Pats Pulpit article The Drought

[chad72]

I thought it was interesting:

 

http://www.patspulpit.com/2014/7/23/5930965/the-patriots-super-bowl-drought

 

no team in history can come close to their current streak of nine straight seasons of 10+ wins without a Super Bowl.

 

That is a long time, if you compare it historically. One thing that has changed is vets are turning down more money from Patriots (our own Reggie Wayne did ). Not long ago you had vets taking less money to play on the Patriots, perception has changed, see Kevin Williams turning down more money from Patriots story below:

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000359060/article/kevin-williams-turned-down-more-money-from-patriots

[21isSuperman]

Oh boy, this will be fun...

 

1. This just shows how difficult it is to win a Super Bowl.  The writer makes it seem like Belichick is being lazy and doesn't want a Super Bowl.

2. 9 straight seasons of 10+ wins is very impressive given how much turnover there is with a roster

3. Just because they didn't win a Super Bowl, doesn't mean they didn't reach it.  They made it to the Super Bowl in 2007 and 2012.  Give them a healthy Gronk in 2012 and they just might win that game.  Being able to reach the Super Bowl is a very difficult thing to do

4. The Patriots are a great, winning franchise.  I would rather have 100+ wins in a decade and no Super Bowl than 3 wins in a decade and no Super Bowl.  The Patriots haven't missed the playoffs very often, so they're always in the running for it.

[PrincetonTiger]

Interesting article

[The Old Crow]

I thought it was interesting:

http://www.patspulpit.com/2014/7/23/5930965/the-patriots-super-bowl-drought

no team in history can come close to their current streak of nine straight seasons of 10+ wins without a Super Bowl.

That is a long time, if you compare it historically. One thing that has changed is vets are turning down more money from Patriots (our own Reggie Wayne did ). Not long ago you had vets taking less money to play on the Patriots, perception has changed, see Kevin Williams turning down more money from Patriots story below:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000359060/article/kevin-williams-turned-down-more-money-from-patriots

Not as bad as the Red Sox and 86 years !

[amfootball]

While I think the article is trying to take a subtle shot at the Pats for not winning a Super Bowl in awhile, the fact that they are the only team to have won 10 games over 9 seasons ever in the history of the NFL is a greater accomplishment in my view than if they had won a ring somewhere in there. This is especially impressive when you consider they have done it in an era when the cap/FA are designed to make every team go 8-8.

 

I have said this before here but I think it is starting to materialize more and more that this Pats dynasty will be remembered as much for its winning as those 3 super bowls, maybe even more so. Several teams have had great SB runs but none have sustained that level of success for 13 years and that is the part that is the most impressive.

 

I also don't think the author is being fair in terms of not at least acknowledging that the Pats did make two super bowls since 2004 and lost both by the slimmest of margins. It is not like the team has won 10+ games and then gone one and done every year. They have made deep playoff runs going to 8 AFCCG games and 5SBs.

 

But I suppose the criticism is fair on one hand as the goal is to win rings and the author makes a salient point that perhaps it would not seem as stark had they spread their 3 rings over 10 years vs winning them all at once. Such is the price of success I guess. It's not like they aren't trying to win the ring. ;)

[Shane Bond]

While I think the article is trying to take a subtle shot at the Pats for not winning a Super Bowl in awhile, the fact that they are the only team to have won 10 games over 9 seasons ever in the history of the NFL is a greater accomplishment in my view than if they had won a ring somewhere in there. This is especially impressive when you consider they have done it in an era when the cap/FA are designed to make every team go 8-8.

 

I have said this before here but I think it is starting to materialize more and more that this Pats dynasty will be remembered as much for its winning as those 3 super bowls, maybe even more so. Several teams have had great SB runs but none have sustained that level of success for 13 years and that is the part that is the most impressive.

 

I also don't think the author is being fair in terms of not at least acknowledging that the Pats did make two super bowls since 2004 and lost both by the slimmest of margins. It is not like the team has won 10+ games and then gone one and done every year. They have made deep playoff runs going to 8 AFCCG games and 5SBs.

 

But I suppose the criticism is fair on one hand as the goal is to win rings and the author makes a salient point that perhaps it would not seem as stark had they spread their 3 rings over 10 years vs winning them all at once. Such is the price of success I guess. It's not like they aren't trying to win the ring. ;)

Thought stats are for losers. :clap:  :disco:

[amfootball]

Thought stats are for losers. :clap:  :disco:

Which stat are you referring to?

