Re: Let's Put it to a Poll
posted at 4/14/2014 12:38 PM EDT
In response to TrueChamp's comment:
Is it unreasonable to think turning over an entire coaching staff could hurt your team?
Sure it could. But have the Pats ever turned over their whole coaching staff at once? The head coach has been a fixture: they have more stability than any team in the league at the most important leadership position. Losing Weis and Crennel after 2004 certainly was a challenge, but that was a decade ago. If the Pats still haven't recovered from that there's a big problem in Foxboro. Turnover is common among assistants. Have the Pats really had much more than any other team? Heck, Matt Patricia's been around since 2004 and McDaniels since 2001, other than a three year hiatus which should only have diversified his skills and experience. I don't think your argument holds up under scrutiny, particularly when you look at the Patriots' general high level of success over the past decade. If the leadership were a problem, is it possible they'd be so consistently successful--not just in win-loss, but in things like scheme evolution, points scored, and other things that reflect coaching creativity and innovation? Sorry, but if you believe coaching is critically important to success--and both you and I agree on that--then your argument that the Pats have deficient leadership is simply not credible. They wouldn't have had the level of success they've had with poor leadership.
Can a lack of talent seriously even be considered?
Yes. In fact I'd argue that it's the great coaching that has led to success despite fairly obvious talent issues. Just watch the secondary play in the 2011 Super Bowl. Are guys like Molden and Moore -- both of whom were playing a lot -- even in the league anymore? Also, teams that win consistently as the Pats do are at a huge disadvantage acquiring talent. The draft system is designed to pull their talent level down. Even if the Pats are doing a great job acquiring players, the system is specifically constructed to limit winning teams' ability to bring in the best talent and to create parity among teams. Is it credible to believe the Pats have somehow completely avoided the intended impacts of the draft system?
Could we be 1 key play away from winning 3 more Super bowls but not be considered good enough? By who? Fans here?
If the difference between 3 more super bowl championships is asante dropping an interception, or nink jumping off sides at the most crucial moment, or Welker holding onto a high throw by Tom, or that ref remebering that face guarding wasn't actually an NFL rule against Hobbs in the 2006 afc game then we have 6 championships in 13 years! Wow!
Those who know football know that the outcome of a game is determined by more than one fluke play. If the game comes down to one play, it's all the things you did or didn't do before that play that created the situation in which one play could be fatal. Belichick would never blame the loss on just one play and neither should knowledgeable fans..
If we were talented enough to get 6 shots and be 1 play away in each of those games in 13 years then we are absolutely talented enough!
I'm not saying that it is all the OC's fault even though I think the position has been lacking in the creativity department in big games for too long, and I'm not blaming it all on the offense or all on the defense.
It was a team loss, but 1 thing I am saying is that we were clearly, obviously and unquestionably a "talented" football team for the majority of the last 13 years....talented enough to be 1 play away from 6 Super Bowls in just over a decade.
Talented, but not without weaknesses in talent that could be exploited, even given superior and highly creative coaching.