Sour Gripes- What could have been...

C4CRVT

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 29, 2008
3,076
Heart of the Green Mountains
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, every day would be Christmas.

I didn't participate in the game thread yesterday so I don't know if this has been discussed. But this is after all a discussion board so I'm curious as to other's takes on this:

After the week 16 Jets game, I was feeling very irritated about the Pats coaching staff having played far too passively. Many of you probably remember the way that we laid down and played dead at the end of the first half and again at the end of the game when a fg at either would have won the game and HFA.

I remain convinced that had the Pats secured HFA, they would have been at SB50. Brady being able to vary the snap count and the altitude would have been more than the difference in an AFCCG versus Denver at Foxboro. Given the way that the game went yesterday, I can't help but think that the Pats cost themselves a ring by their putrid coaching decisions in week 16.

Others may point to the muffed punt or other braindead decisions but none seem as indefensible to me as week 16.

There, I said it.
 

RG33

Certain Class of Poster
SoSH Member
Nov 28, 2005
7,199
CA
The fact that we could have this thread in 2006 and 2012 and 2013 is remarkable in and of itself. The flip side is all of the good decisions and good luck (David Patten out of bounds, Tuck Rule, etc.) they have had along the way as well.

It sucks. And it stings.

I can't wait for next season.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
24,838
Unreal America
The fact that we could have this thread in 2006 and 2012 and 2013 is remarkable in and of itself. The flip side is all of the good decisions and good luck (David Patten out of bounds, Tuck Rule, etc.) they have had along the way as well.
Yep, the amazing thing about the past 15 years of Patriots football is how they've put themselves in position over and over again to benefit, more often than not, from the random things that lead to success in this wacky game. And unfortunately they've had some breaks go against them too.

We were incredibly spoiled by the 2001-2004 run. The bounces that haven't gone our way from 2005-2015 are much more the norm.

That all being said, for all that the team endured or inflicted on itself this past season, to me the Dion Lewis injury was the most bitter pill to swallow. If he stays on the field for the year I think we win the title. Losing that bail-out from the backfield was crippling, his presence could have overcome so much.
 

Laser Show

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 7, 2008
5,094
Obviously you can do this both ways, but it's amazing that if you flip the outcome of 4 plays (one stop in 06, 07, 11, and a whole bunch of possibilities this year), the Patriots likely have 8 Lombardis. We're so spoiled.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
61,996
New York City
Obviously you can do this both ways, but it's amazing that if you flip the outcome of 4 plays (one stop in 06, 07, 11, and a whole bunch of possibilities this year), the Patriots likely have 8 Lombardis. We're so spoiled.
That is the most amazing thing. Not the 4 SB's, which is so utterly incredible. But they have been soclose so many other times. Even in the years you don't cite, the Pats were always in the mix at the end except for 2008 and even then they weren't bad.
 

PayrodsFirstClutchHit

Bob Kraft's Season Ticket Robin Hoodie
SoSH Member
Jun 29, 2006
8,319
Winterport, ME
I am thankful for the success of this team and I know that I am a spoiled Pats fan to the nth degree, however...

Every time I see the Direct TV Settlers commercial I think of the Pats brain trust late this season . They settled for the 2nd seed and an attempt to get healthy for the playoffs. I believed at the time as did many others that it was a strategic mistake. I am hopeful they are appropriately hesitant to play for an outcome which has them playing in Denver in future seasons.

They way they approached the Jets and Miami game was beyond frustrating. If you are going to play so conservatively as to try to not get Brady hurt, then put Jimmy in at QB and let him have it for the last two games. The value with that move is twofold. You get to see what you have in Jimmy in live NFL games that matter and you give Tom some rest for the playoff run.
 

C4CRVT

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 29, 2008
3,076
Heart of the Green Mountains
I'm not talking about luck, refs or an injury though. That's what makes this stick in my craw. I'm talking about a conscious decision to lay down and stop playing that cost them. I'm having a tough time being zen about it for some reason this year. That whole game yesterday I couldn't get away from the feeling of supreme irritation at that Jets game. They didn't need luck. They just needed to play that Jets game like they gave a fuck about the possibility of playing in Denver. The Miami game and the Jets game- they had one foot on the gas and the other on the brake the whole time. So many of the ways the decisions in those games lacked congruity.

Oh well. "Malcom, GO!!" was a much better game anyway. :)
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,100
I think the Jets and Miami games were the result of a perfect storm of injuries coupled with some questionable tactical coaching decisions. I don't believe the Shank nonsense that they tanked either game.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
i was hopeful and predicted a SB win. But also I had zero sympathy for them after the Eagles game. That was a massive giveaway. It happened before they reached the worst of the worst on the injury front. You toss away a game like that at home, you earn every bad thing that comes your away.

