My biggest issue with the demise of the Patriots dynasty when it comes to the media

[streetkings01]

6 hours ago, CLTbills said:

I think two things can be true at once. Cam Newton is certainly a downgrade from Tom Brady, there's no question about it. But the opt-outs have also been a big part of it as well. The Bills were very lucky with only having one starter (Lotulelei) opt out. Patriots had the most (8) players opt out of any team, many of whom were starters. You definitely can't say that that hasn't had an effect.

It's not one or the other. Both have had an impact.

Many of whom were starters? Only 3 were starters.....Hightower, Chung and Cannon. How much of a difference would they have made? Defense wasn’t the issue, not having #12 back there to save the day was.

[Freddie's Dead]

The media already ignores and downplays all the Cheating they did to win, so why would the demise be any different?  The Cheats will continue to get a pass, simply because Boston is a huge market.  ***** them and the horses they rode in on.

[Success]

BB can still out-coach anyone.  Problem is, he can't out-GM anyone.

 

He'll outsmart himself in the next few drafts, like he always does. Trading down, going for D3 "gems" that he thinks only he knows about.  He may get lucky here or there, but he very likely will NOT find the QB he needs.  

 

With Miami on the rise, and the Bills already there, it could be a long stretch of wilderness for NE now.  They are looking at a major rebuild, and BB might retire before it even comes to fruition.

 

The only move that I could see making them competitive next year would be getting Stafford somehow.

 

[freddyjj]

12 hours ago, streetkings01 said:

After watching the Pats this season it's clear that Brady the bigger part of their success.  Not once have I seen someone in the media admit that the loss of Brady was huge for the Pats instead they seem to have felt the Pats were going to continue the Patriot way regardless if #12 was there.

I agree wholeheartedly.  Tommy Boy was a big part of their being competitive.  Pioli does have a point that the losses on D due to opt outs have hurt their performance this year.

 

 

[ganesh]

14 hours ago, streetkings01 said:

They downplay the loss of Tom Brady.  They talk about the Patriots as if Brady was never there.  Watching GMF now and they have Scott Pioli there......he thinks the players opting out is what held them back this season and feels that a good draft and getting those players back will help the Patriots make another Super Bowl run.  After watching the Pats this season it's clear that Brady the bigger part of their success.  Not once have I seen someone in the media admit that the loss of Brady was huge for the Pats instead they seem to have felt the Pats were going to continue the Patriot way regardless if #12 was there.  I'm thinking it'll take next year when they go 9-7 at best before it really starts to sink in.

This is not too far fetched.  We did the same post 1996.   We re-loaded at QB with Flutie and almost made it to the SB if not for an illegal call.

[Jerry Jabber]

I was listening to Howard & Sal this morning on WGR550 and they were saying that other media members believe the Patriots are going to be down for a while as they have no QB’s, WR’s and TE’s. Love the sound of that! 

[Thurman#1]

14 hours ago, streetkings01 said:

They downplay the loss of Tom Brady.  They talk about the Patriots as if Brady was never there.  Watching GMF now and they have Scott Pioli there......he thinks the players opting out is what held them back this season and feels that a good draft and getting those players back will help the Patriots make another Super Bowl run.  After watching the Pats this season it's clear that Brady the bigger part of their success.  Not once have I seen someone in the media admit that the loss of Brady was huge for the Pats instead they seem to have felt the Pats were going to continue the Patriot way regardless if #12 was there.  I'm thinking it'll take next year when they go 9-7 at best before it really starts to sink in.

 

 

I wonder who you've been watching. I've seen people refer to Brady in that story maybe a thousand times. Are they talking about it less as the season goes along and there's more to talk about post-Brady? Sure, but that's what should be expected.

 

Agreed that losing Brady was huge. 

 

Not convinced it's been proven yet that he was the bigger part, though that's the way I've always leaned. 

 

And I'm guessing that next year they get Matt Stafford or Sam Darnold or someone like that and win significantly more than nine games. But I agree with you this far, I don't think they're going to be anywhere near what they have been in terms of being one of the Super Bowl contenders every season without Brady.

[Thurman#1]

6 hours ago, streetkings01 said:

Many of whom were starters? Only 3 were starters.....Hightower, Chung and Cannon. How much of a difference would they have made? Defense wasn’t the issue, not having #12 back there to save the day was.

 

 

Defense really was part of the issue. 

 

They went from far and away the best in the league last year to eleventh this year. Still good but nowhere near good enough to make up for offensive problems.

 

They also had 36 takeaways last year, compared to 20 over 14 games this year. That's huge.

