The "Lucky" Patriots

Amnorix · 09-16-2004, 06:14 PM

A good read, not that many here will bother, most likely...

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...simmons/040915

(I'll paste the full article in a response post.)

Amnorix · 09-16-2004, 06:15 PM

By Bill Simmons
Page 2

Editor's Note: This column appears in the September 27 edition of ESPN The Magazine.
Should they even play the games any more? What's the point? After the Colts self-destructed-again-against the Patriots last week, Mike Vanderjagt said, "They're clearly not a better team than us."

Well, I'm glad that's settled. Too bad we don't score football games like ice skating or gymnastics -- just some judges voting on the best performance. Because that's the only way the Colts could actually beat the Patriots right now. It certainly can't happen on the field, not even with the referees allowing less contact than at a ninth-grade prom.

See, I'm old school. I still think the games are played to figure out which team is better. I know it's crazy. I'm dumb enough to take a 16-game winning streak at face value. I watched every Patriots victory from beginning to end -- a span that stretches to last October, back when Shaq and Kobe were still speaking and Howard Dean still had a career -- and they deserved every one of them. You know why? When the game ended, their score was higher than the other team's. That's the only statistic that matters. At least to me.

If you're breaking out a batch of sour grapes, you'd better have a really good reason. Like that South Korean gymnast who was robbed of Paul Hamm's gold medal, or the 1993 Sonics, 1994 Bulls or 1985 Cards, all of whom who were screwed by comically poor officiating. But to complain about someone's good fortune seems petty to me. Fans have a habit of thinking that one side was fortunate because the other side couldn't get it done ... but what is luck? Was Nick Faldo lucky that Greg Norman shot 78 to blow the 1996 Masters, or does Faldo get credit for shooting the 67 that made Norman skittish in the first place?

Here's a news flash: every champion needs luck. What about the Blazers missing 200 straight shots in Game 7 at the Forum in 2000? Ray Knight's ugly bleeder against Calvin Schiraldi dropping over the second base bag at Shea? Mike Eruzione randomly finding that corner against the Russians at Lake Placid? Should we put an asterisk next to every champion who didn't win decisively? Or should we accept that luck is part of the battle? The best players and teams avoid crippling mistakes, take care of business when it matters ... and always seem to get the big break. That's how you win, whether you're Chris Moneymaker, Chaz Noll's Steelers or Hickory High.

Everyone knows Bill Russell's Celtics captured 11 of 13 titles. But unless you're a diehard Boston fan, you probably don't know the 1957 clincher took two OTs, or Frank Selvy missed a title-clinching 15-footer for the 1962 Lakers, or the 1965 Sixers had the ball and a chance to win Game 7, or that Don Nelson's clutch shot bounced high off the rim before dropping in against the 1969 Lakers. All four games could have gone either way, but those Russell teams were like a hot poker player -- the cards kept finding them. At some point, that has to be considered a strength, doesn't it?

And then there's this: as Game 6 at Shea proved, pivotal moments in big games are microcosms of everything right with one team and wrong with the other. The 1986 Sox were haunted by their bullpen all season. They needed three outs to win a World Series and simply couldn't get them. The terrific Milwaukee Bucks teams of the 1980s lost a series of heartbreakers, and only because none of them had a player as good as Doc, Moses or Larry. The 2003-04 Colts have the most talented offense in the NFL, but they can't stop screwing up in big games. Hence, three losses to the Patriots in 10 months.

On the flip side, the Patriots keep winning because their running backs don't fumble inside the 5; their kicker makes crucial 48-yard field goals; their QB raises his game when it matters; their defense always makes one big play when they need it. In short, this Patriots team doesn't beat itself. Throw in a little luck, and you have a 16-game winning streak. Sure, maybe they could have lost some of those games -- I can remember five -- but when it came down to it, their opponents weren't able to take them.