We have a pretty big sample size now. For every Tyree and Manningham catch, there seems to be a tuck ruling or game winning interception. Roughly, fortune seems to have evened out, which seems right.

Phenomenal franchise on an incredible run and we should be grateful. You can fly speck the disappointments but realize that 2001 through 2004 was never sustainable or repeatable.
 

naclone

New Member
Jul 15, 2005
138
NYC
After the AFC Championship game my wife tried to console me with logic. "They can't win every year."

But they can though.

That's why it's so maddening. "They can't win every year" is true of 31 teams. It is not true of the Belichick/Brady Patriots. They have been, and are, good enough to win every year. It's such a unique position to be in that not making the absolute most of it is agonizing.
 
Dec 21, 2015
1,410
I take consolation in one thing: The Broncos matched up way, way better against the Panthers than the Week 20 Patriots would have. Unless 2004 Tedy Bruschi, 2004 Richard Seymour and 2004 Ty Law came out of a time portal to join the New England roster, we had no chance to do to Carolina what the Broncos did last night.

We had too many injuries this year, but we also just didn't click in the right way at the right time. Our strengths weren't strong enough in the right spots. In the list of Brady years whose outcome I regret, I think 2010 is the clear #2, followed by 2006. 2015 might not make the top 5.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
I am thankful for the success of this team and I know that I am a spoiled Pats fan to the nth degree, however...

Every time I see the Direct TV Settlers commercial I think of the Pats brain trust late this season . They settled for the 2nd seed and an attempt to get healthy for the playoffs. I believed at the time as did many others that it was a strategic mistake. I am hopeful they are appropriately hesitant to play for an outcome which has them playing in Denver in future seasons.

They way they approached the Jets and Miami game was beyond frustrating. If you are going to play so conservatively as to try to not get Brady hurt, then put Jimmy in at QB and let him have it for the last two games. The value with that move is twofold. You get to see what you have in Jimmy in live NFL games that matter and you give Tom some rest for the playoff run.
To the main point of the thread, I think it was hard to watch that game as a Pats fan without a lot of "what if/the Pats when healthy are better" type thoughts. Judging by the texts, e-mails and comments of those around me, that was an experience shared by many. I think the Pats would have housed that Panthers team, though I think that with a lot less certitude than I had in 2006 regarding the Bears.

To your point, Payrods, I have two reactions:

1. The Jets and Miami approaches were pretty different. Against NY, they kicked off to start the OT but they had done that with success in the past. Other than that, I don't think their game plan or approach was dramatically different than it was in other games. Their offense -- as was the case for the last 40 minutes or so of the Titans game -- just sucked in the absence of Edelman and a fully healthy Gronk. Miami was a different kettle of fish -- no pun intended -- with the heavy emphasis on the running game in the first half.

2. A lot of people are lamenting that they didn't choose to go all out against Miami. But what would that have meant other than not calling all of those runs? Playing Vollmer and Edelman two weeks earlier, I guess. The loss to Miami was horrendous and I think most fans think that if the AFC Championship Game was in NE, the Pats would have won. But without knowing more about both players' state of readiness, it's hard to know really how effective they would have been, even had they chosen to roll out a real offensive game plan in the first half. And exposing Volllmer and Jules earlier might have meant losing them in the playoffs, which would have been self-defeating. Also, I tend to think that if Bill Belichick was fully open and explained all of his thinking to us, that those who take issue with the decisions would not do so with the same degree of vehemence. We'll never know that (unless Bill one day writes a book), but while not subscribing to "In Bill We Trust So Never Question Anything," I also believe that it's quite possible that with full information and the chance to absorb Bill's thoughts, that people would view this differently. Not that we'd all immediately drop all of our points.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
I believe BB said something about venue in the playoffs not mattering much, which I would pretty vehemently disagree with.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,734
Deep inside Muppet Labs
I believe BB said something about venue in the playoffs not mattering much, which I would pretty vehemently disagree with.
The venue doesn't matter unless it's in Denver, which should be avoided at all costs. They should have known it was possible to lose HFA to Denver and thus taken steps to avoid playing there. That meant going full out against Miami in the final game.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,100
I believe BB said something about venue in the playoffs not mattering much, which I would pretty vehemently disagree with.
I wouldn't take that comment at face value. Belichick has always preached the "Do Your Job, No Matter What" philosophy, and the last thing BB wants to do is to give his players any semblance of doubt that they can win in an enemy arena during the playoffs.

