Think NE's FO is so great?

[Orton's Arm]

This topic regularly comes up. It is embarrassing. The essence of the discussion is that the losers rationalize why winners win and make excuses why they lose. It's pathetic. Over the past dozen years the Pats have had the best overall record in the game with multiple SB wins. Over the same period of time the Bills have had one of the worst records in the league without even qualifying for a wild card playoff game.

 

Tom Brady's record against the Bills is a stunning 20-3. These games are important games for the Bills but are inconsequential games for the Pats. For them these games are not rivalry games.There is too much of a disparity between the two teams for it to qualify as such.

 

What is remarkable about the successful Patriot run is that it is done in a system designed for parity. Winning teams have less advantages than losing teams in drafting , scheduling and positioning for selecting waived players. Yet against that added adversity the Pats still succeed. What is painfully apparent, especially compared to the Pats' organization, is that the Bills are such a second-rate operation that they still can't compete when the system is tilted in their favor.

 

Maybe the best approach Bills fans should take when commenting on other successful teams is to stay silent until their own lackluster team gets better. Otherwise the commentary comes off as baby crying from insecure and jealous fans. It's pathetic and it's sad.

 

> The essence of the discussion is that the losers rationalize why winners win and make excuses why they lose. It's pathetic.

 

You're painting with an awfully broad brush. Yes, there's been some rationalization and excuse making in this thread. But there's been at least as much critical analysis of the Patriots' strengths and weaknesses.

 

Have they been a better team than the Bills over the last ten years? Absolutely. No one is disputing that. Is it impressive to achieve five Super Bowl appearances--including three wins--over the course of a decade? Yes. But if you compare them to other dynasty teams with multiple Super Bowl wins, the biggest difference is that no one knows if the Patriots would have won even a single Super Bowl had it not been for the cheating.

 

There are two possible ways that one can allow one's perspective as a Bills fan to create bias. One way is the way you've pointed out. To engage in excuse making, or to attempt to explain away the fact that the Patriots have been a much better team than the Bills over the last ten years. It's also possible to fall into the opposite error. To act as if we, as fans of a losing football team, somehow lack the right to critically analyze a winning team.

 

To fall into the latter error is every bit as absurd as succumbing to the former.

[JohnC]

> The essence of the discussion is that the losers rationalize why winners win and make excuses why they lose. It's pathetic.

 

You're painting with an awfully broad brush. Yes, there's been some rationalization and excuse making in this thread. But there's been at least as much critical analysis of the Patriots' strengths and weaknesses.

 

Have they been a better team than the Bills over the last ten years? Absolutely. No one is disputing that. Is it impressive to achieve five Super Bowl appearances--including three wins--over the course of a decade? Yes. But if you compare them to other dynasty teams with multiple Super Bowl wins, the biggest difference is that no one knows if the Patriots would have won even a single Super Bowl had it not been for the cheating.

 

There are two possible ways that one can allow one's perspective as a Bills fan to create bias. One way is the way you've pointed out. To engage in excuse making, or to attempt to explain away the fact that the Patriots have been a much better team than the Bills over the last ten years. It's also possible to fall into the opposite error. To act as if we, as fans of a losing football team, somehow lack the right to critically analyze a winning team.

 

To fall into the latter error is every bit as absurd as succumbing to the former.

 

What is being discussed and how it is being discussed in this thread is a far cry from critically analyzing a winning team.

 

For me, not for a lot of others, the notion that the Pats cheating was a major contributor to their success is an absurdity. What makes their stunning achievement incredible is that the parity and cap system make it very difficult to have sustained success. They have been going strong for nearly a dozen years. They are not the model that a fan of a losing organization should be criticizing but a model that should be followed.

 

You can criticize the successful Pats organization all you want. What is there to criticize? They have a quality owner, they have a quality organization and their coaching staff is excellent. They are a very stable organization. They do lose staff but mostly because other organizations hire them away.

 

This thread is not a one year thread. It repeats itslefy yearly and multiple times within each year. What bothers me the most about this topic is the delight taken in any problem associated with this most successful franchise. Being jealous is not an attribute that I find very appealing.

 

I'm sure you may find my attitude a tad bit sanctimoneous but I prefer building oneself up rather than knocking the other guy down. When your favored team has had losing seasons in 9 out of the 10 past years and your team has been out of the playoffs for 13 and counting seasons I find it small minded to be critical of the success of others. That's just me.

[NoSaint]

 

 

What is being discussed and how it is being discussed in this thread is a far cry from critically analyzing a winning team.

 

For me, not for a lot of others, the notion that the Pats cheating was a major contributor to their success is an absurdity. What makes their stunning achievement incredible is that the parity and cap system make it very difficult to have sustained success. They have been going strong for nearly a dozen years. They are not the model that a fan of a losing organization should be criticizing but a model that should be followed.