That's sports. And yet we embrace some champions and refuse to believe in others. To explain an abnormal stretch of dominance, we need charms like rally monkeys or homer hankies, or superheroes like MJ or Shaq. We need mystique like Yankee Pride and the Celtics leprechaun, unstoppable offenses like the 1999 Rams, prodigies like Tiger, outdriving everyone by 25 yards.

The Pats have none of that, so there can be only one conclusion: they're the luckiest bastards on earth. Lucky to win the last 16 games. Lucky to win both Super Bowls. They have a lucky coach and a lucky QB. (Did I miss anything?)

Ultra Peanut · 09-16-2004, 06:16 PM

Pants · 09-16-2004, 06:17 PM

HolmeZz · 09-16-2004, 06:19 PM

I don't have a problem with Vanderjagt saying the Colts are a better team. I think they are too.

I don't see why you Pats fans care about being called 'lucky'. You're winning. Luck or not.

I do think that you are the Ohio State Buckeyes of the NFL though. You play to the level of the opponent and find a way to win.

tk13 · 09-16-2004, 06:27 PM

I wouldn't listen to anything Mike Vanderjagt said, that's your first problem.

I don't know why Patriots fans worry about this stuff, you guys won, that's why nobody likes you. Simple as that. The difference in winning and losing, especially in the NFL, is very small, so people are going to find ways to say things like this. You could go back through the KC/Indy playoff game and change one or two plays, heck maybe just the coin toss, and get a Chiefs win... and I wouldn't doubt a NE/KC championship game would've been the same way...

ChiefsCountry · 09-16-2004, 06:41 PM

I have to agree the Patriots have gotten lucky, they haven't seen the Chiefs in the playoffs yet.

KCFalcon59 · 09-16-2004, 06:59 PM

Until the Colts get a _efense, they are not as good as the Patriots. One could argue that their offense is better, but that is only half of what it takes.

tk13 · 09-16-2004, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ENDelt260

Why doesn't that column have his e-mail address on it? I'm bouncing all over Page 2 looking for it.

He never puts that on his column. Even I don't know his e-mail address. He claimed in a column (a loooong time ago) that his email address was in an older column he did on ESPN... I have no idea where it's at though.

**the Talking Can** · 09-16-2004, 07:06 PM

I hate the Patriots, they're so lucky.

tk13 · 09-16-2004, 07:06 PM

Boom.

http://espn.go.com/page2/s/feedback/simmons.html

MrTibbs · 09-16-2004, 07:32 PM

http://patriots.bostonherald.com/pat...rticleid=43828

Luckily, Pats simply good: Create own breaks to beat Colts
By Kevin Mannix/ Patriots Report Card
Saturday, September 11, 2004

FOXBORO -- What's it going to take for people to get it? How long do they have to watch the Patriots [stats, news] play before they stop saying, ``Man, they were lucky out there tonight.'' And making comments about horseshoes and rabbits' feet.

By now it should be obvious that luck has nothing to do with this team's success. Good teams make their own luck and championship teams -- like these New England Patriots -- make it all the time. The Pats did again Thursday in beating the Indianapolis Colts, 27-24, at Gillette Stadium.

If Tedy Bruschi [news] makes a diving interception at his 1-yard line, that could be luck.

If Willie McGinest [news] takes advantage of a blown call by the Colts for a sack at a critical time in a game, maybe that's luck.

If Ty Warren [news] slaps the balls out off a running back's hands, that could be luck.

If Eugene Wilson [news] steps up and forces a fumble at his own goal line, maybe that's luck, too.

But when they all happen in the same game, against a very good opponent and come at time when big plays are needed, that's not luck. That's character. That's championship toughness.

Which is what these Patriots have. UMass basketball once used the slogan, ``Refuse to Lose.'' These Patriots live by it.

Ultra Peanut · 09-16-2004, 07:33 PM

Quote:

UMass basketball once used the slogan, ``Refuse to Lose.''