[Thurman#1]

13 hours ago, Doc said:

 

That Cheaters roster also almost lost to the Jets.  With division rivals, anything can happen.  Just look at last night.

 

 

Stafford's contract makes trading him almost impossible.  And they have no one to replace him with anyway.  Any QBs available to the Cheats will be little better than Cam.

 

 

Up to this year cutting or trading Stafford was prohibitive. If they'd cut him this year, he'd have cost them $47.5M in dead cap. Next year, though, it's very doable. $24.85M in dead cap, but they'd avoid paying his $9.5M salary, a $500K workout bonus and a $10M roster bonus.

 

Very doable if they want to go that way.

[What a Tuel]

19 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Defense really was part of the issue. 

 

They went from far and away the best in the league last year to eleventh this year. Still good but nowhere near good enough to make up for offensive problems.

 

They also had 36 takeaways last year, compared to 20 over 14 games this year. That's huge.

 

36 wasn't really sustainable.

 

Turnovers:

2016 (SB) - 23

2017 (SB) - 18

2018 (SB) - 28

2019 (No SB) - 36

2020 (No Playoffs) - 20 (14 games)

 

To say 20 turnovers is why they couldn't make the playoff let alone the super bowl in 2020 is a bit misleading.

 

Now look at offensive turnovers (giveaways)

2016 (SB) - 11

2017 (SB) - 12

2018 (SB) - 18

2019 (No SB) - 15

2020 (No playoffs) - 19 (14 games)

 

Differential

2016 (SB) - +12

2017 (SB) - +6

2018 (SB) - +10

2019 (No SB) - +21

2020 (No playoffs) - +1 (14 games)

Edited December 23, 2020 by What a Tuel

[Thurman#1]

21 minutes ago, What a Tuel said:

 

36 wasn't really sustainable.

 

Turnovers:

2016 (SB) - 23

2017 (SB) - 18

2018 (SB) - 28

2019 (No SB) - 36

2020 (No Playoffs) - 20 (14 games)

 

To say 20 turnovers is why they couldn't make the playoff let alone the super bowl in 2020 is a bit misleading.

 

 

Good point. To say that 20 turnovers is why they couldn't make the playoff let alone the super bowl in 2020 is a bit misleading indeed.

 

Could you real quick point out where I said that? I thought I said it was "part of the issue," but if you can find where I said it was "why," I'd love to see it, and I'd be willing to correct it.

 

As for 36 not being sustainable, maybe it was and maybe it wasn't. Long-term, no, but for another year or two? Maybe. But a lot of the reason they had 36 was that they were a terrific defense, strangling offenses slowly and making them take dangerous risks to break through.

 

36 was more than they'd gotten before. They were a much better defense than they'd had before.

Edited December 23, 2020 by Thurman#1

[What a Tuel]

7 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Good point. To say that 20 turnovers is why they couldn't make the playoff let alone the super bowl in 2020 is a bit misleading indeed.

 

Could you real quick point out where I said that? I thought I said it was "part of the issue," but if you can find where I said it was "why," I'd love to see it, and I'd be willing to correct it.

 

As for 36 not being sustainable, maybe it was and maybe it wasn't. Long-term, no, but for another year or two? Maybe. But a lot of the reason they had 36 was that they were a terrific defense, strangling offenses slowly and making them take dangerous risks to break through.

 

You are touting turnovers as the proof behind why they sucked - the defense, but the reality is it was both offense and defense.

 

 However using your own metric you are bringing to the table, the bigger impact as I pointed out above (I added a bit more) is the turnover differential. The Patriots made the superbowl in the years that had less turnovers on defense and less turnovers on offense. As opposed to the year where they had the most turnovers on defense and they didnt. This year there is no doubt, the offense is losing games because they are turning the ball over more. They lost one to precisely us as a result of Cam Newton fumbling.

 

Is turnover differential that the only reason? No, of course not, but don't bring that to the table as the tell tale sign then.

Edited December 23, 2020 by What a Tuel

[Thurman#1]

 

 

5 minutes ago, What a Tuel said:

 

You are touting turnovers as the proof behind why they sucked - the defense, but the reality is it was both offense and defense.

 

 However using the own metric you are bringing to the table, the bigger impact as I pointed out above (I added a bit more) is the turnover differential. The Patriots made the superbowl in the years that had less turnovers on defense and less turnovers on offense. As opposed to the year where they had the most turnovers on defense and they didnt. This year there is no doubt, the offense is losing games because they are turning the ball over more.

 

Is turnover differential that the only reason? No, of course not, but don't bring that to the table as the tell tale sign then.

 

 

Let me try one more time with you.

