Finally I take exception to your representation and dismissal of last year's team's accomplishments as being an exemplar of bad management. You want us to ignore that it was a team that not only when 14-2, but in doing so they also beat a great majority teams that eventually made it to the playoffs. It was unfortunate that they chose a bad day to have a "bad day", but it happens......a lot. Just ask the Saints vs Seattle. The Broncos vs the Jags, etc Good teams who are built well and do all the right things.....get Beat. Its not always their fault. They pay the other guys as well and they shaped the ball so it doesn't bounce straight for a reason. Sh!t happens
Yeah, I really don't care that you take exception. You, and a lot of other homers, were busting the asses of anyone who pointed out that team's problems. You told us we were wrong and crazy. In the end, we were proven correct both on the field and in the post-season moves of BB.
"Sh!t happens", but what happened last year was a completely foreseeable thing, and not some shocker that came out of nowhere.
And before you get a bruise patting yourself on the back for claiming that all the Pats offensive flaws derive from not having a "deep threat", remind yourself that the Pats managed to win 3 superbowls without EVER having a single "deep threat" and won their first when ALL their TEs COMBINED to catch 20 balls in the regular season and their #3 WR also only caught fewer than 25 balls that season. So please, tell me again how the Pats need a deep threat to win a superbowl.
1.) I haven't said that all the Patriots offensive flaws are because they don't have a deep threat. That's the most obvious issue, but the receivers' inability to beat good press coverage and the running back situation are two other problem areas.
2.) When the Patriots were winning Super Bowls, Brady was sharing the ball more. The closest thing to an exception to this was the stacked squad of 2007, which reached but didn't win:
2001 - 9 receivers with 10+ catches
2003 - 9 receivers with 10+ catches
2004 - 10 receivers with 10+ catches
2007 - 6 receivers with 10+ catches (The Moss/Welker super year)
2010 - 7 receivers with 10+ catches
2011 - 6 receivers with 10+ catches to date
They also had receivers who could at least threaten deep, such as Patten just to name one. Barring blown coverages, nobody's concerned about Branch or Welker beating them on a 40 yard strike.
In fact, here's some info from ESPN:
Passes thrown 31+ yards:
2011 - 1 for 14 (11 for 24 at 21-30 yards)
2010 - 5 for 19 (9 for 17 at 21-30 yards)
2007 - 13 for 30 (15 for 39 at 21-30 yards)
2004 - 12 for 38 (14 for 38 at 21-30 yards)
2003 - 12 for 31 (8 for 32 at 21-30 yards)
2001 - (unavailable)
So, whether you care to admit it or not, the data shows that the Patriots were both sharing the ball more and going deep more often in the Super Bowl years, which loosened up the defense. You can go blow smoke up someone else's pants. I prefer to stick with what's actually happening rather than your version of what's actually happening.
When my son was a toddler, and got upset, I used to tell him to "take a chill pill". For some reason known only to 3 year olds it never failed to make him smile. To that's my advise to you, DI. Take a Chill Pill. In fact I'm going to take one myself
My advice to you, since we're giving it out, is for you to quit acting like a toddler, and realize that adults should be able to both give, and take, criticism as part of a healthy discussion, particularly when it's generally being aimed at third parties as part of analysis rather than vicious gossip.
BB's the best coach in the NFL, but he's not perfect. He's built a solid team, but his defense is crap largely because he hasn't been able to replace great players with players of anything approaching equal quality. His failure to bring in a receiver that can consistently threaten middle-deep and beat press coverage allowed the Jets to stack their defense in the middle of the field last year in the playoffs, which helped lead to a Patriots loss. This shouldn't be controversial or problematic for you to accept if you're as intelligent as you seem to be implying.