[Shane Bond]

Which stat are you referring to?

Whatever the article says which you seem to agree upon. 10 years of no SB.

 

Isnt it ironic, the same was argued against the Colts ( winningest team of the decade ) for lack of rings. Now suddenly, it is a great achievement.

[amfootball]

Whatever the article says which you seem to agree upon. 10 years of no SB.

 

Isnt it ironic, the same was argued against the Colts ( winningest team of the decade ) for lack of rings. Now suddenly, it is a great achievement.

I never said that. I think the Colts achievement is just as impressive in terms of the winning. I think with the Pats it is the rings with the winning and deep playoff runs that set them apart in NFL history.

[Shane Bond]

I never said that. I think the Colts achievement is just as impressive in terms of the winning. I think with the Pats it is the rings with the winning and deep playoff runs that set them apart in NFL history.

Well we are talking about last 10 years.

[amfootball]

Well we are talking about last 10 years.

Yeah and I still think it is a great achievement even without the rings.

[Shane Bond]

Yeah and I still think it is a great achievement even without the rings.

Which is what i thought about Colts too but we were told "Stats are for losers". Only the rings matter.

[amfootball]

Which is what i thought about Colts too but we were told "Stats are for losers". Only the rings matter.

I think that was because the Pats were winning the rings. You know Shane I have learned that no matter what happens with your team there will always be detractors. I never thought after the Pats won all those rings that 10 years later they would be criticized for not winning more. We live in such a toxic media world. I don't want to go off on a tangent but look at Lebron James. I have never seen an athlete just torn to shreds for being the best player in the game. He won 2 rings and yet he should have 5 by now, right? It is craziness.

[Shane Bond]

I think that was because the Pats were winning the rings. You know Shane I have learned that no matter what happens with your team there will always be detractors. I never thought after the Pats won all those rings that 10 years later they would be criticized for not winning more. We live in such a toxic media world. I don't want to go off on a tangent but look at Lebron James. I have never seen an athlete just torn to shreds for being the best player in the game. He won 2 rings and yet he should have 5 by now, right? It is craziness.

I mean its enlightening to see there is an acknowledgement for Colts achievement finally. Though it took 10 years of SB drought to NE for it. 

 

We are in the same page now. :clap: 

[amfootball]

I mean its enlightening to see there is an acknowledgement for Colts achievement finally. Though it took 10 years of SB drought to NE for it. 

 

We are in the same page now. :clap: 

Are you always this sour? Why do you let what a few say about your team affect you so much that you paint every Pats fan the same way? I told you that I thought it was a great achievement. I believed it back then when it was happening and presently.

[Shane Bond]

Are you always this sour? Why do you let what a few say about your team affect you so much that you paint every Pats fan the same way? I told you that I thought it was a great achievement. I believed it back then when it was happening and presently.

Sour?. I am not. And i didn't generalize anything.

 

You say it now. However, i remember you using this argument against us back in the days.

 

What goes around comes around huh. No kidding.

[Valpo2004]

While I think the article is trying to take a subtle shot at the Pats for not winning a Super Bowl in awhile, the fact that they are the only team to have won 10 games over 9 seasons ever in the history of the NFL is a greater accomplishment in my view than if they had won a ring somewhere in there. This is especially impressive when you consider they have done it in an era when the cap/FA are designed to make every team go 8-8.

 

I have said this before here but I think it is starting to materialize more and more that this Pats dynasty will be remembered as much for its winning as those 3 super bowls, maybe even more so. Several teams have had great SB runs but none have sustained that level of success for 13 years and that is the part that is the most impressive.

 

I also don't think the author is being fair in terms of not at least acknowledging that the Pats did make two super bowls since 2004 and lost both by the slimmest of margins. It is not like the team has won 10+ games and then gone one and done every year. They have made deep playoff runs going to 8 AFCCG games and 5SBs.

 

But I suppose the criticism is fair on one hand as the goal is to win rings and the author makes a salient point that perhaps it would not seem as stark had they spread their 3 rings over 10 years vs winning them all at once. Such is the price of success I guess. It's not like they aren't trying to win the ring. ;)

 

Correction they are not the only team to have done that (winning 10 games for 9 seasons straight), they are just the only team to have done that without collecting a SB win in that time period.

