Scary Good

[3irty1]

3 or 4 games is too small of a sample to know whether the teams you played are good or bad (or whether you are even good or bad). I suspect some of these 1-3 teams get on a roll, and vice versa.

Exactly, who would have thought we would sweep all of our division games last year after getting crushed week 1 by the bears. Teams can turn it around. The chargers will still probobly win their division.

[RIPackerFan]

And the exact opposite can happen - one of the 4-0 teams can stumble from this point forward - and while the Pats seems to have been doing well, when I look who they beat beat - those are probably the weakest set of opponents of all the 4-0 teams.

[retailguy]

Re: Scary Good

Perhaps you should add a disclaimer?

You'll have to forgive me for not taking your advice on disclaimers.

No problem. It was just a suggestion. Sooner or later someone else will make a suggestion, maybe you'll like that one better.

Good chatting with you. :P

[retailguy]

And the exact opposite can happen - one of the 4-0 teams can stumble from this point forward - and while the Pats seems to have been doing well, when I look who they beat beat - those are probably the weakest set of opponents of all the 4-0 teams.

I think most every season one of the 4-0 teams stumbles. I seem to remember Indianapolis going 11-0? one year and finishing 3rd seed and losing in the 1st round of the playoffs, or maybe second. Didn't something similar happen to KC too a while back?

And then there was San Diego last year - 14-2 with home field advantage losing in the 1st round of the playoffs to NE who lost to Indy... then they start the new season 1-3 along with the Bears.

It'll happen. To whom? We shall see... I don't think it'll be New England, but then again, I never thought the Packers would be 4-0, so what the hell do I know?

[The Leaper]

NE has looked impressive...but we won't be able to accurately measure them until they play teams like Indy and Dallas. They've pounded four different ONE WIN teams right now. Big whoop.

[MJZiggy]

And the exact opposite can happen - one of the 4-0 teams can stumble from this point forward - and while the Pats seems to have been doing well, when I look who they beat beat - those are probably the weakest set of opponents of all the 4-0 teams.

Thanks for the hope...cause when we play them in the SB again, I know the result will be the same!!!

[Jimx29]

14-2 isn't all that scary to me

[Bretsky]

Randy Moss looks truly amazing; it looks like the right surroundings have allowed him to rejuvinate his career.

IMO, these are the right surroundings for Randy Moss

1. A winning atmosphere (moss often turns sour when the team is doing poorly)
2. An environment with a strong willed QB who takes to Moss so Moss does not have to be the top leader.

TT was smart to express interest in Moss; he would have thrived in NE and GB IMO.

Adelius Thomas was also a very nice free agency pickup for the Patriots.


They were going to be a very solid team w/o free agency
With the way they utilized it they are quite dominant at this point

[HarveyWallbangers]

Why does everything have to get back to what a team did in free agency? The other AFC team that is 4-0 (and the defending Super Bowl champions) didn't have one FA starter on their team. There are different ways to build a championship team. Green Bay has two FA starters (Pickett and Woodson). That's more than Indianapolis and less than New England.

[Rastak]

Why does everything have to get back to what a team did in free agency? The other AFC team that is 4-0 (and the defending Super Bowl champions) didn't have one FA starter on their team. There are different ways to build a championship team. Green Bay has two FA starters (Pickett and Woodson). That's more than Indianapolis and less than New England.

I think because it's way number 2 to build a team. Draft = 1 FA = 2.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I think because it's way number 2 to build a team. Draft = 1 FA = 2.

You can, but the last two Super Bowl teams probably had 2 big-name FAs combined as starters. Other teams have signed FAs and it hasn't led to success (Washington, even Minnesota). San Francisco was the media darlings this offseason. They looked like a rising team who added a bunch of big-name FAs, and they are lucky not to be 0-4. They don't look good. I just don't get the fixation on the FAs. Most teams win because the young players they develop become good players (usually in the same year). It's kind of like the Brew Crew in baseball. Randy Moss is doing great in New England. I'm not convinced he would have done great elsewhere--even Green Bay. New England had a great team, and credit them for the Adalius Thomas pickup. That was a great move. Those obviously help--just like Charles Woodson helped the Pack. However, it's been proven that, more times than not, big-name FAs end up being disappointments.

[Rastak]

I think because it's way number 2 to build a team. Draft = 1 FA = 2.

You can, but the last two Super Bowl teams probably had 2 big-name FAs combined as starters. Other teams have signed FAs and it hasn't led to success (Washington, even Minnesota). San Francisco was the media darlings this offseason. They looked like a rising team who added a bunch of big-name FAs, and they are lucky not to be 0-4. They don't look good. I just don't get the fixation on the FAs. Most teams win because the young players they develop become good players (usually in the same year). It's kind of like the Brew Crew in baseball. Randy Moss is doing great in New England. I'm not convinced he would have done great elsewhere--even Green Bay. New England had a great team, and credit them for the Adalius Thomas pickup. That was a great move. Those obviously help--just like Charles Woodson helped the Pack. However, it's been proven that, more times than not, big-name FAs end up being disappointments.

I agree on the big name free agents, it's usually the mid tier guys that seem to contribute. But sometimes the top guys do, but it's rare. You mentioned Woodson, I agree he was a key addiiton. Winfield and P Williams were guys like that. Big time contributors that were signed as FAs.


I just think it shouldn't be ignored, nor counted on as a savior, like the Redskins and to a lesser extent the Vikes seemed to treat them.

[RashanGary]

FA's are fine if you are taking yoru shot and you know that's what it is. If you sign a couple FA's, it hits your pocket book and then you are stuck looking for his replacement in 3 or 4 years.

The Patriots know they are close. They were willing to do whatever it took to win one more. Tampa did that a few years ago by giving up the farm for Gruden. They won, then they faded into oblivion.

If you have the base in place, it can work (as long as you hit). If you don't hit, you lose your window and it's over like with the Packers a couple years back. If you do hit, you might win the SB. Sometimes it's a risk worth taking if you have a bunch of pieces that are ready now, but the window is closing fast. Like with everything GM, you have to evaluate the talent right. Also, with FA's, there is an age factor so you have to get lucky to keep your guys healthy. It's risky, but there are times that it is worth the risk. The Patriots seem to have done it right but they still have to dodge the age gauntlet.

The Packers a few years back did not succeed. Had Joe Johnson panned out, we might have another SB to remember. Sherman had the base, he took a shot and failed. That is part of the risk though. Thompsons approach will give many, many years of taking shots rather than one big boom or bust year. NE and Indy have had this approach untill this year when NE got off the wagon. I think it's better because you don't depend so much on that one lucky season. It might work for NE, but I'm still glad we are doing it the way that most teams find success. There mgiht be a day when us taking some high risk shots will be the right move again, but they have to be the right shots. It can't be forced. It has to sort of come. The Patriots got perfect pieces for their team. They are taking a shot, but it's the right players at the right time.

[Partial]

3 or 4 games is too small of a sample to know whether the teams you played are good or bad (or whether you are even good or bad). I suspect some of these 1-3 teams get on a roll, and vice versa.

Agreed. I think the Bears are one of them.

[Partial]

Why does everything have to get back to what a team did in free agency?

*sigh* I agree with you