 

You can criticize the successful Pats organization all you want. What is there to criticize? They have a quality owner, they have a quality organization and their coaching staff is excellent. They are a very stable organization. They do lose staff but mostly because other organizations hire them away.

 

This thread is not a one year thread. It repeats itslefy yearly and multiple times within each year. What bothers me the most about this topic is the delight taken in any problem associated with this most successful franchise. Being jealous is not an attribute that I find very appealing.

 

I'm sure you may find my attitude a tad bit sanctimoneous but I prefer building oneself up rather than knocking the other guy down. When your favored team has had losing seasons in 9 out of the 10 past years and your team has been out of the playoffs for 13 and counting seasons I find it small minded to be critical of the success of others. That's just me.

 

Another factor you touched on briefly that I found impressive is that (especially with rings) players price tags sky rocket making it harder to maintain - and suddenly that coaching tree starts spreading (as well as front office). You lose talent on the field, lose talent on the sideline and lose talent in the scouting department all while having the lower draft position, lower waiver order.... Yet all we hear about are the occasional guy that might take a slight discount for a ring.

 

As a bills fan, they drive me crazy. As a sports fan they are an impressive group.

[JohnC]

Another factor you touched on briefly that I found impressive is that (especially with rings) players price tags sky rocket making it harder to maintain - and suddenly that coaching tree starts spreading (as well as front office). You lose talent on the field, lose talent on the sideline and lose talent in the scouting department all while having the lower draft position, lower waiver order.... Yet all we hear about are the occasional guy that might take a slight discount for a ring.

 

As a bills fan, they drive me crazy. As a sports fan they are an impressive group.

 

There were a variety of reasons why Parcells left the Patriot organization. One of the primary reasons why Parcells left was due to the fact that he wanted to have a strong man system where he was the controlling person in personnel matters. Kraft wanted to build a strong organization, top to bottom, without the HC controlling all aspects of the operation. I read an account where Kraft told Parcells that he invested a lot of resources in the scouting department and that he wasn't going to have a system where one man controlled the operation. Parcells wasn't satisfied with that type of approach.

 

There was another aspect to the Parcells departure. Kraft was put off by Parcells dismissive attitude toward him and his wife. In an interview I watched on TV Kraft spoke about the Parcells period. Kraft responded to the interviewer's question regarding Parcells with a great deal of intensity. He told a story when he first took over that he was on the team's charter with Parcells, his wife and the banker who financed the purchase of the franchise, also a friend. On that particular flight he described how Parcell's was rude toward his wife and couldn't be bothered when Kraft introduced the banker to him. In telling the story you could see how angry Kraft was with that memory. The bottom line is that Parcells was never going to be a long term employee with a Kraft own business.

 

Kraft is a believer in building an organization with the best people you can find and then providing the support to help them do their jobs. He believed in Belichick and he hired him. He has been rewarded many times over for that hire. Compare the caliber of people who have worked for him to the caliber of people who have worked for the Bills? Do you think he would have considered Levy or Nix to run his football operation?

[Orton's Arm]

What is being discussed and how it is being discussed in this thread is a far cry from critically analyzing a winning team.

 

For me, not for a lot of others, the notion that the Pats cheating was a major contributor to their success is an absurdity. What makes their stunning achievement incredible is that the parity and cap system make it very difficult to have sustained success. They have been going strong for nearly a dozen years. They are not the model that a fan of a losing organization should be criticizing but a model that should be followed.

 

You can criticize the successful Pats organization all you want. What is there to criticize? They have a quality owner, they have a quality organization and their coaching staff is excellent. They are a very stable organization. They do lose staff but mostly because other organizations hire them away.

 

This thread is not a one year thread. It repeats itslefy yearly and multiple times within each year. What bothers me the most about this topic is the delight taken in any problem associated with this most successful franchise. Being jealous is not an attribute that I find very appealing.

 

I'm sure you may find my attitude a tad bit sanctimoneous but I prefer building oneself up rather than knocking the other guy down. When your favored team has had losing seasons in 9 out of the 10 past years and your team has been out of the playoffs for 13 and counting seasons I find it small minded to be critical of the success of others. That's just me.

 

> What is being discussed and how it is being discussed in this thread is a far cry from critically analyzing a winning team.

 

Once again you are painting with a broad brush. The above-quoted text is only true of some of the criticisms of the Patriots in this thread.

 

> For me, not for a lot of others, the notion that the Pats cheating was a major contributor to their success is an absurdity.

 

In each of their Super Bowl wins, the Patriots' margin of victory was exactly three points. Do you think that knowing what the other team was going to do before they did it could have changed the outcome of a three point game?

