As we've seen with our own eyes over the past 5 years, stud WRs and high powered offenses do not win championships, without the support of a good defensive unit. True...the Patriots have come tantalizingly close in 2007 and 2011. But, on each occasion, their offense failed to materialize in the Big Game, and their defense could not close out those games. In 2009, 2010 and 2012, the vaunted Pats' offense grossly underachieved in the play-offs...resulting in the Patriots getting spanked on their home field.

     Folks...Wes Welker is an outstanding receiver. But, he's never going to be the focal point of a championship team. Stellar QB play and strong line play (OL and DL) usually tell the tale when the elite teams meet in the play-offs. So...as much as we all would love to see Wes remain a Patriot...unless the Pats can resign him at a reasonable price (no more than $7-8mil. per season), the team is best off letting him walk. Ditto for the NY Giants, who have difficult contract decisions to make relating to star WRs, Akeem Nicks and Victor Cruz.

     Here's a great article on the subject of great offenses, WRs, and winning championships: http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/big-tease-2012-new-england-patriots-and-nfls-history-offensive-failures/21442/         

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

In response to TexasPat's comment:

There's no doubt about the defense needing some work.  They can fix a couple of things on defense through the draft but FA is going to have to be a big player in this too.
There's something wrong with an offense that collapes when Gronk goes out.  Two years in a row.  Somebody has to notice this.

 

I wouldn't even call Wes Welker a "Flashy" WR. He's only great at route running and quickness, but there are about a hundred WRs that I would rather have over Wes. 

In response to 49Patriots's comment:

a hundred?

To me, blaming Welker for the Patriots failure to win Super Bowls is like Texans fans blaming Arian Foster because they stink in the playoffs. Paralysis by overanalysis.

He's a great player, it isn't his decision to run the offense through him.  How about using Vereen more?  How about a receiver that can get open other than Welker?  

They needed Gronkowski to be healthy, and they needed Talib to stay in the game. 

It's about winning playoff games and playing your best in the end games. The Ravens got hot, they're not a great team on offense or defense. Same with the Giants in 2011.

By the way, is Torrey Smith flashy? Victor Cruz? I'll take those guys, flashy or not.

In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

Hey capologist, I wonder what over priced, old, washed up veteran will get cut today saving their team millions off the cap? The horror. Jeez this "salary cap hell" stuff is scaring the hell out of me, just yesterday I was sitting in the dentist's chair and you know what? You guessed it! I thought salary cap hell was going to walk right in and start drilling.

This post has been removed.

In response to Muzwell's comment:

     Your post really has nothing to do with this thread. It's purpose was NOT to blame Wes Welker for the Patriots' failings. It's to point out top WRs are not the key elements to championship teams...and that even first rate offenses alone do not win SBs. Well balanced teams on offense, defense, and special teams do.

     In the playoff loss to the Ravens, the Patriots were able to march up and down the field against the Baltimore defense...between the 25 yard lines. But, once inside the 25, they couldn't get it done. On defense, the Pats were able to get zero pressure on Joe Flacco, and, once Aqib Talib went out, Anquan Boldin dominated.

     True...not having a healthy Gronk really hurt...AGAIN!!! But, the main reason for the loss was that the Pats failed to control the line of scrimmage on either side of the ball. As a result...they got no pressure on Flacco, Tom Brady was pressured and made to hurry his throws, and the Pats could not establish a running game. Baltimore's dominance on the OL and DL was particularly obvious in the red zone. 

     By the way, no one is calling Torrey Smith or Victor Cruz bums. But, they are not worthy of being paid huge money. BB has always placed a low value on WRs. The Pats generally have allocated the big bucks to the QB, and the lumberjacks on the OL and DL. Paying Gronk big bucks made sense because he has the potential to be a Hall of Famer at the TE position...is a great red zone weapon, and is also an intrigal part of the OL on running plays. I was a bit surprised that the Pats shelled out big money to Aaron Hernandez.

     As great as Wes Welker has been for the Pats, at age 32, he's not worth anything over $8mil. per season...tops. If healthy, the Pats must sign C-Bass. What to do about Aqib Talib will be BB's toughest decision this off-season...especially since Alfonzo Dennard's future is somewhat clouded, and Kyle Arrington is an UFA. If Talib walks, the Pats will almost certainly have to use a high draft pick on a CB...AGAIN!        

 

In response to Muzwell's comment:

Its way too easy to point to a single moment in a game and define that game by that moment.  IMO, about the only time that makes any sense is if a FG kicker is set to kick a game winning or tying FG, and even then doing so diminishes what happened in the previous 60 minutes of the game. 

In the pats playoff loss this year, the offense produced nearly 22 points (63%) below its regular season average.  By contrast, the defense gave up 7 points (25%) above its average. 

Not a fan of cold hard football facts.  All they do is mash already created stats and attempt to call them advanced metrics.  I do, however, give the creator/former food and beverage writer for the boston herald props for his success.  He's a great american story. 