I do believe that Theo is correct that there were injury issues that the team was battling that to some degree dictated the game plans. Belichick even hinted a couple of times about the limited number of players available for the Miami game, among others. I also believe the team made some uncharacteristic (for them) tactical errors during those 2 games. They had 2 timeouts and 1:53 to drive for field goal at the end of the first half of the Jets game, and they hand off twice to Brandon Bolden.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
The venue doesn't matter unless it's in Denver, which should be avoided at all costs. They should have known it was possible to lose HFA to Denver and thus taken steps to avoid playing there. That meant going full out against Miami in the final game.
It still matters if its not Denver.

I wouldn't take that comment at face value. Belichick has always preached the "Do Your Job, No Matter What" philosophy, and the last thing BB wants to do is to give his players any semblance of doubt that they can win in an enemy arena during the playoffs.

I do believe that Theo is correct that there were injury issues that the team was battling that to some degree dictated the game plans. Belichick even hinted a couple of times about the limited number of players available for the Miami game, among others. I also believe the team made some uncharacteristic (for them) tactical errors during those 2 games. They had 2 timeouts and 1:53 to drive for field goal at the end of the first half of the Jets game, and they hand off twice to Brandon Bolden.
He sort of coached like the venue wasn't a priority though.

In any case, I didn't understand the switch at halftime in Miami, where they let Brady take a beating in the second half after going uber, uber conservative in the first half. Then there was the really conservative playcalling at the end of halves, particularly after the Philly debacle. Punting a possession when losing, like in the Jets game, is just never really the right thing to do.

Definitely, in my mind, one of the more curious last six weeks we have had from this coaching staff. Just felt like as the injuries piled up they didn't have a great feel for what the team could succeed at with the personnel remaining on offense, didn't have a great idea on how to balance getting healthy for the playoffs with improving playoff standings, and then they finished the year losing a game where the defensive game plan seemed curious early and the offense, for one of the few times ever, didn't really adjust and figure out how to move the ball in game (and may have been tipping the snap count without being detected/adjusted by the coaching staff).

We don't have perfect information, the team (as usual) did seem to be mentally tough and competed hard, and I still expect the Pats to have a big coaching edge in '16, but don't think this season was one of the best for the staff, particularly down the stretch.
 

Seels

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
4,948
NH
I really disagree without defense not being able to handle the Panthers. The Pats defense this season is the best since 04. Granted, injuries to different players changed this at points, but the differences between the Broncos D and the Pats D is marginal at best. The matchup problem for them would have been the Panthers Dline v our Oline.
 

DegenerateSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 11, 2006
2,064
Flagstaff, AZ
I get that Denver could have pulled off a win in Foxboro. I just don't think they would have. And I think that the Pats might have matched up with Carolina even better than Denver - not as much pass rush, but strong enough LB and secondary play to do a number on Cam, and Brady would gotten that extra second or second & half to make things work with Edelman & Co.

Worst blown opportunity in this era? No, that would be the-game-that-shall not be mentioned, probably followed by the '06 loss to the Colts (everyone knew the AFC title game was the real superbowl, and that the Bears weren't beating NE or Indy). But it was there for the taking had they not blown homefield and wound up in the one place that they never seem to play well in. Interestingly, a lot of folks thought that that the NFC was stronger, and that the winner of that conference would cruise in the SB. But maybe it was really the AFC that was far more likely to produce the winner, and people just underestimated the strength of the best defenses there.

Whatever. It sucks, but I think Brady has at least a season or two in him before he falls off a cliff physically.

Now about those draft picks...
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
I really disagree without defense not being able to handle the Panthers. The Pats defense this season is the best since 04. Granted, injuries to different players changed this at points, but the differences between the Broncos D and the Pats D is marginal at best. The matchup problem for them would have been the Panthers Dline v our Oline.
Pats had a good defense, but this seems overoptimistic.

Worst blown opportunity in this era? No, that would be the-game-that-shall not be mentioned, probably followed by the '06 loss to the Colts (everyone knew the AFC title game was the real superbowl, and that the Bears weren't beating NE or Indy). But it was there for the taking had they not blown homefield and wound up in the one place that they never seem to play well in.

2012 came to mind. This year was probably a little worse because Gronk was healthy, but that year they lost a home game (and the only blown halftime lead at home of the BB/Brady era) against a decent but very beatable Ravens team before a Super Bowl against an opponent that looked more talented on paper but ended up wilting a bit on the big stage. They've rolled out a strong contender for a title 5 or 6 out of the last 6 years, so that level of disappointment is going to happen once or twice
 
Last edited:

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
OK Theo. What's the reason for not trying to drive at the end of either half of the Jets game?
I remember thinking at the Jets game that they had done the right thing at the end of the first half in that I believe they were getting the ball to start the second, they had a long field with relatively limited time on the clock and the offense had been pretty mediocre thus far, meaning that the better part of valor might have been making sure the Jets would not have much clock and waiting until they had a fresh clock in the second half. As to the second half, my dominant memory after that game was that they kicked off to start the OT. I don't recall a lot of controversy or second guessing about how they handled the end of the second half. What was the time and distance for their last opportunity?

