NoCalMike Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 Mind you, I am still working off high levels of intoxication, but out of the three Superbowl games, they haven't dominated a single one, and their opponents had a good - better then good chance to win the game. This season they won by 10, but it was certainly a very close game, and the other two, were won basically because the Pats happened to have the ball last, not because of this make believe "AWESOME DEFENSE" I dunno, maybe I should have held off to post until I was sober, but to me the Pats at their best, aren't an all-time great team, and I can care less if they won 3 in 4 years, to me it moreso reflects the state of the NFL overall, rather then the Pats themselves. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 I can't stand them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSteve Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 Um, Pats deserve all the credit. Yes, the Eagles choked but that was brought on by the fact that the Pats had a hell of a defense. It just amazes me that people want to discredit the Patriots because of their no-name, no-flash attitude. Yet, all they do is win. They controlled the game today. Every chance the Eagles had to seize control the Pats took it away from them. That sounds like a championship team to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mh83 Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 Compared to any dynasty team...sorry I just don't hold any animosity toward the Patriots, its weird and I usually always hate the media darlings but I don't mind the Patriots, they play like a team in the full sense of the word. Course I'd much rather see the Skins there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted February 7, 2005 Author Share Posted February 7, 2005 Originally posted by TheSteve Um, Pats deserve all the credit. Yes, the Eagles choked but that was brought on by the fact that the Pats had a hell of a defense. It just amazes me that people want to discredit the Patriots because of their no-name, no-flash attitude. Yet, all they do is win. They controlled the game today. Every chance the Eagles had to seize control the Pats took it away from them. That sounds like a championship team to me. I am not discrediting the Pats. They deserve all three SB wins, and should relish in them. However, I am simply trying to say that when you watch the SB games they have been involved in, it gives off more of a "well, that is just how the NFL teams are these days" vibe, moreso then a "Wow I just watched excellence" feeling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drex Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 The Pats are the class and the envy of today's NFL. They win with team work and clutch play from guys who put their egos aside for the sake of winning championships. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The X-Factor Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 They are not dominant at all like you said NoCal. But when it counts, they get it done. They won't be mentioned with the best of teams becuase of this. In a way, it's right, because to be a great team you got to go out there and show you are the best. The Patiots close wins does not do that and therefore they will be left off the greatest list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjinhan Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 well their offense could be more exciting... but i dont know about you but i really enjoy watching their defense... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soljaofjesus Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 I was going for the pats but I dont like both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 The Pats have their moments, but I think one of the issues is that the differential in talent is smaller between them and other teams. They are a superior TEAM and thus they pull off the wins. BUt when you looked at the Cowboys, once they got past the Packers or Niners it was smooth sailing. When the Skins won, they dominated all year and then whooped behind in the playoffs and SB. The Pats don't have that to hang their hat on, but I think we WILL see a blowout again. Hell, the Ravens did it in 2000. We talk about dynasties, but I think a team will come along THIS decade and pull something more impressive than the Pats. Maybe not 3 in 4 years, but winning more easily and just LOOKING better than other teams by a wide margin like the Boys and Skins and Niners used to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chachie Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 First of all, GREAT title for the thread and interesting question. The Patriots allow alot of points and win the big ones by a hair. They have nobody spectacular but everyone does his job. They are SO... unspectacular. They do own the 4th quarter though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 The Patriots unspectacular? Yup. Of all the teams that have won consistently over a period of years the way they have, Skins, Pokes, Niners, Steelers etc. They are ABSOLUTELY the most boring. However, they do win games, and that's more important than anything else...however they may win them. I do love the fact that they play as a team. No superstars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 Unspectacular? You're kidding right? they haven't lost a playoff game in four years. They had one down year. They set a record this year for most consecutive games won. AND, they aren't about to be dismantled. No one has a penchant for clutch plays like this team. All they do is win. If for some reason you think winning is unspectacular, I guess it's a good thing you're a redskin fan. The fact that the patriots have had to play against consistantly tougher teams should make them deserve more credit, not less. How many teams on thier way to thier third super bowl have had to play against the number one defense on the road in a championship game right after facing the games most prolific touchdown scorer