Post by mylungswereaching on Mar 5, 2012 9:02:20 GMT -5
I watched every Patriot game in the 07 season and even though they won every game, they weren't a great team. They were a very good team playing poor and average teams. Their defense was poor but because their offense was great it didn't matter. The giants were a much more balanced team that gelled halfway through the season. For the first 3/4 of the season the played mostly weaker teams and no one could figure out how to play them. They got so far ahead that the D could just coast. They only played about 3 or 4 games all year against good teams and they struggled in all of them. In most cases, the other coaches played into the Pats strengths. The Giants in the last game of the regular season figured them out and almost beat them. They barely won the first two games in the playoffs. Local fans were no where near as confident in the Superbowl as national fans. They looked weak the last 1/4 of the season and the playoffs. I wasn't surprised the Giants beat them. They were the worst possible match up for the Pats. They had a good enough D to slow the Pats down and a good enough O to cream the weak Pats D. The Pats were totally one sided and paid for it.
Hypothetical - I buy the all star team in some sport and field it as my team. The players are all great but they never played together. The players don't jell at first and they argue a lot so they go the first half of the year as a 500 team. They click late in the season and start winning. Another team has been together for 5 years and plays well the whole season but have a lot less talent. They end up with a much better record overall. Who is the better team?
I understand the loathing. The Sox are the Yankees light. They've got tons of money and buy the best players they can get. It's not really fair when the top 5 teams have more money than the bottom 20 combined. Kansas City, Toronto... will never be able to make as much money as New York or Boston. Not enough people.
The Patriots are different to me. They got lucky and drafted one of the best quarterbacks that ever played in the 6th round and have excellent coaching. With good coaching and some luck any team could duplicate what the Pats have done. They've got about 3 to 5 more years and they'll fall back into the pack.
What's the better system. Baseball, no salary cap. Teams in big market can generate a lot more revenue than teams in small markets no matter how good the small markets are, then buy up the best players.
Football, revenue sharing where everyone has the same money, so no team is really good but no team is really bad unless they have really bad ownership and/or coaching.
What's the fun in a game where the best team on paper always wins?
It seems like what you hate is the idea of any kind of playoff system. You play a regular season with an set number of games and whoever has the most wins gets the championship, like college football. I think playoffs put a different type of pressure on teams than the regular season does. Performing under pressure is one of the things that separate the good teams from the great teams.
You make the playoffs by beating the snot out of weak teams and being competitive against the strong ones. You have to consistently beat strong teams to win in the playoffs. The regular season weeds out the weakest team and gives the stronger teams practice to prepare for the playoffs.
Hypothetical - I buy the all star team in some sport and field it as my team. The players are all great but they never played together. The players don't jell at first and they argue a lot so they go the first half of the year as a 500 team. They click late in the season and start winning. Another team has been together for 5 years and plays well the whole season but have a lot less talent. They end up with a much better record overall. Who is the better team?
I understand the loathing. The Sox are the Yankees light. They've got tons of money and buy the best players they can get. It's not really fair when the top 5 teams have more money than the bottom 20 combined. Kansas City, Toronto... will never be able to make as much money as New York or Boston. Not enough people.
The Patriots are different to me. They got lucky and drafted one of the best quarterbacks that ever played in the 6th round and have excellent coaching. With good coaching and some luck any team could duplicate what the Pats have done. They've got about 3 to 5 more years and they'll fall back into the pack.
What's the better system. Baseball, no salary cap. Teams in big market can generate a lot more revenue than teams in small markets no matter how good the small markets are, then buy up the best players.
Football, revenue sharing where everyone has the same money, so no team is really good but no team is really bad unless they have really bad ownership and/or coaching.
What's the fun in a game where the best team on paper always wins?
It seems like what you hate is the idea of any kind of playoff system. You play a regular season with an set number of games and whoever has the most wins gets the championship, like college football. I think playoffs put a different type of pressure on teams than the regular season does. Performing under pressure is one of the things that separate the good teams from the great teams.
You make the playoffs by beating the snot out of weak teams and being competitive against the strong ones. You have to consistently beat strong teams to win in the playoffs. The regular season weeds out the weakest team and gives the stronger teams practice to prepare for the playoffs.