It's time to confess. I'm really let down that the Patriots lost.
Well, not that they lost, but how they lost. The turnovers are just killing me. I can't believe they choked. It's so out of character. They never let the home crowd get to them like that. I would never have predicted they'd choke like that. I can't believe the guys who won three Super Bowls are capable of playing so badly. Losing, sure... they lost several times this season when they weren't on their game. But losing like that??? It's stunning. Until this weekend, I could count on the Patriots to represent, to play tough regardless of the situation. Now they're just another football team, albeit a very, very good one. So the "immortal" Pats team is dead.
Also, I don't want to hear about the weird calls anymore. The referees blew them, which didn't help, but they can't be counted on to bail out the Pats every time. The Mile High crowd did more damage than the refs. While a friend did point out that the phantom pass interference call may have triggered the sloppy play that followed, I'd counter that the Kevin Faulk fumble, which led to the PI call, is what actually did it. They lost because they didn't play their usual brand of dependable, intelligent football. The days of being able to count on that from the Pats under any circumstance are over.
But let's get something straight. Let's cut out this crap about the so-called "dynasty" being over. The Patriots' window hasn't closed yet. Nobody's leaving, and both units are still playing at a high level. They might not be invincible anymore, but that doesn't mean they can't win. If they'd been moderately healthy over the season, maybe they don't lose quite so many games. And maybe they're the ones who grab a first-round bye again, thus avoiding the Mile High bloodbath. (Should be noted that the Pats haven't yet won one w/o a bye.) My point is not sour grapes, but rather that it's a fine line between an early vacation and a ring... too fine to withstand five dumb turnovers.
Well, not that they lost, but how they lost. The turnovers are just killing me. I can't believe they choked. It's so out of character. They never let the home crowd get to them like that. I would never have predicted they'd choke like that. I can't believe the guys who won three Super Bowls are capable of playing so badly. Losing, sure... they lost several times this season when they weren't on their game. But losing like that??? It's stunning. Until this weekend, I could count on the Patriots to represent, to play tough regardless of the situation. Now they're just another football team, albeit a very, very good one. So the "immortal" Pats team is dead.
Also, I don't want to hear about the weird calls anymore. The referees blew them, which didn't help, but they can't be counted on to bail out the Pats every time. The Mile High crowd did more damage than the refs. While a friend did point out that the phantom pass interference call may have triggered the sloppy play that followed, I'd counter that the Kevin Faulk fumble, which led to the PI call, is what actually did it. They lost because they didn't play their usual brand of dependable, intelligent football. The days of being able to count on that from the Pats under any circumstance are over.
But let's get something straight. Let's cut out this crap about the so-called "dynasty" being over. The Patriots' window hasn't closed yet. Nobody's leaving, and both units are still playing at a high level. They might not be invincible anymore, but that doesn't mean they can't win. If they'd been moderately healthy over the season, maybe they don't lose quite so many games. And maybe they're the ones who grab a first-round bye again, thus avoiding the Mile High bloodbath. (Should be noted that the Pats haven't yet won one w/o a bye.) My point is not sour grapes, but rather that it's a fine line between an early vacation and a ring... too fine to withstand five dumb turnovers.
posted by Jeff at
2:58 PM
6 Comments:
Yes. Hands down, the highlight of the game. If they'd called a touchback there, he'd have been the story of the game. If they'd won, it would be a play in the pantheon of the greatest in NFL history, the football equivalent of Derek Jeter's famous relay against Oakland. But those things didn't happen, so people just think it's cute. I definitely appreciate it though.
By
Jeff, at 5:44 PM
I agree they overestimated themselves but taunting Lynch is a total non-issue. They lost b/c they didn't take Denver seriously enough, and because Brady played as if he could win the game by himself (like on the touchdown pass to Champ Bailey). Maybe Brady complained a lot, but he's supposed to complain, he's a QB. That doesn't decide the game.
I'll also throw out there that Larry Bird was the biggest shit-talker in NBA history. Taunting didn't hurt him.
The point of the MD analogy is fair, but using a college basketball team to illustrate the difficulty of maintaining dominance isn't really appropriate. College teams are almost always substantially different from one year to the next. In this era, consecutive titles is either a fluke, or a coincidence... that near-impossibility is innate to college ball. So it doesn't really apply to the Pats, whose core has been intact since 2001 and doesn't look to be torn apart anytime soon.
I could also see the Pats not getting there again. But I could just as easily see them winning another two.
By
Jeff, at 11:39 AM
Hey, it's the I-Live-In-Boston-And-You-Don't Card! I watched every game in 2003 and most in 2004. They have these things down here called "bars," they usually show good games on TV. Why is it that I never feel compelled to back up my arguments by pointing out how few Redskins games you've seen?
Anyway, you're right. Seven dudes. Eight actually... you forgot Matt Light. Of course, maybe that just goes without saying to someone who has watched so many Pats games.
But still, I didn't say "roster," did I? I said core. Nucleus. The only critical loss to the nucleus is Law. You, on the other hand, named a long list of of role players who proved themselves replaceable. Terry Glenn??? Come on, you know better than that. I'll give you Law and Milloy, but if you want to go arguing that Terrell Buckley and Jermaine Wiggins are "core" players, let me put on my laughing pants in preparation.
My point was that the irreplaceable players, except Law, are still there. See what happened w/o Bruschi and Seymour on the field? They fell apart. You didn't see a similar collapse after Tebucky Jones was traded. Those guys are still there.
Besides, the core has been bolstered by new guys like Branch, Givens, Warren and Wilfork, all of whom improved on the guys they replaced. That's a case of turnover being good. Nobody of Juan Dixon's caliber has left this team yet. So rumors of the Pats' demise are premature.
As for Brady, maybe the flamboyance was out of character, but not the attitude. He's not a polite mama's-boy type on the field like his postgame remarks suggest. He's a cock. When he first got the starting job, one of the first impressions about him was how much shit he talked to the other team, despite being an unknown 6th-round draft pick. His teammates said it fired them up that he'd do that. I see no reason to think it would have stopped. That's where I get my argument from.
Of course, I have plenty of room in my memory for that, since I've watched so few games since then...
By
Jeff, at 4:43 PM
Oh, I saw most of 2002 as well. I won't claim to have much of 2001, though I saw nearly all of the end (from the St. Louis game forward). So suck it.
By
Jeff, at 4:45 PM
So basically your contention is as follows:
1) 8 players does not constitute a "core" in the NFL
2) My arguments are "incorrect" because you clocked an extra game or two on me this season
3) you "rule"
I'm not gonna waste another workday butting heads with you over what percentage of a team's roster constitutes its nucleus.
By
Jeff, at 9:47 AM
I could catch a monkey. If I was starving I could. I'd make poison darts out of the poison of the deadly frogs. One milligram of that poison can kill a monkey. Or a man. Prick yourself and you'd be dead within a day. Or longer. Different frogs, different times.
By
Jeff, at 12:12 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home