different era in football, but the types of stories remain the same. So the distinction is irrelevant to the declining dynasties in the past.

That's why I bring up the 00s Yanks. You and Gainzo bring up the lack of salary cap, but guess what? That doesn't matter either because sports dynasties take the same path regardless of cap. Look at the Devils. They have a cap and they followed the same path as the Pats are on now.

So, of course, there are distinctions that can be made with the Niners and Boys, but those distinctions you mention does not distinquish them in the overall scheme of a dynasty in decline. Age/injury, roster turnover, and "hungrier" opponents are a common thread for these declining dynasties.

The Pats are good enough to get to the big game. But now, different opponents are showing up and beating them. That's the sign of a once great team that "found a way to win the big game" turning into a team that "finds a way to lose the big game."

Finally, I'm not giving the Jets too much credit. You know the tie breaking rules don't you? For division title the tie breaker after head-to-head is Division Record.

The Pats and Fins went 4-2 in the Division. The Pats beat the Jets and they're 5-1 in the division. The Chargers loss immediately becomes irrelevant because it's the 3rd tiebreaker while the Pats could have controlled the 2nd.

So how can the third tiebreaker in the Chargers game be more important than the second tiebreaker? The Pats beat the Jets AT HOME and the Chargers game is irrelevant. You should know that.

The bottom line is that the Pats had the division in their hands at home and couldn't get it done, just like they couldn't get it done against the Giants and Colts. Again, if a Perfect Team with a golden opportunity to close out a perfect season can't win a championship, which Pats team from here on out with a reconstructed Brady and aging and injured roster is going to do it?

The Patriots and Phins both lost to the Jets. So the Patriots loss to the Jets is no more or less relevant then both teams sweeping the Bills. They both had 4-2 records. If the Phins were 5-1 and the Patriots 4-2 due to the Jets, then the loss would be relevant, but it is not. Again, the big loss and ultimately deciding factor among common opponents was the loss to the Chargers which decided the conference record between the Phins and Patriots.

I would not anoint the Steelers yet as a dynasty. Kurt and the Rams can attest to being prematurely crowned.

The salary cap is the issue here.

That is why the Patriots, Colts and Steelers runs are that much more amazing. Niners and Boyz eventually faltered due to Hall of Fame QBs leaving and the erosion of talent whether through age or leaving for the greenback.

My point for that, is the salary cap was still in it's infancy. Not all teams were adept at managing it. I would speculate that the norms now are different then they were then and teams are better at managing the cap.

Anyways, back on point, due to the salary cap and the Rozelling of the NFL, the gap between 1 and 32 is not as great as it was back then. Miami can be 1-15 one year and 11-5 the next. A team that is weeks away from being dismantled can rise and slay an 18-0 team.

That is why my Patriots who have had a steady erosion of talent (coaches and players) are still a threat to win. I am not saying they are as good as the 57-16 Patriots that won 3 titles in 4 years. They are not.

I said a few years ago the Patriots were similar to the 49ers. The 49ers were a threat to win from 1981 to 1998 when Steve Young's career ended. They lost players. They lost coaches, but they still won between 10-15 games every year except 1. Is it a stretch to say the 49ers could have won more titles? No. It is not a stretch to say the Patriots cannot win another title as long as Belichick and Brady are there? No. Will they? I do not know.

I am not saying the Patriots run is not going to be as long as that, but I am not saying the door is entirely closed yet either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Tom Brady is back at 100% (and he's on schedule to be ready for the start of Training Camp so he would be 100% by September 13th) the Patriots will win at the LEAST 13 games, but wouldn't surprise me at all if they went 14-2, 15-1.

We heard the same thing about Peyton this off season. Brady isn't on schedule imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry the Pats haven't won the Super Bowl since 2004. The Pats have been terrible since then. 2 AFC Championships and 1 Super Bowl appearance proves the Pats suck.