 

I have a lot of respect for the intellectual rigor with which Bill Belichick conducts himself. So much so that I bought and read Patriot Reign. But I don't think there's any room for reasonable debate about whether the Patriots' cheating might have affected the outcomes of their three point Super Bowl wins. Had the Bills cheated their way to a three point Super Bowl win, I'd be saying the exact same thing. In case you doubt my impartiality, bear in mind that I think the Home Run Throwback had been officiated correctly. (As painful as that is for me to write.)

 

Without the cheating, the Patriots would still have been a very successful organization. "Successful" would still mean five Super Bowl appearances. But it would probably mean fewer than three Super Bowl wins. Five appearances, plus an unknown number of Super Bowl wins, is a very respectable record of accomplishment.

 

> You can criticize the successful Pats organization all you want. What is there to criticize?

 

The previous ten years have been very good for the Patriots. Will the next ten be equally good? They do not have an heir apparent for Tom Brady. They do not seem to have a large core of young, talented players. (If you disagree with that, please name the players you feel constitute their young core.) Once Brady retires, they will probably go into rebuilding mode. There's no shame in that. Most dynasty teams go into rebuilding mode after enough of their star players retire. We as Bills fans are so conditioned to the Patriots dominating the division--and dominating us--over such a long period of time, that it's easy to conclude their dominance will last forever. But I don't see them adding the young talent they'd need to add to make that dominance permanent.

 

> I'm sure you may find my attitude a tad bit sanctimoneous but I prefer building oneself up rather than knocking the other guy down.

 

I also prefer building myself up to knocking the other guy down. I realize you feel frustrated with those who have the opposite perspective. So do I. But you are responding more strongly to your justified feeling of frustration than to the nuance and meaning of what's actually being written. Much of what's been written about the Patriots, both now and in the past, has been the result of the desire to tear the other guy down; or else based on wishful thinking about the imminent demise of the Patriots. But to instinctively lump all criticism of the Patriots into that category does a disservice to the discussion. If you think the individual points I've raised--such as the Patriots not acquiring young talent fast enough to stay dominant, or nor acquiring an heir apparent to Tom Brady--are incorrect, then by all means refute them. If you're right and I'm wrong, I'd be happy to be refuted. It would be a chance to learn something new. But blanket statements, condemning all criticism of the Patriots organization, are not informative.

[Doc]

> What is being discussed and how it is being discussed in this thread is a far cry from critically analyzing a winning team.

 

Once again you are painting with a broad brush. The above-quoted text is only true of some of the criticisms of the Patriots in this thread.

 

> For me, not for a lot of others, the notion that the Pats cheating was a major contributor to their success is an absurdity.

 

In each of their Super Bowl wins, the Patriots' margin of victory was exactly three points. Do you think that knowing what the other team was going to do before they did it could have changed the outcome of a three point game?

 

I have a lot of respect for the intellectual rigor with which Bill Belichick conducts himself. So much so that I bought and read Patriot Reign. But I don't think there's any room for reasonable debate about whether the Patriots' cheating might have affected the outcomes of their three point Super Bowl wins. Had the Bills cheated their way to a three point Super Bowl win, I'd be saying the exact same thing. In case you doubt my impartiality, bear in mind that I think the Home Run Throwback had been officiated correctly. (As painful as that is for me to write.)

 

Without the cheating, the Patriots would still have been a very successful organization. "Successful" would still mean five Super Bowl appearances. But it would probably mean fewer than three Super Bowl wins. Five appearances, plus an unknown number of Super Bowl wins, is a very respectable record of accomplishment.

 

> You can criticize the successful Pats organization all you want. What is there to criticize?

 

The previous ten years have been very good for the Patriots. Will the next ten be equally good? They do not have an heir apparent for Tom Brady. They do not seem to have a large core of young, talented players. (If you disagree with that, please name the players you feel constitute their young core.) Once Brady retires, they will probably go into rebuilding mode. There's no shame in that. Most dynasty teams go into rebuilding mode after enough of their star players retire. We as Bills fans are so conditioned to the Patriots dominating the division--and dominating us--over such a long period of time, that it's easy to conclude their dominance will last forever. But I don't see them adding the young talent they'd need to add to make that dominance permanent.

 

> I'm sure you may find my attitude a tad bit sanctimoneous but I prefer building oneself up rather than knocking the other guy down.