In any case, I didn't understand the switch at halftime in Miami, where they let Brady take a beating in the second half after going uber, uber conservative in the first half. Then there was the really conservative playcalling at the end of halves, particularly after the Philly debacle. Punting a possession when losing, like in the Jets game, is just never really the right thing to do.
I think there is a plausible, albeit not satisfying, answer. They played the first half thinking there was a chance they could run over the Dolphins. Miami's run defense was lousy last year, and the Pats have had some run happy days during the Brady run. It happened against the Colts in 2014, as we know. Maybe Bill was thinking that they could run the ball successfully, needed to protect Tom given all the missing players, and could stay in the game or even take a lead playing that way. Doing so would also give the team another weapon in the playoffs and opponents something to game plan for. While that did not work at all, they found themselves still in the game in the second half, so they abandoned a plan that was not working in favor of a more traditional Patriots approach. I have to admit that I believe Volin posited something like this. Nevertheless, it makes some sense to me, even while I would not have wanted them to do that in the first place.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
Sure its plausible, and maybe didn't understand wasn't the right phrasing, but IMO that was a bad/not very sound strategic approach to the game.

Disagree about the Jets game. Not sure why taking one less possession would be helpful for a team not moving the football, particularly in a game they were already losing. They had 1:20 left with 2 TOs after Bolden ran for a first down on the initial play to get the ball out to the Jets 31 yard line, so its not like they were buried deep in their own territory.

25 seconds left at their own 20 is more arguable at the end of the game, but running out the first half is just bad situational football.
 
Last edited:

m0ckduck

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
1,714
It hurts for me because they played some of the most beautifully-executed football I've ever watched on the offensive side of the ball for the first eight weeks of the season, and that clinic is going to be consigned to complete oblivion— nobody outside of New England will remember how good they looked early in the season.

Once it became clear that we'd lost the Cosmic Injury Lottery, I found it hard to fault the team for how the season played out. Yes, in isolation, I can find fault with certain decisions— it feels like the coaching staff actually bought into the 'nobody's ever beaten us with Gronk healthy, so all we have to do is somehow arrive in tatters in the postseason with a functional Gronk' meme. But, zooming out a bit, it felt like every TD drive during those last several games (with the exception of the KC Divisional Round game) was held together by guts and dental floss and Brady delivering while taking an obscene amount of punishment. The degree of difficulty had gotten too steep— it was bound not to end well.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
Sure its plausible, and maybe didn't understand wasn't the right phrasing, but IMO that was a bad/not very sound strategic approach to the game.

Disagree about the Jets game. Not sure why taking one less possession would be helpful for a team not moving the football, particularly in a game they were already losing. They had 1:20 left with 2 TOs after Bolden ran for a first down on the initial play to get the ball out to the Jets 31 yard line, so its not like they were buried deep in their own territory.

25 seconds left at their own 20 is more arguable at the end of the game, but running out the first half is just bad situational football.
As I said, I didn't love how they approached the first half against Miami, either. But if they had run the ball well in that first half, it would have looked like a great decision. As to deciding to change it up in the second half, I don't agree with the criticism that some have leveled there. Yes, they put Tom in harm's way, but that game WAS winnable and what they were doing WASN'T working. As Charlie Weis recently said, the notion of half time adjustments is overstated, in that teams adjust throughout the game, but that was an instance when I appreciated that they came out with a different approach in the second half.

I hear you on the Jets game. At the time, I had no problem with not pushing it. The offense had been stagnant and I was worried they might go three and out and give the Jets another chance to put up points before the half. But I can't argue too forcefully against your point there as what they did was counter to what the Pats normally do and probably not good situational football. What they did at the end of the game, on the other hand, is consistent with what they have done many times with such limited clock. And the point I was making earlier was that the Jets game was, in general, more in line with what they normally do than what we saw in Miami (or the Philly game for that matter).
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
I don't want to belabor the point because I'm not trying to scream that BB fucked up the season or anything. I just don't think the coaching was up to the exceptionally high standard we have seen in the past.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
I don't want to belabor it either. And I agree that there were some hard to understand decisions this year. At the same time, BB literally made thousands of decisions from the beginning training camp until the end that played a huge part in the Pats even being in the AFC Championship game. I know you know that but I do think people tend to isolate on a few calls, without having the benefit of all of the pertinent facts, and tend to ignore the bigger picture regarding decision making. It's easy for me to give Bill the benefit of the doubt, even when my immediate opinion is that he's making a bad decision, given how consistently competitive his teams are. That said, I get calling out decisions, as I will always hate and never understand the 4th and 13 call in SB 42. That's the one where my own predilection goes right out the door.
 