Kevin Mannix owes John Calipari 10 bucks in royalties.

**morphius** · 09-16-2004, 07:47 PM

I'm not going to bother reading the entire article, because lets face it, the Pats are good and they are sometimes lucky. Lucky will help you out here and there, but without good play to back it up, you don't win many games.

Amnorix · 09-16-2004, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psicosis

.

09-16-2004, 06:14 PM
Amnorix In BB I trust Join Date: May 2003 Location: Boston, Mass. Casino cash: $10029808	The "Lucky" Patriots A good read, not that many here will bother, most likely... http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...simmons/040915 (I'll paste the full article in a response post.)
Posts: 43,125

09-16-2004, 06:15 PM	#2
Amnorix In BB I trust Join Date: May 2003 Location: Boston, Mass. Casino cash: $10029808	By Bill Simmons Page 2 Editor's Note: This column appears in the September 27 edition of ESPN The Magazine. Should they even play the games any more? What's the point? After the Colts self-destructed-again-against the Patriots last week, Mike Vanderjagt said, "They're clearly not a better team than us." Well, I'm glad that's settled. Too bad we don't score football games like ice skating or gymnastics -- just some judges voting on the best performance. Because that's the only way the Colts could actually beat the Patriots right now. It certainly can't happen on the field, not even with the referees allowing less contact than at a ninth-grade prom. See, I'm old school. I still think the games are played to figure out which team is better. I know it's crazy. I'm dumb enough to take a 16-game winning streak at face value. I watched every Patriots victory from beginning to end -- a span that stretches to last October, back when Shaq and Kobe were still speaking and Howard Dean still had a career -- and they deserved every one of them. You know why? When the game ended, their score was higher than the other team's. That's the only statistic that matters. At least to me. If you're breaking out a batch of sour grapes, you'd better have a really good reason. Like that South Korean gymnast who was robbed of Paul Hamm's gold medal, or the 1993 Sonics, 1994 Bulls or 1985 Cards, all of whom who were screwed by comically poor officiating. But to complain about someone's good fortune seems petty to me. Fans have a habit of thinking that one side was fortunate because the other side couldn't get it done ... but what is luck? Was Nick Faldo lucky that Greg Norman shot 78 to blow the 1996 Masters, or does Faldo get credit for shooting the 67 that made Norman skittish in the first place? Here's a news flash: every champion needs luck. What about the Blazers missing 200 straight shots in Game 7 at the Forum in 2000? Ray Knight's ugly bleeder against Calvin Schiraldi dropping over the second base bag at Shea? Mike Eruzione randomly finding that corner against the Russians at Lake Placid? Should we put an asterisk next to every champion who didn't win decisively? Or should we accept that luck is part of the battle? The best players and teams avoid crippling mistakes, take care of business when it matters ... and always seem to get the big break. That's how you win, whether you're Chris Moneymaker, Chaz Noll's Steelers or Hickory High. Everyone knows Bill Russell's Celtics captured 11 of 13 titles. But unless you're a diehard Boston fan, you probably don't know the 1957 clincher took two OTs, or Frank Selvy missed a title-clinching 15-footer for the 1962 Lakers, or the 1965 Sixers had the ball and a chance to win Game 7, or that Don Nelson's clutch shot bounced high off the rim before dropping in against the 1969 Lakers. All four games could have gone either way, but those Russell teams were like a hot poker player -- the cards kept finding them. At some point, that has to be considered a strength, doesn't it? And then there's this: as Game 6 at Shea proved, pivotal moments in big games are microcosms of everything right with one team and wrong with the other. The 1986 Sox were haunted by their bullpen all season. They needed three outs to win a World Series and simply couldn't get them. The terrific Milwaukee Bucks teams of the 1980s lost a series of heartbreakers, and only because none of them had a player as good as Doc, Moses or Larry. The 2003-04 Colts have the most talented offense in the NFL, but they can't stop screwing up in big games. Hence, three losses to the Patriots in 10 months. On the flip side, the Patriots keep winning because their running backs don't fumble inside the 5; their kicker makes crucial 48-yard field goals; their QB raises his game when it matters; their defense always makes one big play when they need it. In short, this Patriots team doesn't beat itself. Throw in a little luck, and you have a 16-game winning streak. Sure, maybe they could have lost some of those games -- I can remember five -- but when it came down to it, their opponents weren't able to take them. That's sports. And yet we embrace some champions and refuse to believe in others. To explain an abnormal stretch of dominance, we need charms like rally monkeys or homer hankies, or superheroes like MJ or Shaq. We need mystique like Yankee Pride and the Celtics leprechaun, unstoppable offenses like the 1999 Rams, prodigies like Tiger, outdriving everyone by 25 yards. The Pats have none of that, so there can be only one conclusion: they're the luckiest bastards on earth. Lucky to win the last 16 games. Lucky to win both Super Bowls. They have a lucky coach and a lucky QB. (Did I miss anything?) __________________ "I love signature blocks on the Internet. I get to put whatever the hell I want in quotes, pick a pretend author, and bang, it's like he really said it." George Washington
Posts: 43,125