 

I also prefer building myself up to knocking the other guy down. I realize you feel frustrated with those who have the opposite perspective. So do I. But you are responding more strongly to your justified feeling of frustration than to the nuance and meaning of what's actually being written. Much of what's been written about the Patriots, both now and in the past, has been the result of the desire to tear the other guy down; or else based on wishful thinking about the imminent demise of the Patriots. But to instinctively lump all criticism of the Patriots into that category does a disservice to the discussion. If you think the individual points I've raised--such as the Patriots not acquiring young talent fast enough to stay dominant, or nor acquiring an heir apparent to Tom Brady--are incorrect, then by all means refute them. If you're right and I'm wrong, I'd be happy to be refuted. It would be a chance to learn something new. But blanket statements, condemning all criticism of the Patriots organization, are not informative.

One thing: without cheating, they might not have even reached those first 3 SB's, let alone won them. But after getting caught and ostensibly no longer cheating, you cannot make the same statement about their last 2 SB appearances, and at least in 2007, they were the best team in the NFL...until the SB.

 

No one denies that they've had success. Take away the 3 SB appearances/wins and you still have an impressive run. But again that's due to blind luck in drafting Brady and then having their franchise QB almost die on the field to give him a chance to play, as well as the NFL opening up the passing game and protecting QB's like never before, to go along with having a defensive genius and a guy with a photographic (football) memory. It was a perfect storm, if you will. But their SB winning days look to be over and the Patriots' fortunes post-Brady will hinge on their ability to find a QB to replace him when the time comes, no more, no less, and it has nothing to do with being a "first rate organization," as their inability to draft another QB shows. If they can somehow find one before Brady retires, Belichick might stick around. However I doubt one will duplicate what happened with Brady, i.e. winning a SB in year two, and it will probably take them becoming cellar dwellers again and having to draft one high, and I don't see Belichick sticking around for that.

[BuffOrange]

Couple thoughts:

 

- I got to thinking this weekend about parity & the importance of QB in the modern game. And then it sort of hit me. There has to be a correlation there.

Not sure why I've never heard this theory in countless hours of listening/watching/reading football; but it seems sort of obvious. If the rosters are more equal than they've ever been, then having a stud at the most important position has to count for more than ever. A lot more.

Just compare the non-QB rosters when healthy. At how many positions are the Pats clearly superior? TE & LB? Probably OL now with Levitre gone? The same is basically true if you take the Packers or Saints instead of the Pats. The gap was certainly a lot greater when comparing our crappy 80's teams to the Giants/Bears/Redskins or whomever..

So I would strongly disagree w/ the notion that it's especially hard to sustain a good team in this era. A great QB really does solves everything, as the guy who brought up the Colts astutely pointed out.

 

- The 2008 AFC East played the NFC West and AFC West - the two weakest divisions in football that year by a mile. The Cardinals at 9-7 had the best record of those eight teams. Could that have possibly had something to do w/ NE going 11-5 (not to mention the Dolphins who were 1-15 the year before & 7-9 the year after?). I'm gonna go with yes.

 

Worth noting this is coming from someone who has been accused of being a "Pats lover" here probably as much as anyone over the years. But ya I don't think it's "sad and pathetic" to point out that most of their success comes from lucking into an immortal QB. IMO it's a little sad to pretend otherwise in an attempt to earn objectivity points on a message board. We all know the Bills FO has sucked a lot. NE has the company of about 28 other teams in being better than us in that department.

[Doc]

Couple thoughts:

 

- I got to thinking this weekend about parity & the importance of QB in the modern game. And then it sort of hit me. There has to be a correlation there.

Not sure why I've never heard this theory in countless hours of listening/watching/reading football; but it seems sort of obvious. If the rosters are more equal than they've ever been, then having a stud at the most important position has to count for more than ever. A lot more.

Just compare the non-QB rosters when healthy. At how many positions are the Pats clearly superior? TE & LB? Probably OL now with Levitre gone? The same is basically true if you take the Packers or Saints instead of the Pats. The gap was certainly a lot greater when comparing our crappy 80's teams to the Giants/Bears/Redskins or whomever..

So I would strongly disagree w/ the notion that it's especially hard to sustain a good team in this era. A great QB really does solves everything, as the guy who brought up the Colts astutely pointed out.

 

- The 2008 AFC East played the NFC West and AFC West - the two weakest divisions in football that year by a mile. The Cardinals at 9-7 had the best record of those eight teams. Could that have possibly had something to do w/ NE going 11-5 (not to mention the Dolphins who were 1-15 the year before & 7-9 the year after?). I'm gonna go with yes.

 

Worth noting this is coming from someone who has been accused of being a "Pats lover" here probably as much as anyone over the years. But ya I don't think it's "sad and pathetic" to point out that most of their success comes from lucking into an immortal QB. IMO it's a little sad to pretend otherwise in an attempt to earn objectivity points on a message board. We all know the Bills FO has sucked a lot. NE has the company of about 28 other teams in being better than us in that department.

