Patriots come up short -- again
Posted Jan. 20 at 10:12 PM
What's missing for the Patriots (if anything)? They've tended to come up short at the finish in recent years.
New England's last Super Bowl victory was in 2004.
Tom Brady won his first 10 playoff games, including 3 Super Bowls. Since that time, he's 7-7 as a starter in the postseason (0-2 in Super Bowls and 3 losses at home -- Ravens twice and the Jets once).
The injury to Aqib Talib today, of course, was huge. He was the perfect guy for them to stick on Anquan Boldin (who was huge after Talib left).
On offense, they could use another playmaker. Injuries to Rob Gronkowski have hurt them the last two years, but it seems like they could use a dynamic downfield-type guy at wide receiver -- they really haven't had that since Randy Moss was playing well in 2007.
Wes Welker is a terrific receiver, of course, but he's working a lot of short routes, and too much of the offense has to run through him, I think.
Posted by ANDY RICHARDSON | Jan. 21 at 04:54 AM
They need another difference-maker on offense, either a downfield wide receiver or a running back defenses feel the need to account for. They don't get the big plays from the running backs and wideouts that might have made the difference in some of these close games. Pretty much what I was saying on Saturday. Yeah, their defense isn't as good now as it was when they were winning Super Bowls. But to score only 13 points at home...you're not going to win many playoff games that way.
Posted by BILL REHOR | Jan. 22 at 08:35 AM
I agree, but... wasn't Brandon Lloyd a pretty darn good downfield receiver the past two years before coming to New England? Who could they realistically bring in that would be an upgrade over that guy in talent? Maybe this new TE-heavy scheme is showing its limitations.
Posted by Jason Campisi | Jan. 22 at 09:44 AM
Also, remember that the Pats are 5-5 since SpyGate with no Super Bowl victories. That little edge was good enough to give them 3 SuperBowl victories with an average margin of victory of 3 points...so in actuality they really don't have a legitimate Super Bowl title since it stands to reason that their cheating equates to at least a 3 point advantage. Moral of the story....Winners never cheat and cheaters never win.
Add a Comment
Already a registered user? Please sign in to add comments.
To add comments, you must become a registered user of our site. To register, please click here.