crystalline

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 12, 2009
5,771
JP
I don't want to belabor the point because I'm not trying to scream that BB fucked up the season or anything. I just don't think the coaching was up to the exceptionally high standard we have seen in the past.
That's probably true. But did you see Belichick's press conference after the Miami game? I have rarely seen him so pissed off. He wanted HFA, bad. Anyone who thinks they tanked any of those games wasn't watching closely.

Now, thinking that the coaches just didn't perform well is probably a bit closer to the mark. Here, I think most of the blame, if not all, can be laid on the OL coach. The failed running game in Miami and the number of hits that Brady took down the stretch are pretty much squarely on the OL. And if we are looking at coaches for blame, we're looking squarely at the OL coach.

Outside of a few games (mostly games against the Giants), the Pats OL has been average to good for the whole Belichick tenure. This season it's been painful to watch how they finally have an excellent defense again, Brady looks great, Gronk was playing, Edelman too before and after injury, and then, after overcoming many injuries the OL was their Achilles heel.
 

crystalline

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 12, 2009
5,771
JP
One more thing:
The other goat on the coaching staff over the last part of the season was the ST coach. The Eagles game was extremely winnable. After playing well all year, special teams made some Manziel-bottle-service-on-bye-week level moves and blew the game.

Taking their body of work all together at the end of the year, I thought the coaches did ok. We forget the high level the offense played at during the end of the first Broncos and Eagles games.
To me the biggest failing was how Wade Phillips outcoached the Pats' offense two weeks ago, and that seemed to be much more on DeGuglielmo than McDaniels.


Look on the bright side-- losing a bunch of games at the end of the year contributes to Patricia and McDaniels both coming back next year. Fix the OL problems and hope Brady doesn't have permanent rib damage from those last few games, and the future is bright.
 

Erik Hanson's Hook

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 20, 2013
1,079
After the AFC Championship game my wife tried to console me with logic. "They can't win every year."

But they can though.

That's why it's so maddening. "They can't win every year" is true of 31 teams. It is not true of the Belichick/Brady Patriots. They have been, and are, good enough to win every year. It's such a unique position to be in that not making the absolute most of it is agonizing.
This.

As great as it's been, what's so frustrating about this run we've been on, is that it could've so easily been even better. Like, UCLA college BB-level good. We could've obliterated the NFL over the last decade plus, and while I realize we are incredibly lucky, it could've been so much better.

The Reche Caldwell drop in 2006...2007 (speaks for itself)...the Jets playoff loss in '10 after going 14-2...the Welker/Brady almost-catch in 2011...Hernandez deciding to ruin his life...the multitude of things this year.

Brady could/should have a necklace full of rings.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,094
There is no way to sustain the 2001-2004 luck over a decade plus of seasons. If JR Redmond doesn't get out of bounds, 2001 SB goes to OT and I wouldn't exactly have liked our chances. Ditto for 2003 if Kasay doesn't kick the ball out of bounds. 2004 was a solid win so the right result happened. That 2006 team was incredibly fortunate just to even have the chance to blow it in the AFCCG. Quite frankly, that wasn't a very good team. 2007 obviously should have been a title. 2008 never got off the ground thanks to Pollard. 2010 was a very good team that coulda/shoulda at least made the SB. 2011 team was very fortunate that Evans dropped the ball and that Cundiff missed that kick. That team had a horrendous defense.

The big regrets for me are 2007, 2012, 2013, and 2015. The latter 2 we had really solid teams that were just obliterated by injuries. In the end 4-5 titles is right where this team "should" be. No way anybody is doing better than that in today's NFL. It's pretty comparable to the Spurs over the same period who themselves have had plenty of close calls - the Fisher 0.4 shot in 2004, the Game 7 home loss to Dal in 2006, the choke in Game 6 to Miami in 2013, etc. Duncan could be sitting here with like 7 rings with a little more good fortune.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
26,993
Newton
One more thing:
The other goat on the coaching staff over the last part of the season was the ST coach. The Eagles game was extremely winnable. After playing well all year, special teams made some Manziel-bottle-service-on-bye-week level moves and blew the game.
How many special teamers were either injured or playing double duty in offense or defense that week? It's worth asking before we point the finger at the ST coach (whose name nobody seems to know, myself included).

