The sky is falling

I knew that the loss to the Jets would stir up many questions about the team. As I said in a previous entry ("Swamp thing"), there would be three trains of thought on the game -- in particular Brady.

1. Brady was gun shy after the knee blow-out, 2. He was rusty, 3. It was just one of those games. What I didn't realize is there's a fourth possibility.

4. The Pats are on the decline and the days of Belichick/Brady being perennial Super Bowl contenders are over. I really hadn't thought of that one. Because, oh, it's absurd.

But it's not absurd to Michael Rosenberg of SI in his column titled "Tom Brady ... What If He Never Gets It Back?" Two weeks into the season and he writes that Brady may never win another Super Bowl. Good point. But he will win a lot more games. Super Bowls? Who knows. It's Week 2. Rosenberg compares him to Troy Aikman even though he then admits Aikman's situation was completely different. Oh well. Good point?

And it's not absurd to Ron Borges (big surprise) who wrote that the Patriots decline is a direct result of poor drafting since the last Super Bowl and that the man to blame for the drafting is (again, surprise!) Bill Belichick. Yes, the Pats have missed over the past few years. Every team does. But when you go 16-0 just one season ago are there really a lot of spots for young guys? Chad Jackson. Ouch. Jerod Mayo. Hell of a pick. Borges says Belichick is to blame for the mess he's in... mess? You want a mess? Try 1-15. Belichick makes mistakes. Doesn't like to stand there while the media asks their mostly lame and obvious questions after the game. But really? At 1-1 you are going to start writing the obit? OK, but be prepared to add the column alongside the ones that said Bledsoe should get his job back and that Seymour (or most any other pick) was a mistake.

But it's ESPN's Bill Simmons who seems to have really jumped the shark. Not because he disses "Funny People" (most likely movie of 2009 to be a hit on DVD), but because he writes "Watching a documentary about the 2003-04 Pats recently, I couldn't shake one thought: Most of these dudes are long gone. The only remaining 2004 cogs are Brady, Dan Koppen, Kevin Faulk, Ty Warren and Vince Wilfork. That's it. When someone casually throws out the whole, "It's the Patriots, they'll be fine" line, they're banking on the great coach/owner/GM trifecta and assuming that an overhaul of 90 percent of the roster since 2005 went splendidly. Not really."

I watched that "America's Game" DVD recently. Maybe he has the three Super Bowls on one DVD that I just bought. I love it. When I watched it I thought "What a great team. What a great season. That was so fun. I want to watch that again." But he's right. Most of the '03-'04 Pats are gone. That was five seasons ago. In the NFL that's a hell of a long time. And yet two short years ago this team, without many of those players, went 18-1. One of the greatest seasons in NFL history. Last year Brady goes down, the team battles to 11-5 with Matt ("Cut him! Oh, never mind") Cassel as QB. Other than the Steelers and Giants I don't think there is a team in the league who wouldn't take those last two seasons. But after a Week 2 loss to the Jets, the run could be over.

It seems that being a columnist in the 24/7 sports news world is a competition to be the first to say something is great -- or something sucks. "Hey, it's Week 2 and the Pats didn't look that good. Oh, and they didn't make the playoffs last year! They are done!" If you write the "Team X or Player X Is Done" story enough, eventually you will be right. But writing it about the Patriots after the loss to the Jets?

P-e-r-s-p-e-c-t-i-v-e.

Please.

The Simmons column is a great. Loaded with stats. Loaded with humor. That's what makes him the best. He doesn't just write a "I'm Worried The Pats Are On The Way Down" story like most newspaper columnists and then go have dinner and watch "Dexter." He puts in facts. He looks shit up. Like the record of teams who have eight-straight nine or more win seasons and what happened to them the next year. Like I said, it's a great column. And if he had written it in Week 10 when the Pats were 4-6 (I think that will happen in 2016) then I would have quoted from it in every water cooler chat about the Pats. But Week 2? Just one season removed from 18-1?

Come on. Don't go there. Because if the Pats go out and beat the 2-0 Falcons you are going to look silly. And you will.

The part that really disappointed me was when Simmons said about Belichick: "Total armchair analysis, but he seems to me like someone who made a ton of money, earned a whole hand of Super Bowl rings, feels pretty secure about his place in history, and continues to love coaching football ... only maybe it's not quite life or death anymore."

Total armchair analysis is right. If you are at the game and watching the Pats' bench you know it's still life or death. It may seem tempered by the confidence and accomplishment of three titles, but it's not. The man coaches every second of every game. He's not high-fiving after a TD or a pick, he's not giving the team the old pep talk when they are behind. Nope. He's coaching. Come to a game and watch. One of the other team's guys on punt coverage goes out of bounds and then comes in and downs the ball. Belichick sees it and alerts the ref. Flag. The offense comes off the field after a good drive, but one that ended in a field goal. Belichick takes Brady and Moss aside and shows them something on his clipboard. Then talks to the QB coach. Then checks in with the offensive line down the end of the bench. Simmons makes a big deal that Belichick is 57 and guys like Landry, Parcells, Shula began to fade in their 50s. So Belichick must be fading. Come watch a game. He's not fading. He really is the best coach the game has ever seen. He's Red Auerbach without the stogie. He will do anything to win and can win with almost any kind of team. Red had Russell. Belichick has Brady. If this was the NBA of the '50s and '60s the Pats would be working on their seventh straight title. No doubt about it.

But it's not. It's the NFL of 2009. And just competing for a title year in and year out is a hell of an accomplishment. If anyone has doubts about Brady and the Pats this year... come to a game. In fact, come to the Atlanta game. You'll see what you are missing.