 

The record as they mentioned was the 49er's from 1983 to 1998 - 16 seasons of 10 or more wins.  However they collected a few super bowl wins in that time.  

[amfootball]

Sour?. I am not. And i didn't generalize anything.

 

You say it now. However, i remember you using this argument against us back in the days.

 

What goes around comes around huh. No kidding.

Honestly, I don't know what your agenda is these days but every thread now you seem to want to cause a fight. I am not going to bite this time. I told you that I thought what the Colts achieved was impressive and it is. If you don't believe me than that is your issue.

[amfootball]

Correction they are not the only team to have done that (winning 10 games for 9 seasons straight), they are just the only team to have done that without collecting a SB win.

 

I think they mentioned the record is the 49er's of the 80's and early 90's who won 10 games or more for 14 straight seasons, but they collected a few SB wins in that time too.

Ah thanks. I missed that. That being said, the Pats winning percentage is the best all time over 13 seasons - both regular season and post-season.

[Shane Bond]

Honestly, I don't know what your agenda is these days but every thread now you seem to want to cause a fight. I am not going to bite this time. I told you that I thought what the Colts achieved was impressive and it is. If you don't believe me than that is your issue.

You are wrong on the first line. Whats there to fight. This is a discussion. If you dont agree with what i say, that is fine. 

 

I just re-iterated what was told about Colts. Nothing wrong with that. Dont deny that you have never used the rings vs stats against the Colts.

[Valpo2004]

I thought it was interesting:

 

http://www.patspulpit.com/2014/7/23/5930965/the-patriots-super-bowl-drought

 

no team in history can come close to their current streak of nine straight seasons of 10+ wins without a Super Bowl.

 

That is a long time, if you compare it historically. One thing that has changed is vets are turning down more money from Patriots (our own Reggie Wayne did ). Not long ago you had vets taking less money to play on the Patriots, perception has changed, see Kevin Williams turning down more money from Patriots story below:

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000359060/article/kevin-williams-turned-down-more-money-from-patriots

 

I'm sort of curious as to why someone would turn down more money to play for the Pats?

 

Only thing I can think of is they don't like Belicheck's style.  

[amfootball]

I'm sort of curious as to why someone would turn down more money to play for the Pats?

 

Only thing I can think of is they don't like Belicheck's style.  

Players have a myriad reasons for selecting who they play for - money, chance at winning, system of team, HC, climate of city. The Pats are not always the best fit for everyone.

[Shane Bond]

I'm sort of curious as to why someone would turn down more money to play for the Pats?

 

Only thing I can think of is they don't like Belicheck's style.  

Thats a good point. I wonder the same sometimes.

[sweetsurrender]

I think that was because the Pats were winning the rings. You know Shane I have learned that no matter what happens with your team there will always be detractors. I never thought after the Pats won all those rings that 10 years later they would be criticized for not winning more. We live in such a toxic media world. I don't want to go off on a tangent but look at Lebron James. I have never seen an athlete just torn to shreds for being the best player in the game. He won 2 rings and yet he should have 5 by now, right? It is craziness.

Very true. It is all based in envy and jealously. Lebron is a great example of that. I think it is to the point that no matter athletes do they cant win. 

[sweetsurrender]

You are wrong on the first line. Whats there to fight. This is a discussion. If you dont agree with what i say, that is fine. 

 

I just re-iterated what was told about Colts. Nothing wrong with that. Dont deny that you have never used the rings vs stats against the Colts.

Are you always this insecure?

[Shane Bond]

Are you always this insecure?

Great contribution to the topic we are discussing.

[Archer]

The Colts won 10+ games for nine straight seasons (2002-2010).  However, they won a SB during that period...

[lollygagger8]

I'm sort of curious as to why someone would turn down more money to play for the Pats?

 

Only thing I can think of is they don't like Belicheck's style.  

 

That's a great question for Wes Welker since Kraft said they were paying more money than the Broncos. 

[amfootball]

That's a great question for Wes Welker since Kraft said they were paying more money than the Broncos. 

The Pats did. Their two years were guaranteed. The Broncos only guaranteed the first year but have since picked up the second year option for this season. And he didn't sign because things got personal.

