Belichick, Brady, and The Pats ARE NOT Great

[Yavin4]

The Pats are a solid team in a league of mostly weak teams, and no other great teams. Look, because of the cap and expansion, there are no more great NFL teams. There are only a few reallyy good teams and a whole lot of mediocrity. That's why the last two or three weeks of the season was a complete joke with four teams starting their backups in games.

What makes you a great team is that you have to beat other great teams. The 70s Steelers defeated Shula's Dolphins, the Raiders, the Cowboys, and Chuck Knox's L.A. Rams on their way to four NFL championships. All four of those teams were great teams, and three of them won SBs as well. The Niners of the 80s defeated the Giants, Redskins, Bears, Broncos, Dolphins, and Bengals on their way to four NFL titles, and again, three of those teams won SBs. The Cowboys of the 90s defeated the Packers, Niners, Bills, and Steelers on their way to four titles, and again, the Packers and Niners were also SB champions.

The only top team that the Patriots have faced has been the Rams, and they're a long way away from being an elite team in the NFL. The Pats have simply not had to meet and defeat a formidable opponent like the Steelers, Niners, and Cowboys had to do.

What makes you great is defeating great competition.

[Redneck Socialist]

1. Well, I agree that you should look at teams

within the context of their time, but what Belichick and the Patriots have accomplished in this area of free agency is pretty remarkable, no?

We will never see the like of teams of the 70's and 80's again because of how the system is set up now. For better or worse free agency is here to stay and to build a team that wins as consistently as the Pats in this day and age is pretty impressive in my book.

[Old and In the Way]

2. Well, Brady has won every playoff game he's been in.

And he's only, what, 25?

They looked pretty damn good against Peyton and the Colts. I'm looking forward to the rematch with the Steelers.

[Yavin4]

3. I'm Not Saying That What The Pats Have Done Is Not Impressive

I'm just saying that they are not a great team because they haven't had to defeat other great teams. I'm not blaming them. It happens all of the time in sports. Lennox Lewis dominated his sport, but he never had a great opponent like Ali or Sugar Ray Leonard had.

Impressive? Yes.

Memorable? Yes.

Solid Champion? Yes.

Great? No.

[Emboldened Chimp]

8. Which means he's due for a loss...

They all lose at some point in their careers. Perhaps this weekend will be that time.

[Lexingtonian]

4. I think you remember the bravado

Those teams were smaller, slower, and less coached via computer analyses than teams are today. Today's Pats could take out any team up to the mid/late Eighties easily- as could any of the first tier teams in recent years.

Back then there were much larger differentials in the size of linemen and they were not as extensively trained, and scientific athlete training first helped the wide receivers and passing game be as dominant- relative to the running game- as it was for a phase. At this point every position/skill on the field has largely been maxed out by the engineers and trainers and schemers. I think todays Steelers and Patriots have stronger and larger linemen, and faster and stronger linebackers, to to the point that the best teams of the mid-Nineties could not beat them. Such is technological progess.

I think you remember the wildness and bravado and all that machismo and mismatch stomping-in-the-dust of the time. First of all, it was a far more overtly male egotist heyday in the U.S., and secondly- if you look at it closely- a lot of it reflected steroid and amphetamine usage. Guys were going into 'roid rage' on the field.

So, I think you're complaining that the game has become so much more domesticated and is less about male ego. And somehow you think that the NFL was less about hyping up mediocre players and teams than it is now. It wasn't.

The NFL reflects American society and the more subdued and socialized role of American men over the past generation very well. We like wildness in this country- it's what distinguishes us from Europeans- and think it's a partial virtue, but we've decided it properly belongs on the edge of society rather than running around at its center. It belongs in the forests and on the edges of the fields and in the depths of the deserts and mountain ranges and seas, where we appreciate it, and not too close to the houses, where we don't. Characteristically, the negoiated point at which we meet wild animals tends to involve thrown out food, at our garbage bins or camping grounds.

In short, the relationship between manliness and wildness is changing in this country. Interestingly, I've had conversations on this topic with most of my male Russian acquaintances, who are somewhat confused by the variety of American responses they see in the matter, and had to point out how their culture's form of machismo reflects a different take on the relationship between maleness and wildness. The North American kind has a certain amount of engrained nuance and humor and practicality, isn't as informed by dire need and relentless disaster.

[PatsFan2004]

13. Agree with your assessment. Today's teams are so much

better prepared and "bred" (computer, game films, statistical analysis, weight room) than teams of old. I believe that the Pats 2004/2005 could beat any of those great teams of old (with their limited preparation).

For you detractors, please note that the Pats beat the FIFTH highest scoring team in NFL history and limited them to THREE points without Ty Law, Tyrone Poole, and Richard Seymour. They just defeated a 16-1 team with the number one defense in their own home with 41 points scored.

Since the Pats beat the Eagles in 2003, they have lost only three times in 36 games. In the salary cap era of enforced parity, that should indicate greatness for the Pats.

[MrSlayer]

5. Those teams are pre-salary cap. It's 2005.

You can't stack your team 3 deep anymore and outspend your competitors. It's not a fair comparison. In a league of complete economic parity New England gets the most out of their money. It's because they have a great organization from the owner to the waterboy. They are great because they have figured it out better than everyone else. You have to draft well in the salary cap era because by the time a player reaches pro bowl status he's able to jump as a free agent and you have tough decisions to make. Coaching is extremely important now because you have less to work with and the schemes are more complex then in those bygone eras. New England has the best coach. Injuries and cutting pro bowl players mean nothing to him, his defensive schemes baffle the best of them, he just wins, he has two rings, that's being great. A smart quarterback who makes good reads and feels no pressure has always been important. New England has a great QB. He doesn't throw it out of the stadium and he doesn't run a 4.1-40 but Tom Brady makes every throw he has to make and his reads are impeccable, he rarely makes mistakes because he has incredible poise and cool. A lot of people thought it was insane to take the starting job away from Drew Bledsoe and all the kid did was go out and win 2 Super Bowls and is (thusfar) unbeaten in the playoffs.