The Pats haven't been much better at drafting. It's mostly Belichick and Adams and that lucky pick of Brady. Take Brady away and you get Belichick in Cleveland.

[Drop Kick Flutie]

> What is being discussed and how it is being discussed in this thread is a far cry from critically analyzing a winning team.

 

Once again you are painting with a broad brush. The above-quoted text is only true of some of the criticisms of the Patriots in this thread.

 

> For me, not for a lot of others, the notion that the Pats cheating was a major contributor to their success is an absurdity.

 

In each of their Super Bowl wins, the Patriots' margin of victory was exactly three points. Do you think that knowing what the other team was going to do before they did it could have changed the outcome of a three point game?

 

I have a lot of respect for the intellectual rigor with which Bill Belichick conducts himself. So much so that I bought and read Patriot Reign. But I don't think there's any room for reasonable debate about whether the Patriots' cheating might have affected the outcomes of their three point Super Bowl wins. Had the Bills cheated their way to a three point Super Bowl win, I'd be saying the exact same thing. In case you doubt my impartiality, bear in mind that I think the Home Run Throwback had been officiated correctly. (As painful as that is for me to write.)

 

Without the cheating, the Patriots would still have been a very successful organization. "Successful" would still mean five Super Bowl appearances. But it would probably mean fewer than three Super Bowl wins. Five appearances, plus an unknown number of Super Bowl wins, is a very respectable record of accomplishment.

 

> You can criticize the successful Pats organization all you want. What is there to criticize?

 

The previous ten years have been very good for the Patriots. Will the next ten be equally good? They do not have an heir apparent for Tom Brady. They do not seem to have a large core of young, talented players. (If you disagree with that, please name the players you feel constitute their young core.) Once Brady retires, they will probably go into rebuilding mode. There's no shame in that. Most dynasty teams go into rebuilding mode after enough of their star players retire. We as Bills fans are so conditioned to the Patriots dominating the division--and dominating us--over such a long period of time, that it's easy to conclude their dominance will last forever. But I don't see them adding the young talent they'd need to add to make that dominance permanent.

 

> I'm sure you may find my attitude a tad bit sanctimoneous but I prefer building oneself up rather than knocking the other guy down.

 

I also prefer building myself up to knocking the other guy down. I realize you feel frustrated with those who have the opposite perspective. So do I. But you are responding more strongly to your justified feeling of frustration than to the nuance and meaning of what's actually being written. Much of what's been written about the Patriots, both now and in the past, has been the result of the desire to tear the other guy down; or else based on wishful thinking about the imminent demise of the Patriots. But to instinctively lump all criticism of the Patriots into that category does a disservice to the discussion. If you think the individual points I've raised--such as the Patriots not acquiring young talent fast enough to stay dominant, or nor acquiring an heir apparent to Tom Brady--are incorrect, then by all means refute them. If you're right and I'm wrong, I'd be happy to be refuted. It would be a chance to learn something new. But blanket statements, condemning all criticism of the Patriots organization, are not informative.

 

Offense:

QB Ryan Mallet, may or may not be the future, was highly regarded out of college

RB Stevan Ridley, Shane Vereen, Brandon Bolden all 24 or younger

WR Josh Boyce, Aaron Dobson, Kenbrell Thomkins all 3 rookies, two of which were drafted this year with high promise and a promising UDFA that has lit up the PS

TE Rob Gronkowski signed though 2019 with team outs

OL we have our franchise Left Tackle it Nate Solder

 

Defense:

LB Mayo will be the veteran leader of the future, Hightower played very well as a rookie

DE Chandler Jones was quite possibly on his way to DROY until he got hurt

CB Alfonzo Dennard was a steal at CB, Logan Ryan looked good in PS but we'll have to see about what he does in real games, Talib is pretty young too, if we resign him our 2 CB starters are set

S D-Mac looks like an elite safety out there, a few other youngsters look promising but the jury is still out

[YoloinOhio]

This topic regularly comes up. It is embarrassing. The essence of the discussion is that the losers rationalize why winners win and make excuses why they lose. It's pathetic. Over the past dozen years the Pats have had the best overall record in the game with multiple SB wins. Over the same period of time the Bills have had one of the worst records in the league without even qualifying for a wild card playoff game.

 

Tom Brady's record against the Bills is a stunning 20-3. These games are important games for the Bills but are inconsequential games for the Pats. For them these games are not rivalry games.There is too much of a disparity between the two teams for it to qualify as such.

 

What is remarkable about the successful Patriot run is that it is done in a system designed for parity. Winning teams have less advantages than losing teams in drafting , scheduling and positioning for selecting waived players. Yet against that added adversity the Pats still succeed. What is painfully apparent, especially compared to the Pats' organization, is that the Bills are such a second-rate operation that they still can't compete when the system is tilted in their favor.