[lollygagger8]

The Pats did. Their two years were guaranteed. The Broncos only guaranteed the first year but have since picked up the second year option for this season. And he didn't sign because things got personal.

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000150435/article/wes-welker-denver-broncos-strike-twoyear-contract

 

??

 

Wes Welker waited and waited for the offer he wanted from the New England Patriots. It never came.

 

Broncos top executive John Elway, on the other hand, delivered the goods. NFL.com's Albert Breer first reported Wednesday that Welker agreed to terms on a two-year, $12 million contract with the Denver Broncos. A source close to the situation later told NFL Network's Michelle Beisner that Welker will receive a $4 million bonus and a $2 million salary in 2013 and a $3 million bonus and a $3 million salary in 2014.

The Broncos quickly confirmed Welker's addition via Twitter and later announced he'd be introduced Thursday at a 5 p.m. ET news conference.

Breer later reported, via a source involved in theBroncos talks, that the Patriots' final and only offer to Welker was a two-year, $10 million contract with incentives.

[amfootball]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000150435/article/wes-welker-denver-broncos-strike-twoyear-contract

 

??

 

Wes Welker waited and waited for the offer he wanted from the New England Patriots. It never came.

 

Broncos top executive John Elway, on the other hand, delivered the goods. NFL.com's Albert Breer first reported Wednesday that Welker agreed to terms on a two-year, $12 million contract with the Denver Broncos. A source close to the situation later told NFL Network's Michelle Beisner that Welker will receive a $4 million bonus and a $2 million salary in 2013 and a $3 million bonus and a $3 million salary in 2014.

The Broncos quickly confirmed Welker's addition via Twitter and later announced he'd be introduced Thursday at a 5 p.m. ET news conference.

Breer later reported, via a source involved in theBroncos talks, that the Patriots' final and only offer to Welker was a two-year, $10 million contract with incentives.

The two year deal from the Pats was guaranteed with incentives that is why it was a better offer as players key on the guaranteed money. Had the Broncos released Welker this past off-season he would have only made 6 mil total from the deal but like I said they picked up the second year so he has realized the full deal. The Pats deal was fully guaranteed so it was a better deal at the time that he signed with Denver.

[lollygagger8]

The two year deal from the Pats was guaranteed with incentives that is why it was a better offer as players key on the guaranteed money. Had the Broncos released Welker this past off-season he would have only made 6 mil total from the deal but like I said they picked up the second year so he has realized the full deal. The Pats deal was fully guaranteed so it was a better deal at the time that he signed with Denver.

 

My bad, I thought $12M > $10M 

 

 

 

Plus, those "incentives" you mention were pretty ridiculous: 

 

According to Albert Breer of NFL.com, the Patriots added several contract incentives in their final offer, all of which had very aggressive targets. While the total value of the deal could have reached $16 million over two years, Welker would have had to hit the following escalators:

-All-Pro in each of the two years, $1 million

-1,500 receiving yards in each of the two years, $1 million

-Pro Bowl starter in 2014, $1 million

-1,300 yards in 2013, $1 million

 

Not trying to start a p'ing match.

[amfootball]

My bad, I thought $12M > $10M 

 

 

 

Plus, those "incentives" you mention were pretty ridiculous: 

 

According to Albert Breer of NFL.com, the Patriots added several contract incentives in their final offer, all of which had very aggressive targets. While the total value of the deal could have reached $16 million over two years, Welker would have had to hit the following escalators:

-All-Pro in each of the two years, $1 million

-1,500 receiving yards in each of the two years, $1 million

-Pro Bowl starter in 2014, $1 million

-1,300 yards in 2013, $1 million

 

Not trying to start a p'ing match.

I told you I was focused on the guaranteed money as was Kraft. Having the 10 mil guaranteed is a better deal than only have one year of a 12 mil deal guaranteed. And I don't see any issues with those incentives as Welker had hit all of those his last two seasons in NE except for being an AP or he may have been that too. I don't remember.

[Superman]

My bad, I thought $12M > $10M 

 

 

 

Plus, those "incentives" you mention were pretty ridiculous: 

 

According to Albert Breer of NFL.com, the Patriots added several contract incentives in their final offer, all of which had very aggressive targets. While the total value of the deal could have reached $16 million over two years, Welker would have had to hit the following escalators:

-All-Pro in each of the two years, $1 million

-1,500 receiving yards in each of the two years, $1 million

-Pro Bowl starter in 2014, $1 million

-1,300 yards in 2013, $1 million

 

Not trying to start a p'ing match.

