In response to BostonSportsFan111's comment:

I disagree about the the last six years though. I still feel like in 2007 they changed their fundamental philosophy. They went for flash over substance. They became the teams we had mocked previously, "The Greatest Show on Turf" and the Colts high-powered offense with average at best defenses.

Addressing the part that I bolded. Is he trying to straighten it out? I am sure he is, is it really so wrong to question his solutions. The defensive backfield has basically turned over twice in the past 6 years. The defense has gotten worse (I am just looking at league ranks) over that time. Whatever he is trying is not working. 

Meantime, the coaching staff is full of people who have only ever worked for him, everything is Bill's way. Last weekend, Pete Carroll figure out how to slow down the Patriots offense in the second half and the Patriots defense got worse as the game went along. 

I totally agree about judging on long-term results, but how long do the Super Bowl teams from 8-10 years ago count as valid evidence of how good BB and Brady are in today's NFL? When do they Tom Landry's or Don Shula's championships? Mike Shanahan won back-to-back Super Bowls 15 years ago, but I do not think that gives the people in Washington comfort today.

Personally, I still think that the Brady/Belichick combo has enough in the tank for one or too more runs, but we need to realistic... The two Super Bowl losses were missed opportunities. They were the better team in both of those games. Two years ago when the got knocked by the Jets when the had the best record in the NFL was a missed opportunity. There are not going to be that many more of those... I want to see them take advantage of them when the come up. The way they have been playing a coaching over the past several seasons makes me wonder if they still have that in them.

In response to ATJ's comment:

Looking at this team objectively, they clearly changed from balance to a slightly defensive first team to an offense first team in the 2007 season. Just look at the stats. From 2001-2006, this team averaged being the number 8 offense in the NFL (without every being higher than 4) and the number 7 defense (including two years where they were the number 2 defense and one where they were the top).

From 2007-2012, they are the number 3 offense (being the top offense three times) and the number 9 defense (with the defense declining in that period 4, 8, 5, 8, 15, 15). 

I guess some of this comes down to what being a fan means to you. To me it means cheering for the team, wanting them to win, being upset when they lose, but not necessarily thinking everything they do is correct, that they are always getting screwed by the refs, or that they will magically figure out what is wrong with the team based on things that happened ten years ago.

So I come on places like this and vent about my opinions of what is wrong, or I argue about it with my friends over a beer. I like to hear what other think even if I disagree with them. To me the people that drive me crazy are those that just say, Belichick with fix it because he is a genius, we will win because we have Brady, the Patriot way is the only way, etc. For me being a fan of a team does not mean blind faith.

Here's my theory:

Winning the Super Bowl every year isn't possible.  People's expectations have gone completely out of whack because the team has been so damn good year after year since 2001.

What other team in the NFL has been as consistently good for so long a period?  I think you'd need to go back to the San Francisco teams during the Montana years to find anything close to comparable. 

 Prolate- you  really  are  a  koolaid  drinker.  You  say  winning  the  superbowl  every  year  isn't  possible.  NEWSFLASH :  The  PATS  haven't  won  the  SB  going  on  8  years.  That's  not  even  close  to  winning  every  year.  Secondly, you  say  you  aren't  going  to  criticize  BB's  GM  ability - primarily  b/c  the  PATS  earn  lower  draft  picks  every  year.  That's  a  bogus  argument.  Everyone  knows  BB  can't  draft  or develop  defensive  backs.  And  what  about  free  agent  signings ?  The  clowns  ( ie.  Haynesworth, Chad  Johnson, Ellis, Buress, Fanene  and  others )  BB  has  signed  the  past  several  years  have  all  been  busts.  Name a  solid  free  agent  signing  in  the  past  5  years.  That  has  nothing  to  do  with  where  the  PATS  draft.  Incredibly, you  say, "  BB's  genius  has  always  been  finding  workable  combinations  of  players."  Are  you  kidding  me ?  Workable  combinations  like  McCourty, Chung, Arrington, Moore  Dowling  and  Gregory  who  consistently  make  rookie  QB's  look  like  Joe  Montana ?  The  pathetic  PATS  D  has  cost  them  atleast  3  SB's.  Brady  has  always  been  BB's  meal  ticket.  Belichek  had  better  retire  when  TB  leaves  the  game.  Otherwise, he'll  be  exposed  even  more.  And  please  don't  bring  up  the  '08  season.  The  PATS  FAILED  to  make  the  playoffs  and  they  had  an  easy  schedule.  

If there's a problem with the team, it's keeping the talent level high when, because of a consistently high finishing position, you earn lower draft picks every year.  That's the challenge BB has dealt with since he started winning so much.  The draft system is designed to bring good teams back to the middle of the pack and allow bad teams to get better.  Add to that a salary cap that is designed to maintain parity, and you see the challenge BB faces.