 

Maybe the best approach Bills fans should take when commenting on other successful teams is to stay silent until their own lackluster team gets better. Otherwise the commentary comes off as baby crying from insecure and jealous fans. It's pathetic and it's sad.

Defensive much? The thread was a statement of fact that was tweeted from a Pats fan, an NFL writer who is in the media. Didn't compare to the Bills FO, or any other FO for that matter. It supported my opinion that NE's FO is overrated. Not that it is terrible, or the team is not a consistent winner, or that Brady does not walk on water. Why is stating a fact that supports my opinion pathetic and sad? I'm not the only one with this opinion. If it came from a fan of another team would that make you be able to swallow it better?

[Pneumonic]

Offense:

QB Ryan Mallet, may or may not be the future, was highly regarded out of college

RB Stevan Ridley, Shane Vereen, Brandon Bolden all 24 or younger

WR Josh Boyce, Aaron Dobson, Kenbrell Thomkins all 3 rookies, two of which were drafted this year with high promise and a promising UDFA that has lit up the PS

TE Rob Gronkowski signed though 2019 with team outs

OL we have our franchise Left Tackle it Nate Solder

 

Defense:

LB Mayo will be the veteran leader of the future, Hightower played very well as a rookie

DE Chandler Jones was quite possibly on his way to DROY until he got hurt

CB Alfonzo Dennard was a steal at CB, Logan Ryan looked good in PS but we'll have to see about what he does in real games, Talib is pretty young too, if we resign him our 2 CB starters are set

S D-Mac looks like an elite safety out there, a few other youngsters look promising but the jury is still out

 

On offense, I would also add: Vollmer at RT and possibly the Cannon kid at RG. And don't sleep on this Sudfeld kid at TE. And Blount is only 26 himself. Amendola, while a vet, is just 27. I also read where Wendell graded out as the best Pats OL last year. He's 27.

On defense I would add: Spikes as perhaps the best run stuffing ILB in the game.

Edited September 4, 2013 by Pneumonic

[Charles Romes]

If the bills had picked QBs in each of the first 3 rounds each year since 2000 and continuously carried 7 QBs in the hopes a franchise QB would emerge their playoff qualifying percentage could not have been worse.

[JohnC]

> What is being discussed and how it is being discussed in this thread is a far cry from critically analyzing a winning team.

 

Once again you are painting with a broad brush. The above-quoted text is only true of some of the criticisms of the Patriots in this thread.

 

> For me, not for a lot of others, the notion that the Pats cheating was a major contributor to their success is an absurdity.

 

In each of their Super Bowl wins, the Patriots' margin of victory was exactly three points. Do you think that knowing what the other team was going to do before they did it could have changed the outcome of a three point game?

 

I have a lot of respect for the intellectual rigor with which Bill Belichick conducts himself. So much so that I bought and read Patriot Reign. But I don't think there's any room for reasonable debate about whether the Patriots' cheating might have affected the outcomes of their three point Super Bowl wins. Had the Bills cheated their way to a three point Super Bowl win, I'd be saying the exact same thing. In case you doubt my impartiality, bear in mind that I think the Home Run Throwback had been officiated correctly. (As painful as that is for me to write.)

 

Without the cheating, the Patriots would still have been a very successful organization. "Successful" would still mean five Super Bowl appearances. But it would probably mean fewer than three Super Bowl wins. Five appearances, plus an unknown number of Super Bowl wins, is a very respectable record of accomplishment.

 

> You can criticize the successful Pats organization all you want. What is there to criticize?

 

The previous ten years have been very good for the Patriots. Will the next ten be equally good? They do not have an heir apparent for Tom Brady. They do not seem to have a large core of young, talented players. (If you disagree with that, please name the players you feel constitute their young core.) Once Brady retires, they will probably go into rebuilding mode. There's no shame in that. Most dynasty teams go into rebuilding mode after enough of their star players retire. We as Bills fans are so conditioned to the Patriots dominating the division--and dominating us--over such a long period of time, that it's easy to conclude their dominance will last forever. But I don't see them adding the young talent they'd need to add to make that dominance permanent.

 

> I'm sure you may find my attitude a tad bit sanctimoneous but I prefer building oneself up rather than knocking the other guy down.