Ultimately, my point is that I am not even sure the great patriots defenses of the early 00's could have produced a win given the pats poor offensive output.  The best defense in the NFL by pts allowed this year still gave up an average of more than 15 points per game. 

Blame the D if you like, but if an organization has an offense that is supposed to produce and doesn't, it probably doesn't matter how great the d is. 

For the most part I agree - wide recievers/passing game is not going to win you a super bowl (although there has been some). I think you can look at the Rams as a team that had a brilliant passing game and they won it. You can look at New Orleans, they did it once. You can look at the Colts, they got there twice and won it once. In 07 we almost won it, and if it weren't for a miracle play against us we would of won that game...plus if Gronk was healthy we may of won another one.

There's some factors that come into play in all of this. One...the NFL is now a passing league, it's easier to pass, the rules help...you can take advantage of that (and would be a fool not to). Two...a high flying offense will get you into the tournament, and chances are it may get you a first round bye with home field...all you have to do is win two home games and you're there. Three, how many calls will a passing offense get you? There's the roughing the passer calls you may potentially get...pass interference, etc. Those things extend drives and absolutely kill defenses. Kills them.

I do agree that defense wins championships. I agree that being strong around the line of scrimmage is the best route. The Ravens were strong on the offensive line - they kept the pressure off Flacco - but did you see their recievers? Man, that may of been about as dominating of a performance I've ever seen out of a group of recievers - they couldn't be stopped. As for the Raven's defense, I thought that may of been the slowest and most beat up group they have fielded in ten years, yet they played smart and tightened up in the redzone. I will say they have a secondary that can cover though.

So yeah I think you're right, but I do think you can at least get in the big dance with a high flying offense. If I could choose I'd pick a strong defense, to go along with a productive offense.

"In the playoff loss to the Ravens, the Patriots were able to march up and down the field against the Baltimore defense...between the 25 yard lines."

Tex, you give he Pats All Universe, Inter Galactic All Powerful and Mighty offense waaaayyy too much credit. I recall a few ounts from INSIDE the Ravens' freakin' 40 yard line!!!! Remember teh turn over on downs inside the 10? Then, there's the FACT of scoring no points (that's zero, zippo, nada, nothing, for you overly infatuated numbers challenged, Pats' Offense and Brady Love Fest crowd).

Yet, through all of this, there was minimal, if any sign of a spark of fire, rage, or indignation along teh sidelines, and the ever present milquetoast post game press conference.

But, it was Welker's and that "young and learning" defense's fault. A leader (a.k.k. "field general" in football parley), is supposed to lead ALL THE WAY, not just inside the 40 yard line.

Maybe Brady has stayed too long at the party. Maybe teh Pats should scrap teh Everythung Offensive (in OHHHHH so many ways) Playbook, and reload on defense, making Brady actually prove, once more, that he is THE team leader, by rising to the challenge of actually having to do more on his own (early 2000's, anyone?). This team has won SB's with NO hands down, no doubt future HOF on the field. I'd be perfectly happy with a seasonal performance in the upper part of the QB pact, if they would just grind it out, and score less IF it translates to SB wins (ie: NOT just appearances, which is satisfatory to Bills and Vikings fans).    

As a youth baseball coach, I kept telling my kids that yoiu need to learn how to lose to know how to win. Those kids went 3-22 as 9 yr olds, and 24-1 as 12 year olds. Apparently, for the Pats, not much has been learned since that night in Jacksonville in 2005, eight long years ago. 

In response to TexasPat's comment:

totally agree with this - especially the need to sign Gronk and the curiousity of signing Hernandez. That one kind of surprised me, Hernandez hasn't exactly been able to stay healthy and unlike Gronk he's not a complete player. I understand he's a weapon when used correctly, but I just didn't understand why they spent on him earlier than they had to. His contract didn't look like a bargain - now maybe in a few year his contract will be a bargain and that's very very possible - but I just didn't understand the rush to do it. Maybe they were worried about handing Gronk the big deal and then having Hernandez get upset? They don't usually care about those things. The only thing I can think of is that they planned on letting Welker walk and having Hernandez fill that type of roll...I just worry that he won't make it past October.

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

In response to bobbysu's comment:

Remember the Good Old Days, when Brady's favorite receiver was #999, Whoever's Open?

This post has been removed.

"I do think you can at least get in the big dance with a high flying offense"

The Pats have proven that this can happen, as have teh Bills and Vikings. But, unfortunately, we've seen, and it's a fact that the MAJORITY of Super Bowls are won by the team with the best/dominating defense. The #31 ranked (in more ways than one) defense can't stop a mid lever offense. There WILL be a shortcoming a few times in the game. ANY expectation of a poor defense being good enough to win a SB on their own, while their team's high flying offense is grounded, is totally unreasonable. Without a doubt, the offense carried the team to the Big Game, and needs to step it up to close the deal. Totally disappearing in the 4th Qtr and/or the entire 2nd half will just about guarandamntee a loss, no matter what the defense does.

Give me a bunch of aggressive, no named, us against the world, they have something to prove players, on defense, rather than a bunch of guys that already the tee shirts or read their own press.

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.