It's in My Blood Posted January 21, 2013 Posted January 21, 2013 Not long ago, the *Pats seemed to have one of the all-time great dynasties of all-time. Since then, they posted a perfect regular season, only to lose in the SB. Got caught in the spygate scandal. Lost another SB to the Giants and now have lost the AFC title game at home to the Ravens. How do you think history will judge the Belichick/Brady era? Will they win another SB? Discuss... I think in 10-15 years, the Patriots legacy of the 2000's will be remembered much differently. I can totally see then-retired coaches and players coming forward to really expose spygate with first hand accounts of how and when the cheating occured. Yea, im bitter we get our asses beat each year by the Pats, but if it were any other team, I'd feel the same way.
jumbalaya Posted January 21, 2013 Posted January 21, 2013 (edited) Tarnished? Look at our legacy the last 11 years. There's not enough spit in Buffalo to polish that turd. Edited January 21, 2013 by jumbalaya
Fezmid Posted January 21, 2013 Posted January 21, 2013 I think in 10-15 years, the Patriots legacy of the 2000's will be remembered much differently. I can totally see then-retired coaches and players coming forward to really expose spygate with first hand accounts of how and when the cheating occured. Maybe an interview with Oprah?
Kelly the Dog Posted January 21, 2013 Posted January 21, 2013 I think in 10-15 years, the Patriots legacy of the 2000's will be remembered much differently. I can totally see then-retired coaches and players coming forward to really expose spygate with first hand accounts of how and when the cheating occured. This is precisely the reason I don't think it gave them much of an advantage. I think they would have already come out. I guess we'll know better in 10 years.
Ronin Posted January 21, 2013 Posted January 21, 2013 Like a team that won 3 super bowls in 4 years and was division winners for 11 of 12 years. AKA Damn good LOL In a great division too. Here were the QBs to rival the Pats over that span: Van Pelt Bledsoe (a QB that Belicheat couldn't even post a winning record with) Holcomb Losman Edwards Fitzpatrick Fiedler Feeley Frerotte Harrington Lemon Pennington Henne Moore Tannehill Testeverde (at 38) Pennington Bollinger Favre (at 39) and Sanchez. I don't think that the Bills, Miami, or the Jets had a QB for more than three seasons. Pennington on the Jets maybe. He's always been a below average QB though. Otherwise, the Pats' opponents posted only 13 winning seasons during the Brady era. 6 times 9-7, 4 times 10-6, and 3 times 11-5, mostly by the Jets. The Bills have been a two game handicap for the Pats over that stretch for the most part handing them two easy wins every season but two I think. Has there been an easier division in football from '01 to '12 apart from the Patriots? I don't think so. I think in 10-15 years, the Patriots legacy of the 2000's will be remembered much differently. I can totally see then-retired coaches and players coming forward to really expose spygate with first hand accounts of how and when the cheating occured. I completely agree. It screams volumes that Belicheat has not been able to win a Super Bowl, particularly in 2007 and surround years when he had superlative talent, without having cheated. Remember too that several of his win en route to his three SB championships were won by a mere 3/4 points, not to mention each and every SB game won by 3. His cheating clearly impacted in his favor in such close games. Either way, it was great to see that Patriot players' heads hanging yesterday after their presumption that Brady could lead them back by default failed to materialize. I agree with Terrell Suggs, they're an arrogant bunch from the head down. Either way, when you are the Super Bowl Vegas Odds favorite for 8 straight years and fail to even get there in six of those seasons and then are outcoached severely in the two in which you did make it, then there necessarily needs to be an exercise in reconciliation between the perceptions as to how great Belicheat is and the reality of it. The reality of it is that Belicheat was nothing but a loser except when he's had the best QB to ever play the game. When that QB has failed him, he has had no solutions whatsoever and has always been left standing there with his pants down around his ankles.
