Re: Anatomy of a Choke.
posted at 1/23/2011 11:45 AM EST
But relatively speaking they still were the best team in the NFL with their talent level. That's what frustrates me. You look at any team and there are holes:
the Jets has Sanchez, no real force for a passrush, and less than a dominant D based on regular season stats.
The steelers o line is awful, and they aren't really prolific. They can't stop a quick passing attack with their secondary and LB's.
The bears have Jay Cutler and a crappy receiving corp.
The packers look like the best team of all, but they are far from unbeatable unless Aaron Rogers plays unbelievable.
You mention 2004. That team was blown out by Pittsburgh on halloween. They went 14-2, and beat Pitt in the playoffs that year. I'm sure not having Corey Dillon for that game hurt, but they still were blown out of the water. I doubt any one players makes that big a difference. Are you saying the pats were more talented than Pitt that year?
By the way, who was playing in the defensive backfield in 2004? Remember that Ty Law was hurt and they had a makeshift lineup. Troy freakin Brown was playing DB! The colts and steelers were both considered more talented teams.
My point? It all comes down to execution in the playoffs. the pats were awful last week and that's why they lost. There's no doubt the '10 pats had holes (3rd down pass D, too many yards given up), but so did every other winning pats team.
There's no doubt the roster will be improved next year, but it won't matter if the coaching staff either a) lays an egg or b) is too stubborn. It also won't matter if Brady plays tight in the playoffs. You can apologize for his playoff performance all you want, but he has had pedestrian numbers in the playoffs since winning the sb in 2004. You can blame the coaching, receivers, or any other popular scapegoat but it's on Brady to perform when they need him the most. He simply hasn't done that consistently in the postseason.
In Response to Re: Anatomy of a Choke.
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Anatomy of a Choke. : Yep . . . I've watched the games (on TV when away and in the stadium when at home). I think talent is the main problem here. The 2004 defense was great. That team (regular season and playoffs) controlled games in a way almost no other team I've seen has done. But in 2005, we started to lose key players (Law, Phifer, Johnson, Bruschi for part of the season) and the defense became must less dominant. The running game was also starting to decline. In 2006 it was clear the defense was old and slow and we started losing our receiving corp too. In 2007, the offense was very good (though still no running game), but the D was looking pretty shoddy by season end. In 2008, the offense got very weak--no receivers other than Welker and Moss and still no running game. That continued in 2009 and even this season. The defense however, has been slowly coming back. It's younger and faster now, with some talent. It needs more talent and that will take a year or two, but it's getting closer. The offesne really needs some revamping. We need real wideouts, we need a top-tier running back, and we need to improve the line. So the talent issues are there. The trajectory, though is good. It's just that it takes time. You only have so many draft picks and so many free agent signings every year. Building a top team isn't easy and it's not fast. If BB won it all this year, it would have been a Herculean feat. If he wins two years from now, he'll still be a candidate for best coach of all time in my opinion.
Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]