I've said this before: when you have as many injuries to as many core players as NE did this year, everything suffers, from execution to play calling. You have to hope that in some instances you will get lucky – that weird play calls will work out. You depend that much more on the guys who aren't injured to still execute at that high level. And still, they were an extra point away from a coin toss to the super bowl.

This team was the best team in football by a good margin until the injury bug hit them and bad. That they came as close as they did shouldn't be a demerit against this team – it should be a credit to how well they still managed to play.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
This.

As great as it's been, what's so frustrating about this run we've been on, is that it could've so easily been even better. Like, UCLA college BB-level good. We could've obliterated the NFL over the last decade plus, and while I realize we are incredibly lucky, it could've been so much better.

The Reche Caldwell drop in 2006...2007 (speaks for itself)...the Jets playoff loss in '10 after going 14-2...the Welker/Brady almost-catch in 2011...Hernandez deciding to ruin his life...the multitude of things this year.

Brady could/should have a necklace full of rings.
Yeah, this just isn't realistic. If anything about this run is "so frustrating" either rooting for sports isn't for you or you like to be miserable for some reason. Teams aren't going to win 10 titles in 15 years or anything like that. Teams are too close together talentwise and the playoffs are a single elimination tournament.
 

Ralphwiggum

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
9,827
Needham, MA
There is no way to sustain the 2001-2004 luck over a decade plus of seasons. If JR Redmond doesn't get out of bounds, 2001 SB goes to OT and I wouldn't exactly have liked our chances. Ditto for 2003 if Kasay doesn't kick the ball out of bounds. 2004 was a solid win so the right result happened. That 2006 team was incredibly fortunate just to even have the chance to blow it in the AFCCG. Quite frankly, that wasn't a very good team. 2007 obviously should have been a title. 2008 never got off the ground thanks to Pollard. 2010 was a very good team that coulda/shoulda at least made the SB. 2011 team was very fortunate that Evans dropped the ball and that Cundiff missed that kick. That team had a horrendous defense.

The big regrets for me are 2007, 2012, 2013, and 2015. The latter 2 we had really solid teams that were just obliterated by injuries. In the end 4-5 titles is right where this team "should" be. No way anybody is doing better than that in today's NFL. It's pretty comparable to the Spurs over the same period who themselves have had plenty of close calls - the Fisher 0.4 shot in 2004, the Game 7 home loss to Dal in 2006, the choke in Game 6 to Miami in 2013, etc. Duncan could be sitting here with like 7 rings with a little more good fortune.
Spot on. People focusing only on the bad breaks we've had over the years just aren't taking a remotely realistic view of all of the things that have gone our way that have led to the four Lombardis.

This year stings but injuries piled up and they ran into a team that had the personnel to exploit their big weak area. It happens. The only huge regret I have as a Pats fan over the last 15 years is the game that shall not be named.

5 Lombardis plus an undefeated season and there is no argument from anyone that this is the greatest dynasty ever.
 

crystalline

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 12, 2009
5,771
JP
Ah but I understand the frustration. This year was SO CLOSE.

Really, OL coaching could have been the difference between a SB win and what actually happened.

If only Dante had retired a few years later @##@#-$+%(#--3+$-";"-'+%@
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
Ah but I understand the frustration. This year was SO CLOSE.

Really, OL coaching could have been the difference between a SB win and what actually happened.

If only Dante had retired a few years later @##@#-$+%(#--3+$-";"-'+%@
Yep. Logically, all the points make sense. But this sports fan thing is an emotional endeavor. Why we identify in the first place with players and coaches who couldn't give two shits about us isn't exactly logical. So it should come as no surprise when we understand how lucky we are, that you can't win every year and it STILL sucks massively when they lose in any year in which you perceive that they had a legitimate chance to win.
 

Ralphwiggum

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
9,827
Needham, MA
Look, I could barely sit through the Super Bowl, and have basically been on a sports media blackout since the end of the game in Denver. It sucks and still hurts. In the moment, I'm as emotional as anyone else. As I said to a buddy of mine on Sunday morning, there will come a day when the Super Bowl will again be a game that other teams play in and I watch disinterestedly, but for now I'm spoiled and it fucking sucks the Pats are not playing today.

At the same time, though, you have to be able to step back and appreciate everything they have accomplished without lamenting the fact that it could have been more, or what's the point of having been along for this awesome ride?
 