Given those obstacles, BB has done a remarkable job of keeping the team winning every year (even in 2008 when he lost his starting QB).  There's a lot of complaining about coaching, but really it's the coaching that has kept this team in contention despite the talent challenges. 

Some will say I'm criticizing BB's skills as a GM.  Emphatically, I'm not.  I think the reason the talent is weaker than it ideally could be is because of the structural obstacles I described above--i.e., the fact that winning teams get low draft picks and that there's a salary cap designed to enforce parity.  Add to those structural issues, the fact that we've lost a few top draft picks (compensation for BB when he came from the Jets and "spygate"), and you see that the Pats have been significantly handicapped in acquiring top talent.  BB has done a decent job keeping quality acceptable given those barriers.

BB's genius has always been finding workable combinations of players and then adjusting schemes to get the most out of them.  He continues to do this. Last year was a prime example.  In my opinion that team did not have nearly the talent it takes to win a championship--but they made it all the way to the Super Bowl.  Why was that?  The answer is simple: great coaching. 

My suggestion to all the hysterical types.  Stop all the hand wringing, pop open a beer, and just sit back and enjoy what you've got.  It's a rare event when a team ends up in playoff contention every year for more than a decade . . . and it's one you may never experience again in your lifetime. Enjoy it while you've got it.  It may not last. 

Here's my theory:

Winning the Super Bowl every year isn't possible.  People's expectations have gone completely out of whack because the team has been so damn good year after year since 2001.

What other team in the NFL has been as consistently good for so long a period?  I think you'd need to go back to the San Francisco teams during the Montana years to find anything close to comparable. 

If there's a problem with the team, it's keeping the talent level high when, because of a consistently high finishing position, you earn lower draft picks every year.  That's the challenge BB has dealt with since he started winning so much.  The draft system is designed to bring good teams back to the middle of the pack and allow bad teams to get better.  Add to that a salary cap that is designed to maintain parity, and you see the challenge BB faces.

Given those obstacles, BB has done a remarkable job of keeping the team winning every year (even in 2008 when he lost his starting QB).  There's a lot of complaining about coaching, but really it's the coaching that has kept this team in contention despite the talent challenges. 

Some will say I'm criticizing BB's skills as a GM.  Emphatically, I'm not.  I think the reason the talent is weaker than it ideally could be is because of the structural obstacles I described above--i.e., the fact that winning teams get low draft picks and that there's a salary cap designed to enforce parity.  Add to those structural issues, the fact that we've lost a few top draft picks (compensation for BB when he came from the Jets and "spygate"), and you see that the Pats have been significantly handicapped in acquiring top talent.  BB has done a decent job keeping quality acceptable given those barriers.

BB's genius has always been finding workable combinations of players and then adjusting schemes to get the most out of them.  He continues to do this. Last year was a prime example.  In my opinion that team did not have nearly the talent it takes to win a championship--but they made it all the way to the Super Bowl.  Why was that?  The answer is simple: great coaching. 

My suggestion to all the hysterical types.  Stop all the hand wringing, pop open a beer, and just sit back and enjoy what you've got.  It's a rare event when a team ends up in playoff contention every year for more than a decade . . . and it's one you may never experience again in your lifetime. Enjoy it while you've got it.  It may not last. 

Just goes too shows how important good coaching is and unfortunately we haven't had much of it this year.

In response to NoMorePensionLooting's comment:

I sometimes love a good conspiracy theory.  In the case of the replacement refs, I feel that they only really blew plays at the ends of games, and always to throw the game violently over to the other team.  The culprit might well have been the refs union, who may have cut a secret deal with a few of the scabs to make the NFL Commish lose lunch every single week.  Nothing specifically against the Patriots, just the labor business, as any Green Bay fan will tell you.

The Patriots had just scored the winning touchdown against Arizona, with 1 minute to go, when it was called back because of a phantom holding call against Gronkowski, plus the call pushed the Pats out of field goal range at the time.   Then the refs couldn't call the next game's crucial field goal even though the two of them were standing right behind each goal post.  That handles two of the losses.  Seattle went out and won in part because they have one of the best homefield advantages in the NFL, especially against an East Coast team on the early side of Eastern Standard Time.  Both Patriot coaches and players took one look at Pacific coastal waters on their descent into Seattle and immediately conked out like Sleeping Beauty eating a poisoned apple. 

They haven't been blown out that's for sure. Everyone else but Atlanta has this year. They are a few plays away from 6-0 and haven't got on track yet. Watch out when they do.

In response to sporter81's comment:

In response to AZPAT's comment:

You could look at it that way. I think the 6-0 scenario is more likely becasue they controlled the every game going into the 4th quarter in all of the games they lost. It really doesn't matter because they are 3-3 and need to clean up the issues in their secondary and they need to start executing plays in crunch time.