 

I also prefer building myself up to knocking the other guy down. I realize you feel frustrated with those who have the opposite perspective. So do I. But you are responding more strongly to your justified feeling of frustration than to the nuance and meaning of what's actually being written. Much of what's been written about the Patriots, both now and in the past, has been the result of the desire to tear the other guy down; or else based on wishful thinking about the imminent demise of the Patriots. But to instinctively lump all criticism of the Patriots into that category does a disservice to the discussion. If you think the individual points I've raised--such as the Patriots not acquiring young talent fast enough to stay dominant, or nor acquiring an heir apparent to Tom Brady--are incorrect, then by all means refute them. If you're right and I'm wrong, I'd be happy to be refuted. It would be a chance to learn something new. But blanket statements, condemning all criticism of the Patriots organization, are not informative.

 

This thread is the same thread that repeatedly occurs. The general tenor of the responses is the same. It rarely changes. The basis for the majority of responses is childish jealousy. It's fans from a historically losing fanbase knowing that they have little chance to succeed throwing stones at the franchise that is a historically winning franchise.

 

If you believe that cheating was a major factor in the Pats winning SBs that is your prerogative. I don't accept that notion.

 

There is no doubt that the Pats will eventually have to contend with the down cycle of their successful run. The trajectory is moving downwards as Brady gets older. That is the nature of the cap and parity system. No franchise is immune from escaping the cyclical nature of the system. What is remarkable about the Pats is that they expanded the time frame of the cycle and remained near the top for so long. They are a good organization that when faced with the inevitability of the downcycle won't stay there long like the generationally bad Bills.

 

Sometimes the broad brush accidently covers the small detailed section of the wall. The military calls it collatoral damage. Unintended consequences. As I have repeatedly stated in this thread I find the responses in general to be the same type of loser-minded responses against a successful franchise that knows how to run a high quality operation. I find it not only embarrassing but also very sad.

[K-9]

There were a variety of reasons why Parcells left the Patriot organization. One of the primary reasons why Parcells left was due to the fact that he wanted to have a strong man system where he was the controlling person in personnel matters. Kraft wanted to build a strong organization, top to bottom, without the HC controlling all aspects of the operation. I read an account where Kraft told Parcells that he invested a lot of resources in the scouting department and that he wasn't going to have a system where one man controlled the operation. Parcells wasn't satisfied with that type of approach.

 

There was another aspect to the Parcells departure. Kraft was put off by Parcells dismissive attitude toward him and his wife. In an interview I watched on TV Kraft spoke about the Parcells period. Kraft responded to the interviewer's question regarding Parcells with a great deal of intensity. He told a story when he first took over that he was on the team's charter with Parcells, his wife and the banker who financed the purchase of the franchise, also a friend. On that particular flight he described how Parcell's was rude toward his wife and couldn't be bothered when Kraft introduced the banker to him. In telling the story you could see how angry Kraft was with that memory. The bottom line is that Parcells was never going to be a long term employee with a Kraft own business.

 

Kraft is a believer in building an organization with the best people you can find and then providing the support to help them do their jobs. He believed in Belichick and he hired him. He has been rewarded many times over for that hire. Compare the caliber of people who have worked for him to the caliber of people who have worked for the Bills? Do you think he would have considered Levy or Nix to run his football operation?

 

I buy the story of Parcells being rude to Kraft's wife.

 

I don't buy for a second the idea that Kraft doesn't want a head coach to control too much. No HC in the history of the game has had more control over every aspect football operations than Belichick.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Pneumonic]

This thread is the same thread that repeatedly occurs. The general tenor of the responses is the same. It rarely changes. The basis for the majority of responses is childish jealousy. It's fans from a historically losing fanbase knowing that they have little chance to succeed throwing stones at the franchise that is a historically winning franchise.

 

If you believe that cheating was a major factor in the Pats winning SBs that is your prerogative. I don't accept that notion.

 

There is no doubt that the Pats will eventually have to contend with the down cycle of their successful run. The trajectory is moving downwards as Brady gets older. That is the nature of the cap and parity system. No franchise is immune from escaping the cyclical nature of the system. What is remarkable about the Pats is that they expanded the time frame of the cycle and remained near the top for so long. They are a good organization that when faced with the inevitability of the downcycle won't stay there long like the generationally bad Bills.

 

Sometimes the broad brush accidently covers the small detailed section of the wall. The military calls it collatoral damage. Unintended consequences. As I have repeatedly stated in this thread I find the responses in general to be the same type of loser-minded responses against a successful franchise that knows how to run a high quality operation. I find it not only embarrassing but also very sad.

 

You see this type of envy, or is it jealousy?, all of the time amongst the opposition fans of dynasty teams, John. Moreso I suspect when the type of domination that has taken place is off the charts as has been the case with the Pats and there fellow AFCE combatants.

 

I agree, it started of as embarrassing but now is indeed sad.

[billykaykay]

This thread is the same thread that repeatedly occurs. The general tenor of the responses is the same. It rarely changes. The basis for the majority of responses is childish jealousy. It's fans from a historically losing fanbase knowing that they have little chance to succeed throwing stones at the franchise that is a historically winning franchise.