I'd like to see how some of those older teams would deal with the coverages and blitzes and disguises that are used today, not to mention the bigger, faster, better conditioned players. You can look at it in a number of ways I suppose. I see it as the Patriots would beat those earlier Super Bowl teams so it doesn't matter who they played. The teams closer to this era would be better games.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. We Have To Use Intuition And Inference And Imagination

to theorize how the players of the past would do today...


Heck, I think a middling NFL team today could beat Lombardi's Packers just because of the size and speed difference...


I remember watching a special on Wide World Of Sports in the 70's and Muhammad Ali was discussing how he would have done against the great fighters of the past... He laughed at theoretical match ups with Jack Jackson, Jack Dempsey, and Joe Louis pointing out those guys only weighed 190 pounds and he fought at weights of 208 to 225 pounds*...


Same thing with football... A fair comparison would control for today's training and diet... With that control the Patriots are a middle of the pack Superbowl team..

Also, free agency does have it's advantages... Don't have a great running back .... Go into the free agency market and get Corey Dillon....


*Ali respected those guys as individuals and atheletes especially Jack Johnson...

[Yavin4]

7. I'm Not Comparing The Pats Directly To Past Teams

What I'm saying is that the Pats are not facing other great teams in their era, like the Steelers, Niners, and Cowboys had to do during their era.

[Old and In the Way]

11. "A lot of people thought it was insane to take the starting job away from

Drew Bledsoe..." Boy, are you right about that. I was one of those people. Boy, was I wrong. :-)

I thought he was crazy to let Malloy and Antwoine Smith go, too. Again, was I wrong.

I guess I've learned to trust his instincts on the team. It amazes me that he's able to jettison Pro Bowlers and not miss a beat.

Overall, I agree with your assessment. And I grew up watching/rooting for Roman Gabrial and the Fearsome Foursome playing the CBS 2nd game on Sunday afternoons. As good as they were, they'd get taken apart by the players and coaches of just about every team in the league today. I think there's a lot more parity in the league....which means there are fewer 14-2 teams. Any teams that can accomplish that kind of record in the NFL today, don't do it with luck. They're pretty damn special.

[redqueen]

9. blah...

You're right, no great teams anymore.

[nickgutierrez]

10. I believe the phrase you're looking for is...

League-enforced mediocrity.

[Poiuyt]

12. Also too much dilution of talent

There are too many teams in the NFL. This spreads the talent too thinly. And if a player get cut because of a bad attitude, he knows that he will catch on with the next team.

[Guaranteed]

14. I think you're selling them short.

When I look at what Bellichek has done with this team, it's nothing short of genius.

And Tom Brady has shown himself to be quite the steely quarterback. A SuperBowl ring in his rookie year, another one two years later. And, now, another trip?

Never lost in the playoffs...

These guys are the real deal. You can SEE it in Brady when he drops back- the guy is really, really good. He makes excellent decisions, and is just in total control of his offense.

Did you see the passes he was making last night?

Look, I'm a Niner fan from WAY back, and I hate saying this. But, it's true. It's actually kind of refreshing, even, to see the same kind of football we used to see...

[sniffa]

15. the b.c. Lions - now that's a dynasty

[Kathy in Cambridge]

16. This is so funny-someone with a vendetta against all things New England

:crazy:

[joeybee12]

17. Yeah, I was wondering why this thread is still going...

...maybe he'll relent when the Pats repeat this year, and next year, and the year after that...

[ThorsHammer]

18. A win this year should remove all doubt

I personally think that they are a very good team, but just wish they had better competition to prove it against. They've beaten good but not great opponents every time. However, 3 in 4 years is still extremely impressive, and winning another this year, after losing both coordinators, would move them up to 'great' territory.

[sniffa]

19. i understand 'great' is subjective

but what are the 'great' teams, and which 'great' teams did they beat?

[ThorsHammer]

23. Agreed

I like the Patriots style, and think that they are definitely better than simply good. I don't have a problem with calling them great myself, and was saying that either 4 wins, wins against great teams, or convincing wins should remove all doubt. The first win vs. St. Louis was up there, but Philly and Carolina were not. One argument (not necessarily mine) separating good from great is domination. The Patriots have won every time they were there, but never really dominated. Personally, this doesn't bother me, as a 1 point win counts just as much as a 50 point win. However, I think their case for greatness (to the doubters) would be strengthened if they did overwhelm people.

Pittsburgh over Dallas (twice) in the '70s would be my first choice. It doesn't get much better than one power beating another. They also won 4 in 6 years, which is why I'd like to see NE get their 4th in 5 years to remove any doubt

'86 Bears; Complete domination throughout the whole year, and a dismantling of NE in the SB. They didn't have the dynasty, but were without a doubt a great team.

San Francisco's better teams were definitely great. Their titles were more spread out, but the latter ones were very convincing wins.

As much as I hate to say it, Dallas' 3 titles in 4 years in the 90's were up there as well. Buffalo was a pretty good opponent, and they beat them convincingly twice.

I'd put NE somewhere in the middle of all this. If they win this year, they are at the top with Pittsburgh.

[joeybee12]

20. As sniffa notes below--great is subjective...any team that can win

3 out of 4 has to be great...that ability to keep focused alone is worthy of greatness.

[WilliamPitt]

21. lol

[Kathy in Cambridge]

22. I want to say to the OP: What did the New England region ever do to you?

Our baseball team helped contribute to the Greatest Choke in Sports History.

And-how 'bout those Giants/Jets! :P