in history? This league is deep right now, and it means there are many really good teams in the league, and the pats have beaten all of them. There is nothing unspectacular about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 I disagree, Iggy. Look at who the NFC East Champs defeated 4 times in the 90s. QB: Jim Kelly HB: Thurman Thomas backup Ken Davis FB: Carwell Gardner TE: Keith McKellar OL: House Ballard, Kent Hull, Glenn Parker, Will Wolford WR: Andre Reed, James Lofton DL: BRUCE SMITH LB: Darryl Talley, Cornelius Bennett DB: Nate Odomes Mark Kelso Spec Teams: Steve Tasker(one of the greatest of all time for spec teams) And except for the Giants game, the Bills got KILLED in the Bowl. And that Bills team had more talent and HoF potential players than the Eagles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dallsux Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 Originally posted by NoCalMike I am not discrediting the Pats. They deserve all three SB wins, and should relish in them. However, I am simply trying to say that when you watch the SB games they have been involved in, it gives off more of a "well, that is just how the NFL teams are these days" vibe, moreso then a "Wow I just watched excellence" feeling. I agree. They are about as unspectacular as a "Dynastic" team gets. They are almost boring to watch. I don't totally buy this awesome defense thing either. But, I think they do something better than anyone in the League. They mask their weaknesses well. How, I don't know. I know when I watched the game tonight, I saw more than several times where the Pats defense broke down & could have easily been exploited for HUGE gains, even points. But somehow, they disguised the weaknesses & the Eagles never saw them (or didn't execute). At least, not enough. Now, part of that could be McNabb's inability to read confusing defenses, but that doesn't really explain the rest of the League (or at least those teams that have trouble beating the Pats) having the same trouble with them. Their unspectacularness is exactly why they win games. The most important thing is that they won. They did it as a team. They are always doing it as a team. They don't have any superstars like TO, but then most teams (including the Eagles) don't play like a team, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dallsux Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 Originally posted by Ignatius J. Unspectacular? You're kidding right? they haven't lost a playoff game in four years. They had one down year. They set a record this year for most consecutive games won. AND, they aren't about to be dismantled. No one has a penchant for clutch plays like this team. All they do is win. If for some reason you think winning is unspectacular, I guess it's a good thing you're a redskin fan. The fact that the patriots have had to play against consistantly tougher teams should make them deserve more credit, not less. How many teams on thier way to thier third super bowl have had to play against the number one defense on the road in a championship game right after facing the games most prolific touchdown scorer in history? This league is deep right now, and it means there are many really good teams in the league, and the pats have beaten all of them. There is nothing unspectacular about that. It's not their record or winning percentage or the records they break that is being called unspectacular, but their gameplay, itself. They win games by small margins in most cases & there never really seems to be really good highlights from Pats games. They just pound you with consistancy. They are tireless in their pursuit, unflappable, & consistant. No matter how you look at it, that's unspectacular. Consistancy is generally unspectacular. It's routine. You get up, you go to work, you come home, you go to bed, & you do it all again the next day. That's what the Pats do. Routine. After a while, it just becomes...unspectacular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac79d Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 Yes, most unspectacular "dynasty". All the same, I am extremely impressed with that team. What is "spectacular" is their unbelievable consistency, this year in spite of a bevy of injuries. Just win baby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNut73 Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 I see what you mean about unspectacular. I can agree...winning 3 SB's all by 3 points each. Saw a stat last night that they have given up 300 yds passing in each SB game they won. That's unspectacular...but I'd change places with them in a second Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 Originally posted by CowboyzSuckAzz It's not their record or winning percentage or the records they break that is being called unspectacular, but their gameplay, itself. They win games by small margins in most cases & there never really seems to be really good highlights from Pats games. They just pound you with consistancy. They are tireless in their pursuit, unflappable, & consistant. No matter how you look at it, that's unspectacular. Consistancy is generally unspectacular. It's routine. You get up, you go to work, you come home, you go to bed, & you do it all again the next day. That's what the Pats do. Routine. After a while, it just becomes...unspectacular. Same reasoning keeps Monk out of the Hall of Fame. And it's still a dumb reason. Three Superbowls in four years is an amazing feat, even moreso in this day and age. BTW, anyone bother to check out the scores of the Steeler SBs? 16-6. 21-17. 35-31. 