 

I'm "touting turnovers as the proof behind why they sucked," hunh? Could you quickly please point out where I said that?

 

For the second time, I thought what I really said, word for word, was that "defense really was part of the issue."

 

And it absolutely was.

 

If you want to talk about turnover differential, fine, go tell it to someone who cares. I'm talking, as I said, about the defense and the fact that it "really was part of the issue."

 

 

Edited December 23, 2020 by Thurman#1

[What a Tuel]

3 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

36 was more than they'd gotten before. They were a much better defense than they'd had before.

 

 

Let me try one more time with you.

 

I'm "touting turnovers as the proof behind why they sucked," hunh? Could you quickly please point out where I said that?

 

For the second time, I thought what I really said, word for word, was that "defense really was part of the issue."

 

 

 

You are missing the point. The defense wasn't #1 in the league in 2016, 2017, 2018 when they made the super bowl either. You are touting the lack of their defense as a contributing factor, and I'd agree. Where we disagree is if they had a Tom Brady led offense, would they be able to overcome that? Absolutely. They did it in 2016, 2017, and 2018.

 

[Thurman#1]

Just now, What a Tuel said:

 

You are missing the point. The defense wasn't #1 in the league in 2016, 2017, 2018 when they made the super bowl either. You are touting the lack of their defense as a contributing factor, and I'd agree. Where we disagree is if they had a Tom Brady led offense, would they be able to overcome that? Absolutely. They did it in 2016, 2017, and 2018.

 

 

 

Jesus, dude.

 

One more time.

 

According to you, we disagree that "if they had a Tom Brady led offense [they'd be able] to overcome that."

 

For what is now the third time, could you please point out to me where I said that?

 

I choose my words very carefully. If I didn't say something, don't assume I meant it. If I'd meant something, I would have said it.

 

Now, I've tried with you three times. If you yet again continue on and pretend I'm making arguments I've never made, I will clearly see you're not worth having a discussion with.

[What a Tuel]

24 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Jesus, dude.

 

One more time.

 

According to you, we disagree that "if they had a Tom Brady led offense [they'd be able] to overcome that."

 

For what is now the third time, could you please point out to me where I said that?

 

I choose my words very carefully. If I didn't say something, don't assume I meant it. If I'd meant something, I would have said it.

 

Now, I've tried with you three times. If you yet again continue on and pretend I'm making arguments I've never made, I will clearly see you're not worth having a discussion with.

 

"Defense really was part of the issue. 

 

They went from far and away the best in the league last year to eleventh this year. Still good but nowhere near good enough to make up for offensive problems."

 

But ok dude, keep being cocky. Either you made the point or you didn't but ffs commit.

Edited December 23, 2020 by What a Tuel

[Thurman#1]

28 minutes ago, What a Tuel said:

 

"Defense really was part of the issue. 

 

They went from far and away the best in the league last year to eleventh this year. Still good but nowhere near good enough to make up for offensive problems."

 

But ok dude, keep being cocky. Either you made the point or you didn't but ffs commit.

 

 

Fine, you're not worth having a conversation with. You still haven't disagreed with a single word I said, and yet you're still salty about ... I don't know, something.

 

Thanks for letting me know who you are.

[What a Tuel]

Just now, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Fine, you're not worth having a conversation with. You still haven't disagreed with a single word I said, and yet you're still salty about ... I don't know, something.

 

Thanks for letting me know who you are.

 

I'm not the one being salty asking to re-read my own points, "letting me know who you are", get over yourself bud. Go Bills.

[Thurman#1]

2 hours ago, What a Tuel said:

 

I'm not the one being salty asking to re-read my own points, "letting me know who you are", get over yourself bud. Go Bills.

 

 

Yeah, you're not being salty:

 

3 hours ago, What a Tuel said:

 

But ok dude, keep being cocky.

 

So, what is this? This is you being not salty?

 

Know what, never mind, don't bother explaining.

 

I wasn't talking to you. You come in and reply to me and you tell me I'm wrong in saying something or other. But I'd never said that. If you're going to reply to a guy, reply to what he said. If you don't, expect people to wonder what the hell you're up to.

 

Edited December 23, 2020 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

17 hours ago, Ramza86 said:

 

Stafford. Never had a good coach, never had a good defense. 

 

He might not be the best, but he will be miles better than Cam.

 

I think any decent aging QB will put the Pats in a decent spot.

 

 

Yeah, I'm with you on this. If they bring in Stafford, for example, they're not going to be a seven-win team. IMO they'll be good again, though not as good as they were for so long and with such consistency with Brady there.

 

I thought Newton was a great choice when they brought him in. But I don't think he was even replacement-level.