 

If you believe that cheating was a major factor in the Pats winning SBs that is your prerogative. I don't accept that notion.

 

There is no doubt that the Pats will eventually have to contend with the down cycle of their successful run. The trajectory is moving downwards as Brady gets older. That is the nature of the cap and parity system. No franchise is immune from escaping the cyclical nature of the system. What is remarkable about the Pats is that they expanded the time frame of the cycle and remained near the top for so long. They are a good organization that when faced with the inevitability of the downcycle won't stay there long like the generationally bad Bills.

 

Sometimes the broad brush accidently covers the small detailed section of the wall. The military calls it collatoral damage. Unintended consequences. As I have repeatedly stated in this thread I find the responses in general to be the same type of loser-minded responses against a successful franchise that knows how to run a high quality operation. I find it not only embarrassing but also very sad.

It is highly probable that if you flipped QB's with us getting Brady & NE receiving our QB's over the past decade that the W-L records would be flipped also. The NE franchise is no better than any other. The coach is a good coach but please look up his record with Brady & his record without Brady. It is ALL about Tom Brady, one of the best ever.

[YoloinOhio]

This thread is the same thread that repeatedly occurs. The general tenor of the responses is the same. It rarely changes. The basis for the majority of responses is childish jealousy. It's fans from a historically losing fanbase knowing that they have little chance to succeed throwing stones at the franchise that is a historically winning franchise.

 

If you believe that cheating was a major factor in the Pats winning SBs that is your prerogative. I don't accept that notion.

 

There is no doubt that the Pats will eventually have to contend with the down cycle of their successful run. The trajectory is moving downwards as Brady gets older. That is the nature of the cap and parity system. No franchise is immune from escaping the cyclical nature of the system. What is remarkable about the Pats is that they expanded the time frame of the cycle and remained near the top for so long. They are a good organization that when faced with the inevitability of the downcycle won't stay there long like the generationally bad Bills.

 

Sometimes the broad brush accidently covers the small detailed section of the wall. The military calls it collatoral damage. Unintended consequences. As I have repeatedly stated in this thread I find the responses in general to be the same type of loser-minded responses against a successful franchise that knows how to run a high quality operation. I find it not only embarrassing but also very sad.

Again, the post is a statement of fact. Even good teams can be criticized for some things, some times. It is OK. It is not the end of the world. Pats fans are extremely sensitive?!

[K-9]

It is highly probable that if you flipped QB's with us getting Brady & NE receiving our QB's over the past decade that the W-L records would be flipped also. The NE franchise is no better than any other. The coach is a good coach but please look up his record with Brady & his record without Brady. It is ALL about Tom Brady, one of the best ever.

 

I get the importance of the QB but Belichick's coaching prowess cannot be overstated, either. Him and Brady are the perfect combination.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[JohnC]

I buy the story of Parcells being rude to Kraft's wife.

 

I don't buy for a second the idea that Kraft doesn't want a head coach to control too much. No HC in the history of the game has had more control over every aspect football operations than Belichick.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

Kraft has a high regard for Belichick and his opinion. There is no doubt that he has a lot of authority within the organization. What both Kraft and Belichick believe in is investing in the scouting department and having quality staff.

 

Parcells's approach was more of an old school strong man approach. Belichick has a more sophisticated approach toward building and running an organization. Kraft and Belichick understand that managing a franchise is a wide ranging endeavor. They have created a system where all the parts have an understanding of what the Patriot approach is and they do their best to act within the company philosophy.

[Pneumonic]

It is highly probable that if you flipped QB's with us getting Brady & NE receiving our QB's over the past decade that the W-L records would be flipped also. The NE franchise is no better than any other. The coach is a good coach but please look up his record with Brady & his record without Brady. It is ALL about Tom Brady, one of the best ever.

 

It's just as likely that if you flipped HC/GM, and allowed Belichick to do his thing in Buffalo, that the W/L record may also be flipped.

 

Separation of the HC/GM from the star players is almost impossible to do. Would Lombardi be who he is minus Starr and Taylor? How about Noll minus Bradshaw, Swann and Harris? Or, Walsh minus Montana and Rice?

 

These guys are all joined at the dynasty hip.

 

Kraft has a high regard for Belichick and his opinion. There is no doubt that he has a lot of authority within the organization. What both Kraft and Belichick believe in is investing in the scouting department and having quality staff.

 

The "control" that BB has over that team stems from the fact that he also serves as GM, in addition to HC, and so is entrusted with addition personnel power. Few HC's are given that power. Nor should they. BB is an exception obviously.

Edited September 4, 2013 by Pneumonic