JM57 Posted January 21, 2013 Posted January 21, 2013 They SHOULD be viewed as a team that could win in the regular season, but once they got caught cheating, couldn't win when it counts. The proof is there. They've been regular season winners from the 2001-2012 regular seasons. In the playoffs, they were winners from 2002-05. Since then, they've been caught cheating and have not been victorious again. What's the reasoning for that? Is it simply coincidence? I myself find it pretty damning that they were 3-0 before they got caught taping practices, and 0-2 in the big game following it. It's a little harder to win when you're not positive what D packages you'll be facing, isn't it? Not saying they're a bad team. They're not. You CANNOT argue with the regular season success that they have had for 12 seasons. That's not luck. But WHY, OH WHY could they not finish the deal after being caught cheating?
B-Man Posted January 21, 2013 Posted January 21, 2013 When you talk about Super Bowl dynasties, you are talking about, the Steelers, the 49'rs, and the Cowboys. The Patriots have been very, very good, for a long time, but there are legitimate questions. Many folks would agree that they shouldn't even been in the one Super Bowl (except for the newly discovered Brady Tuck rule) They won their three Super Bowls by a TOTAL of 9 points, not dominating as did the other "dynasties" Both the Steelers and Giants have won the Super Bowl TWICE since the Pats last win in 2005. They were good, but not as elite as many here want to assign to them.(I would wager if they were in another division than the AFC East, many would think differently also) .
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 21, 2013 Posted January 21, 2013 god is a chick but otherwise i agree with you Oops, sorry... You are right! Caught me being gender insensitive!
4BillsintheBurgh Posted January 21, 2013 Posted January 21, 2013 They'll be as tarnished about as much as the steelers of the 70's were tarnished for their early adoption of steroids - not much.
Golden Wheels Posted January 21, 2013 Posted January 21, 2013 The Patriots haven't won the Super Bowl since spygate. Worth considering, don't you think?
ChevyVanMiller Posted January 21, 2013 Author Posted January 21, 2013 I think whether or not they win another Super Bowl going forward will have a lasting impact on how history ultimately views them. I agree with John Warrow that BB is a great game manager - especially the Broncos intentional safety game that he referenced, but the videotaping reality does take a lot of the lustre off of the trophies. Win one without the spying advantage and impress everyone.
Kelly the Dog Posted January 21, 2013 Posted January 21, 2013 (edited) The Patriots won their three Super Bowls with last minute drives that barely squeaked by their opponents. Since Spygate, they lost a couple Super Bowls on last minute drives where teams squeaked by them. It easily could have gone the other way, them losing the first three and then winning the next two. Edited January 21, 2013 by Kelly the Dog
Chimp Posted January 21, 2013 Posted January 21, 2013 Show me someone with a better decade Lance Armstrong
BillsFan130 Posted January 21, 2013 Posted January 21, 2013 as much as i hate the pats, i really dont think so. look at their superbowl wins. the first one they should have lost to oakland but they invented the tom brady rule. the 2nd one came down to a last second field goal. in the 2 super bowls theyve lost, they were winning both times in pretty much the final possession but lost. my point is that those games came down to a play here and there, great catches that were made, clutch field goals. could have went either way. they could be 1-4 in super bowls wins or 4-1 or 5-0 The Patriots won their three Super Bowls with last minute drives that barely squeaked by their opponents. Since Spygate, they lost a couple Super Bowls on last minute drives where teams squeaked by them. It easily could have gone the other way, them losing the first three and then winning the next two. exactly
missthe kgun Posted January 21, 2013 Posted January 21, 2013 Why do we have so many threads about things non Bill related??? Why do we have so many threads about things non Bill related???
NoSaint Posted January 21, 2013 Posted January 21, 2013 wow thats crazy. according to this board: the patriots never cheated only bills fans who are "jealous" of the patriots think they cheated spygate was something that only 3 bills fans created in their basement, and no one else in the rest of the league has heard of it or cares about it the patriots have won every game theyve played since 2002 the patriots are on a remarkable run of 12 straight super bowl titles tom brady is the best player in the history of the nfl, who has never thrown an incompletion, much less an interception, period bill beliceck cant be outcoached *please take note i have been saying this "dynasty" has been dead since the second i saw rice rip off an 84 yard td run in the opening minutes of that playoff game 3 years ago in gillete. glad to see bills fans finally waking up. You do realize the second half of Suggs quote is that they earned the right to be arrogant, right?