Erik Hanson's Hook

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 20, 2013
1,079
Yeah, this just isn't realistic. If anything about this run is "so frustrating" either rooting for sports isn't for you or you like to be miserable for some reason. Teams aren't going to win 10 titles in 15 years or anything like that. Teams are too close together talentwise and the playoffs are a single elimination tournament.
I get your point. Not saying we could've won them them all, but one more ring sprinkled in there, to quiet all the naysayers, amongst all the close calls, would've been great. And completely possible. I never asked for 10 titles in 15 years.

And please, hold the off on the bolded, maybe? It stings. Sports is a big part of my life, and the fact that I'm posting on this message board probably means the giving-up-sports ship has sailed. Also, I do not like being miserable. Working hard on the opposite, in fact.

In any event, I DO appreciate the run we've been on, and understand the variance of small sample sizes. I just think we've had a fair amount of opportunities we didn't cash in on. Not wishing for 10 in 15, just wishing we had one more.

Edit: softened it up because I respect your posting, which is very knowledgable and good. All of the above being said, I will still take the four rings, and agree that any of the other 31 teams would take that in a second. It's just so tantalizing to think about what could've been.
 
Last edited:

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
Look, I could barely sit through the Super Bowl, and have basically been on a sports media blackout since the end of the game in Denver. It sucks and still hurts. In the moment, I'm as emotional as anyone else. As I said to a buddy of mine on Sunday morning, there will come a day when the Super Bowl will again be a game that other teams play in and I watch disinterestedly, but for now I'm spoiled and it fucking sucks the Pats are not playing today.

At the same time, though, you have to be able to step back and appreciate everything they have accomplished without lamenting the fact that it could have been more, or what's the point of having been along for this awesome ride?
No doubt. Being incredibly grateful and even awestruck by what they have accomplished over these last 15 years is not inconsistent with having the sorts of emotions you described regarding the game itself and the sports news blackout that many of us are sharing. Grateful, appreciative and still totally bummed out all hang toghether.

For what it's worth, this is what I posted on FB on the morning after the AFC Championship game:

One thought to share on the Patriots and then I will move on.

My predominant thought this morning is gratitude. Sure, there are a lot of woulda, shoulda, coulda ideas. All knowledgeable Pats fans know what they are.

But in the end, the Belichick Brady Patriots are in contention year after year. They usually play all the way up to the second to last game or the last game. They get a first round bye almost every year. As fans, getting to watch meaningful games for 15 years and thinking your team had a legitimate shot to win the Super Bowl every single year, with a few exceptions, is really all we can ask for in my view.

So I am grateful. I refuse to fall into bitterness or a moronic George Steinbrenner like attitude about the year being a failure if my team did not win it all. Sports is entertainment, and my team keeps me enthralled until the end or near the end, year after year.

And no, I have not gotten soft or suddenly become a good loser. If you would know what I hope happens to Peyton Manning in the Super Bowl, you well might be alarmed. And no, I am not kidding,

But regardless, I'm grateful to my Patriots.

And one more thing. As my good friend [X] wrote on his timeline in the wake of the game, I'm also very grateful to the many terrific Patriots fans, family members and friends who I have shared this journey with, both in person and via the net. You know who you are and I hope you are reading this.

On to September, 2016.
 

naclone

New Member
Jul 15, 2005
138
NYC
I remember the prospect of a home playoff game feeling like a divine gift bestowed by the Almighty. And I am not looking forward to a day where our postseason elligibility is once again no longer a given. But the price of success is legacy. And as such the stakes are always higher. And the lows, necessarily, feel lower.

For me it comes down to this: I acknowledge that the Patriots are literally 4 plays away from having zero Super Bowl rings. That in and of itself is something to be grateful for. Absolutely.

But it should also be considered that they are literally 2 plays away from having 6. And 2 more plays away from having played in 8. So a 4-play swing in either direction is pretty dramatic.

But the point is, no other team will ever be in a position to be 4 plays away from 6 rings and 8 Super Bowls. That seems significant and worthy of both celebration and a fair dose of wistfulness (which, I think, is the intent of this thread).

When the talking heads on Sunday were saying that winning a super bowl with 2 different teams somehow gave Manning an edge as GOAT (along with passing and TD records) i pleaded for a different perspective.

I know "4 plays away" sounds like "more games in first place" but the legacy of this team weighs heavily on me.
 

crystalline

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 12, 2009
5,771
JP
When the talking heads on Sunday were saying that winning a super bowl with 2 different teams somehow gave Manning an edge as GOAT (allong with passing and TD records) i pleaded for a different perspective.
It's easier to win with two teams than it is to win the same number of SBs with one.