Never said the Pats suck.. just that they are done as champions. I feel it in my gut but only time will tell. And I'll repeat it once more, the Pats don't suck. Like you said, they might still pop into the super bowl but they are not winning any championships for a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Patriots and Phins both lost to the Jets. So the Patriots loss to the Jets is no more or less relevant then both teams sweeping the Bills. They both had 4-2 records. If the Phins were 5-1 and the Patriots 4-2 due to the Jets, then the loss would be relevant, but it is not. Again, the big loss and ultimately deciding factor among common opponents was the loss to the Chargers which decided the conference record between the Phins and Patriots.

Sorry, but you're simply wrong.

The Chargers game was the THIRD TIE BREAKER. Had to highlight that because it's crazy to say the third tie breaker was the big issue when the Pats blew the Second Tiebreaker which they had control over 5 weeks after the Charger game.

The tie breaker ranking is:

1) Head-to-Head

2) Division Record

3) Common Games.

The Pats-Fins tie breaker NEVER gets to Common Games if the Pats handled their business and won at home against the Jets. The Pats played the Chargers week 6 on the road but then played the Jets at home week 11.

Seriously, it's stunning how you claim a week 6 out-of-division road game is pivotal when 5 weeks later the Pats had a chance to take the lead in the division against the Jets at home.

The Pats were underdogs in the Charger game and favored in the Jets game. That ruined their season. If it makes you feel better that a week 6 game that never would have mattered if they beat the Jets was more important then go right ahead.

The Pats played the Jets week 11 and the Fins week 12. If the Pats win both then they have a division stranglehold and control their own playoff destiny regardless of the Chargers game. The Jet game stripped the Pats of controlling their own destiny.

I would not anoint the Steelers yet as a dynasty. Kurt and the Rams can attest to being prematurely crowned.

The salary cap is the issue here.

That is why the Patriots, Colts and Steelers runs are that much more amazing. Niners and Boyz eventually faltered due to Hall of Fame QBs leaving and the erosion of talent whether through age or leaving for the greenback.

My point for that, is the salary cap was still in it's infancy. Not all teams were adept at managing it. I would speculate that the norms now are different then they were then and teams are better at managing the cap.

Anyways, back on point, due to the salary cap and the Rozelling of the NFL, the gap between 1 and 32 is not as great as it was back then. Miami can be 1-15 one year and 11-5 the next. A team that is weeks away from being dismantled can rise and slay an 18-0 team.

That is why my Patriots who have had a steady erosion of talent (coaches and players) are still a threat to win. I am not saying they are as good as the 57-16 Patriots that won 3 titles in 4 years. They are not.

I said a few years ago the Patriots were similar to the 49ers. The 49ers were a threat to win from 1981 to 1998 when Steve Young's career ended. They lost players. They lost coaches, but they still won between 10-15 games every year except 1. Is it a stretch to say the 49ers could have won more titles? No. It is not a stretch to say the Patriots cannot win another title as long as Belichick and Brady are there? No. Will they? I do not know.

I am not saying the Patriots run is not going to be as long as that, but I am not saying the door is entirely closed yet either.

Do I believe the door is "closed" for the Pats? Absolutely not. But will they win it all again with BB & Brady? Probably not with this collection of players. I get your connection with the Niners and the similarities work in favor of my argument.

It's true that the Niners could have won the title up to 1998, but after 1994 they became the team that found a way to lose the big game, which is what the Pats are now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PFSIKH, let me make this simple.

If the Pats beat the Chargers week 6 is playoff destiny in their hands? NO. The Pats would need the Jets to lose games to take control of the division.

If the Pats lost to the Chargers week 6 and beat the Jets week 11, is playoff destiny in their hands? YES. The Pats play the Fins the following week and if they beat the Fins (which the Pats did) there is nothing the Fins or the Jets could do to prevent the Pats from winning the division.

If the Pats beat the Jets and Fins weeks 11 & 12 and the Pats/Fins/Jets win out after that, who gets the division? The Pats.

Thus, I still can't understand how you claim the Chargers game was pivotal. The Jets took away the Pats' chance at controlling their own destiny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...