But it has everything to do with the media's perception of the Patriots as being masters of the draft. media view: "Patriots are successful = good drafters" Jets fan view: "Patriots are successful = got very lucky with Brady"
Are we forgetting that the Pats only won the Super Bowl whilst cheating? Since then, they've either lost the Super Bowl or not gotten to the Super Bowl. Montana/Young dynasty? Please. They're a tainted franchise during that period. Chicago Black Sox. They need to win two more before they get GOAT talk in my eyes. They'll never get the one though now that they blew their last good chance. Btw. Pats suck at drafting. Enjoy that when Brady retires at the first sight of Coples.
SF w/ Montana won 4 in 9 years in an era w/ GREAT teams, I admitre everything the Pats have done but outside of the Pats there haven't been any truly great teams. if you add in the Steve Young led title they won 5 in 14 years
so did every other team in the NFL whats your point? Brady was anything but a stellar QB prospect. Nobody had any idea what he would develop into. I don't get why it's so hard to admit the Pats got lucky that Brady developed into what he has become. Their best hope was that he could become a capable backup or a fringe starter at the time they drafted him.
The Pats and their fans should worship Drew henson, he's the reason Brady went so low. If Brady had a chance to play more at Michigan he would have been a much higher pick and likely not a Pat.
I don't get too bent out of shape over the treatment of the Pats draft. I think of it as one of those predictable, hilarious things I get to witness once a year. Like white receivers being noted for their "straight line speed" and lack of quickness, or every fat lineman being referred to as a "road grader." I liked both Hightower and Jones, and I liked Bequette, the guy they got in 3, although I think they reached. Mayo has been pretty good with a rotation of nobodies next to him. I think Jones is never going to be a cover guy, but he's very strong and could definitely be a steady 6-8 sack guy with good presence against the run. I highly doubt any of those secondary guys will be anything. Belichick seems to love taking terrible players in the secondary. I think the Jets draft was better, but who knows? It's somewhat silly to speculate on this stuff when nothing's happened yet. -X-
1. Problem of Patriots defense, as far as I see it, is again the lack of physical presence up front in defensive line. Ever since they cut the ties with Seymour, they didn't have anyone capable of playing his role. For this, Patriots had to employ multiple fronts - not by design, but by the lack of talent up front. 2. That defensive line is still the same, without much talent infusion (from 3-4 standpoint). Drafting Chandler Jones might be signalling that Patriots are now moving into 4-3 territory. (If they do try to convert Jones to OLB - I hope to dear god that he becomes Vernon Gholston in Pats uniform. It is not a good idea, if you ask me.) 3. After Brady leaves the game, what is the contingency plan? Ryan Mallett? But then, Matt Cassel, who couldn't start for his entire school day career (including HIGH SCHOOL DAYS) looked rather competent in that system. Maybe QB situation (and the offense) is not much of a concern indeed.
The only guy the Pats drafted that I really liked was Dont'a Hightower. I think he's the only guy they got who has a real chance to be a star. That's why I'm happy with their draft. Chandler Jones could well be a solid player but it's not in his DNA to be a star. If it was he'd have put up star numbers at Syracuse. It's unusual for a guy to get drafted late and become a star at the NFL level but it's even more unusual for a guy who wasn't a star in college to suddenly become one when the NFL comes knocking. That's why the combine should be used as a disqualifier not as a promoter of talent.
No problem if you want to attribute all three SB wins to Spygate, but this reasoning is flimsy. Between SB42 and SB44, the difference between two wins and two losses came down to, what, maybe four plays combined? Tyree's catch, Samuel's dropped INT, Welker and Brady failing to connect on that potentially game-sealing play... it doesn't make sense to attribute those things to the Patriots not having film of the Giants' defensive signals. Either way, they won three SBs by the skin of their teeth and lost two by the skin of their teeth. It's pretty much as simple as that. Things tend to even out that way. Besides, Jets fans (of all NFL fans) should know just how difficult it is to even get to the Super Bowl. In case you're not aware (tongue firmly planted in cheek), you guys made it to back-to-back AFC championship games.
On the cheating thing: the only NFL team ever to win 3 SB's in 4 years was caught cheating. How can these two things not be related? Even if you argue that the Pats were a great team it's pretty clear that every advantage that a team has helps them in the end and the Pats were actively looking for an advantage by breaking the rules. The Pats have never won a Super Bowl in a season they were not actively cheating in. Let's get real here.
Dallas won 3 SBs in 4 years too. I know we like to knock NE for spygate but if we all think NE was the only team doing it we are being naive. I'm sure it helped them if they did it but I'm sure other teams were doing it too and they were 16-0 the season they stopped doing it and needed a ball sticking to a helmet to lose a game.
Well, Dallas added Deion Sanders to a roster that had already won 2 Super Bowls in 3 years, that's almost like cheating, The point stands, the Pats were actively cheating in the years they won the Super Bowl. If the NFL had any balls at all they'd have nullified the results and let the chips fall where they would have.
I think Den and SF violated the salary cap in their 90s SBs, that's as bad if not worse- should they strip those too? They aren't taking away any SB titles from anyone.
The Brady led Pats were 10-3 in games decided by 3 points or less prior to spygate. They are 10-8 in such games since. In a game decided by inches, the slightest advantage can make a difference - especially in close games.
again, the biggest difference btw the first 2 SB wins and last 2 SB losses was the NE O had the ball last in the first 2 and didn't the last 2.
All anybody can really say with any authority about Spygate is that no one knows what kind of competitive advantage it really gave them, because the league made a conscious decision to destroy the evidence before anyone without a vested interest in the league could look at it. But it is generally accepted that business organizations are not likely to destroy benign and exculpatory evidence. When evidence is destroyed, the presumption is that it was damaging. Not the other way around. Keep in mind that a lot of the interest in the NFL is driven by betting. There is a huge incentive to preserve the idea that the outcome is not rigged.
Very fair statement, and I actually would have liked for two things to have happened back in 2007: 1. For Goodell to have NOT destroyed the tapes. 2. For Belichick to have made some kind of comment other than the written statement/apology. The problem with saying nothing and having the tapes destroyed is that it invites speculation. And I don't blame opposing fans for assuming the worst.