Because as your first team plays well it gets low draft picks and gets worse over time. Then, you leave as a FA. Here's the clincher- you get to survey all 31 other teams and pursue the one with the best defense and skill players (and coaching and management). That's what Peyton did-the Colts spent all their picks on offensive toys for him and neglected defense. Then they parted ways and he chose a team with a great defense.

Belichick had to rebuild a good defense around Brady without high picks (and in the face of the Goodell competitive balance first round pick tax).
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,100
I think it's an interesting question about whether it's more frustrating to narrowly miss a Super Bowl victory or appearance, to get upset in the opening round by Mark Bleepin' Sanchez, or to get obliterated and exposed in the first round like the 2009 team. It's also an interesting question in light of the fact that the Pats have won 4 titles; would the answer change if the Pats had won zero?

As fans, we always want 1 more. All of us fans hear about the Canadien dynasties of the 1960's and 1970's, the Yankees remarkable runs, and the Celtics winning titles in 11 of 13 seasons during the Bill Russell era; some of us even experienced those first hand. And memories of the near misses do seem to stick around longer than the opening round losses.

However, it helps to keep perspective; consistently winning in the NFL is probably harder than any other of the major sports, especially in today's era. The margin between hoisting a Lombardi and going home empty handed is closer than we often realize. If Charles Woodson gets to Brady 1 second later, Brady's fumble is probably not overturned. Or he's looking at a 2nd-and-16 instead of a 2nd-and-10, and Vinatieri is perhaps forced to kick a 50-something yarder in that driving snowstorm. If Jeff Wilkins hits a 52 yarder in the Super Bowl (makeable in the dome), Vinatieri's kick propels the Pats to OT back in the day where a coin flip typically decides the game. In 2003, Edgerin James was tackled one foot short of the end zone, and it made the difference between the AFCCG being played in a snowy Foxborogh or in the friendly confines of the Hoosier Dome. In the playoffs that year, had McNair's pass to Bennett been just a tiny bit less overthrown, the Titans are within range of a tieing field goal try, if not winning outright via a TD. And it's not just New England that has these close calls. The 49'ers were 18 yards away from scoring the winning TD that would lead them to a return engagement in the Super Bowl before the Seahawks' Malcolm (Smith) saves the day in the NFCCG two January's ago. Being on the wrong end of agonizingly close plays is part of being a sports fan.

So, I go to bed each night knowing that the Pats success in the Brady/Belichick era is truly both remarkable and unprecedented. I am also secure in my knowledge that media types that downplay that success know not what they are talking about. As they say, while everyone has an opinion, not all opinions are equally valid.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
I get your point. Not saying we could've won them them all, but one more ring sprinkled in there, to quiet all the naysayers, amongst all the close calls, would've been great. And completely possible. I never asked for 10 titles in 15 years.

And please, hold the off on the bolded, maybe? It stings. Sports is a big part of my life, and the fact that I'm posting on this message board probably means the giving-up-sports ship has sailed. Also, I do not like being miserable. Working hard on the opposite, in fact.

In any event, I DO appreciate the run we've been on, and understand the variance of small sample sizes. I just think we've had a fair amount of opportunities we didn't cash in on. Not wishing for 10 in 15, just wishing we had one more.

Edit: softened it up because I respect your posting, which is very knowledgable and good. All of the above being said, I will still take the four rings, and agree that any of the other 31 teams would take that in a second. It's just so tantalizing to think about what could've been.
They could have won more somewhere along the way for sure (or could have won less), and its disappointing/frustrating they didn't get one this year. Try to enjoy the time deep on the back nine in the greatest run from a Boston sports franchise that we're likely to see in our lifetimes.
 

PayrodsFirstClutchHit

Bob Kraft's Season Ticket Robin Hoodie
SoSH Member
Jun 29, 2006
8,319
Winterport, ME
They could have won more somewhere along the way for sure (or could have won less), and its disappointing/frustrating they didn't get one this year. Try to enjoy the time deep on the back nine in the greatest run from a Boston sports franchise that we're likely to see in our lifetimes.
There is also the perspective of rooting for a team that is a favorite to win it all that comes up short versus a team that went on a run as an unlikely underdog and won a few playoff games. Many of these "almost won" years the Pats were the favorite to win, which can add to the overall disappointment level for the fanbase. I am sure Chiefs fans are not happy with how their season ended, but they seem to have a collective good feeling about this past season with reaching a level of success they have not achieved in some time.

Hanging an "AFC Finalist" banner is not something we are looking for the Pats organization to do this offseason. We openly mock Colts and Jets fans for embracing the celebration of "coming close" as an achievement. The bar is high for the Pats due to past success and current expectations. Not being able to fully celebrate a non championship season is the part of price of those expectations.