eball Posted January 21, 2013 Posted January 21, 2013 Truth be told, Bills fans should appreciate the Pats* "failure" to win a Super Bowl since 2004 because it proves what we have always taken to heart -- it is VERY difficult to win the damn thing, even if you have the best team. That "failure" does not take away from a damn near unprecedented run of excellence. Spygate or no spygate, they have been dominant for a long time. What I've seen more recently, though, are chinks in Belichick's coaching armor. I never used to expect poor in-game decisions, and that game yesterday was a train wreck. Punting three times inside the Ravens' 45? Not calling timeout at the end of the first half? For a moment I scanned the sideline to see if Chan Gailey was there. Brady's not getting any younger, and that Patriot* defense doesn't seem to be getting any better.
TheBrownBear Posted January 21, 2013 Posted January 21, 2013 I don't think it's tarnished, but it's been lessened to a degree. As far as play on the field, not much has changed. They beat a lot of teams in the early 2000's with scheme and execution, but the NFL caught on to the fact that they were a finesse team on both sides of the ball and that the way to beat them was just to out-physical them (aka rough them up a bit). They've been able to maintain their regular season success because today's NFL is mostly a finesse league, but there's a few teams that are built with that old school physical mentality that trip them up in the postseason (losses to Giants/Ravens and Jets in 2010). The window is open as long as Brady remains elite, so maybe two or three years more at max.
BuffaloWings Posted January 21, 2013 Posted January 21, 2013 They SHOULD be viewed as a team that could win in the regular season, but once they got caught cheating, couldn't win when it counts. The proof is there. They've been regular season winners from the 2001-2012 regular seasons. In the playoffs, they were winners from 2002-05. Since then, they've been caught cheating and have not been victorious again. What's the reasoning for that? Is it simply coincidence? I myself find it pretty damning that they were 3-0 before they got caught taping practices, and 0-2 in the big game following it. It's a little harder to win when you're not positive what D packages you'll be facing, isn't it? Not saying they're a bad team. They're not. You CANNOT argue with the regular season success that they have had for 12 seasons. That's not luck. But WHY, OH WHY could they not finish the deal after being caught cheating? Let's look at it this way...their two Superbowl losses were to the same team. Yes, a coach or two and a player or three may have been different, but it was the same core group of players and head coach that beat the Patriots twice. Maybe Tom Coughlin just knows how to beat Belichick. As for the regular season, they are just better than everyone else. A lot of that has to do with Brady, as many of us agree that this is a QB league...right? Maybe they're still cheating (since I don't understand how Wes Welker is wide open all the time), but maybe it also has to do with Brady being very good at reading defenses. Their WR corps seems to rotate every year and they've never had the great, elite RB...this tells me Brady is the reason they beat us and most of the league.
NoSaint Posted January 21, 2013 Posted January 21, 2013 (edited) Truth be told, Bills fans should appreciate the Pats* "failure" to win a Super Bowl since 2004 because it proves what we have always taken to heart -- it is VERY difficult to win the damn thing, even if you have the best team. That "failure" does not take away from a damn near unprecedented run of excellence. Spygate or no spygate, they have been dominant for a long time. What I've seen more recently, though, are chinks in Belichick's coaching armor. I never used to expect poor in-game decisions, and that game yesterday was a train wreck. Punting three times inside the Ravens' 45? Not calling timeout at the end of the first half? For a moment I scanned the sideline to see if Chan Gailey was there. Brady's not getting any younger, and that Patriot* defense doesn't seem to be getting any better. Very fair, all around. I think football folks overrate rings a little, by ignoring how fluky "any given Sunday" can be. By being the only major sport without a series, it really ends up having a bit more luck than most sports. In the pats case, as Kelly points out, it's cut both ways - which makes sense for a team that's been so many times. Yesterday they were flat beat. Even in their December funk, I thought the ravens were the team to beat in the afc if they could get reasonably healthy. NE isn't the automatic favorite, but they are still easily on the short list for another 2-3 years probably (barring Brady injury). Edited January 21, 2013 by NoSaint
Recommended Posts