31-19. That's not exactly total dominance either. Doesn't mean they didn't have a spectacular run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GURU Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 Thank you, Henry. One of the things that really stood out to me, watching all of the Super Bowl highlights on ESPN, is that the Pittsburg and Green Bay "dynasties" dominated by simply winning. Their opponents were in every one of those Super Bowls. But the Steelers and Packers simply closed out their opponents when it counted most. It's the same thing I see with New England. What amazes me about the Pats is that they keep winning in a league that is set up to discourage dynasties. It's simply IMPOSSIBLE to stockpile talent like the Steelers, 49ers, Redskins and Cowboys did these days. Maybe the best teams aren't as talented and deep as the best teams before free agency and the salary cap, but the worst teams are BETTER. You can't count on beating up on the also-rans because, these days, they actually have a shot of beating you any given week. What the Pats have accomplished amazes me. And I think they are fun to watch because I love to watch intelligent football. I like to see the battle of wits as much, maybe more, than simple physical excellence. Football, more than ever, is like a chess match. And the Pats are as good at this aspect of the game as any team, any coaching staff, any organization as I've ever seen. How can you not admire it? That game was full of big plays, as many defensively as offensively. I don't know what game some of you were watching. I thought is was a very good game, with the exception of the Eagles petering out at the end, lacking any sense of urgency in their last scoring drive. But that's why the Pats are champs again. They are smarter and more team oriented than anyone else. In that sense, they truly are dominant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chr31ter Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 Several points: 1. No matter what way you cut it, 34-4 over the past two seasons is pretty friggin' spectacular. 2. They didn't blow out the Eagles, but check out the scores of their games over the past 12 weeks. Their average margin of victory over that stretch is in excess of two touchdowns. They'd been KILLING teams since the end of October. 3. I think the most incredible thing about this team is their versatility and flexability. They're very good at EVERYTHING. To me, that's why they're so good - they have the personnel to squeeze another team's weakness. No matter the team, they're versatile and smart enough to prevent you from doing what you're comfortable doing, and whatever your team doesn't do well - that's what they're going to throw at you. 4. WHY are they so versatile and flexible? Cap management. They've gone to great pains to create a large "middle class" of players on their team... guys who make big contributions, but don't get big bucks: Vrabel, Bruschi, Harrison, Branch, Light, Patten, Brown, etc. I read somewhere that they've got more players making $1 million than any team in the league. It allows them to have a lot of specialists, too. On defense, when it's an obvious passing down, in come Vrabel and Colvin... when it's an obvious running down, you'll see Ted Johnson and Traylor and Wilfork in there. That's tough to beat, when the other team can give you so many looks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted February 7, 2005 Author Share Posted February 7, 2005 I guess what I am trying to say is that thus far in their three superbowl wins, the Pats have yet to establish themselves over the course of the entire game that they are the DOMINANT team. I mean, in '92 & '87 the Skins established that. In the Cowboys glory years, they clearly established that, same with a couple of the 49ers Superbowl teams. I wasn't looking for the Pats to blowout their opponent in all three of their SB wins, but I am kind of looking for that performance that sets them apart from the rest of the pack and truly displays "Excellence" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GURU Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 What? You can't display excellence by winning close games against teams with equal or maybe even better talent? That's what is so impressive about this New England run. Some of these so-called dominant teams were clearly more physically talented than their opponent in the Super Bowl. The only way they were going to lose is if they beat themselves. But because of the way talent is more evenly spread in today's NFL, no team can separate themselves too decisively, talent-wise. So you have to be smarter. You have to be more team-oriented. Games are won on just a couple of plays, and the Pats have put themselves in a position to make those plays in the timeliest of fashion, time and time again. The way the Pats have competed, never wilting in tight games against formidable opponents--that SCREAMS excellence, to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dallsux Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 Originally posted by Henry Same reasoning keeps Monk out of the Hall of Fame. And it's still a dumb reason. Three Superbowls in four years is an amazing feat, even moreso in this day and age. BTW, anyone bother to check out the scores of the Steeler SBs? 16-6. 21-17. 35-31. 31-19. That's not exactly total dominance either. Doesn't mean they didn't have a spectacular run. I guess I'm not expressing what I mean to say very well. It is nothing SHORT of spectacular that ANY team in just about ANY sport can win 3 out of 4 Championships. What is UNspectacular about the Patriots is their game play & talent. They don't do anything really...special, aside from win. No trickery, no really big names (or superstars) like Moss or TO. Just a team that consistantly wins. If I had the choice between a team full of superstars or a team that was less talented, but played like a team, I would choose the latter. I am in no way implying or indicating that the Pats don't deserve their Trophies. They do. It is spectacular what they have done with what they have had. The Cowboys are the only other team to win 3 out of 4 Championships in the history of the NFL. There is NOTHING UNspectacular about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B&G Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 We should be so unspectacular. This is a joke, right? 3 superbowls wins in 4 years unspectacular??? Wow! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.