 

I don't remember seeing these details before. I remember Kraft saying after the fact that the Pats offered more money than the Broncos did. If these are the terms he was talking about, then I was wrong to take him at his word. Those incentives are pretty steep.

[-JJ-]

Oh boy, this will be fun...

 

1. This just shows how difficult it is to win a Super Bowl.  The writer makes it seem like Belichick is being lazy and doesn't want a Super Bowl.

2. 9 straight seasons of 10+ wins is very impressive given how much turnover there is with a roster

3. Just because they didn't win a Super Bowl, doesn't mean they didn't reach it.  They made it to the Super Bowl in 2007 and 2012.  Give them a healthy Gronk in 2012 and they just might win that game.  Being able to reach the Super Bowl is a very difficult thing to do

4. The Patriots are a great, winning franchise.  I would rather have 100+ wins in a decade and no Super Bowl than 3 wins in a decade and no Super Bowl.  The Patriots haven't missed the playoffs very often, so they're always in the running for it.

Agreed- season record really doesn't equate to # SBs.

 

Getting to and winning a SB has its own parameters (not the least luck/timing) and is not governed by seasons wins.(except you generally need more than 8 wins:)

[amfootball]

I don't remember seeing these details before. I remember Kraft saying after the fact that the Pats offered more money than the Broncos did. If these are the terms he was talking about, then I was wrong to take him at his word. Those incentives are pretty steep.

Kraft never said the Pats offered more money to my knowledge anyways. He said the Pats were the better deal in that the two years were guaranteed + incentives which may seem steep but Welker hit many of those marks his previous two seasons in NE.

[lollygagger8]

I told you I was focused on the guaranteed money as was Kraft. Having the 10 mil guaranteed is a better deal than only have one year of a 12 mil deal guaranteed. And I don't see any issues with those incentives as Welker had hit all of those his last two seasons in NE except for being an AP or he may have been that too. I don't remember.

 

Not seeing any issues with those ridiculous/impossible to reach incentives is probably why Welker walked. Plus there being no wiggle room in their "final" offer that they were hoping to get a team friendly deal with. 

[lollygagger8]

Kraft never said the Pats offered more money

 

Yes he did

 

 

 

"Everyone in our organization wanted Wes Welker back," Kraft told reporters. "Anyone who doubts that, or thinks we weren't serious, just doesn't get it. Like I've said many times, I really wanted Wes to be with us through the rest of his career, but it takes two sides to do a deal. I really believe in this case, his agents misrepresented what his market value was. When you come right down to the bottom line, he accepted a deal in Denver which is less money than what we offered him."

 

 

http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/9067256/new-england-patriots-owner-robert-kraft-blames-agents-wes-welker-exit

[amfootball]

Not seeing any issues with those ridiculous/impossible to reach incentives is probably why Welker walked. Plus there being no wiggle room in their "final" offer that they were hoping to get a team friendly deal with. 

I don't feel like rehashing the whole Welker saga again but the Pats has offered him a two year deal for $16mil in 2011 which he turned down which forced them to franchise him in 2012 paying him top 5 money for his position. So the two year deal from their perspective also took into account that he made top 5 money the year prior. And of course the Denver deal only came in at one mil a more per year and only guaranteed one year with no incentives so yeah the Pats had made him better offers all along. And incentives are usually high as no team just gives away money for average performance and Welker had hit many of those marks his last two years in NE. They were not ridiculous for him to attain.

[amfootball]

Yes he did

 

 

 

"Everyone in our organization wanted Wes Welker back," Kraft told reporters. "Anyone who doubts that, or thinks we weren't serious, just doesn't get it. Like I've said many times, I really wanted Wes to be with us through the rest of his career, but it takes two sides to do a deal. I really believe in this case, his agents misrepresented what his market value was. When you come right down to the bottom line, he accepted a deal in Denver which is less money than what we offered him."

 

 

http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/9067256/new-england-patriots-owner-robert-kraft-blames-agents-wes-welker-exit

Ok, my mistake. He was taking into account the incentives which made the total deal more.