09-16-2004, 06:16 PM	#3
Ultra Peanut v^V^v^V^v^V^ Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Holland* Casino cash: $10005177	. Attached Thumbnails __________________
Posts: 39,518

09-16-2004, 06:17 PM	#4
Pants Time Keeps On Slipping Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Overland Park Casino cash: $5549900	. __________________ "Turn the channel to 26!"
Posts: 27,294

09-16-2004, 06:19 PM	#5
HolmeZz i guess its bittersweet poetry Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: NeW HaVeN, CT Casino cash: $10004900	I don't have a problem with Vanderjagt saying the Colts are a better team. I think they are too. I don't see why you Pats fans care about being called 'lucky'. You're winning. Luck or not. I do think that you are the Ohio State Buckeyes of the NFL though. You play to the level of the opponent and find a way to win.
Posts: 16,520

09-16-2004, 06:27 PM	#6
tk13 ... Join Date: Nov 2001 Casino cash: $1722500	I wouldn't listen to anything Mike Vanderjagt said, that's your first problem. I don't know why Patriots fans worry about this stuff, you guys won, that's why nobody likes you. Simple as that. The difference in winning and losing, especially in the NFL, is very small, so people are going to find ways to say things like this. You could go back through the KC/Indy playoff game and change one or two plays, heck maybe just the coin toss, and get a Chiefs win... and I wouldn't doubt a NE/KC championship game would've been the same way...
Posts: 54,991

09-16-2004, 06:41 PM	#7
ChiefsCountry The Insider Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Lake of the Ozarks Casino cash: $2038752	I have to agree the Patriots have gotten lucky, they haven't seen the Chiefs in the playoffs yet.
Posts: 49,756

09-16-2004, 06:59 PM	#8
KCFalcon59 MVP Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Topeka, Kansas Casino cash: $620000	Until the Colts get a _efense, they are not as good as the Patriots. One could argue that their offense is better, but that is only half of what it takes.
Posts: 6,764

09-16-2004, 07:06 PM	#10
the Talking Can Supporter Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: street Casino cash: $10022208	I hate the Patriots, they're so lucky. __________________ Clark Hunt: "Thank god for the Dominican pool boy"
Posts: 51,585

09-16-2004, 07:32 PM	#12
MrTibbs Rookie Join Date: Jan 2004 Casino cash: $10004900	http://patriots.bostonherald.com/pat...rticleid=43828 Luckily, Pats simply good: Create own breaks to beat Colts By Kevin Mannix/ Patriots Report Card Saturday, September 11, 2004 FOXBORO -- What's it going to take for people to get it? How long do they have to watch the Patriots [stats, news] play before they stop saying, ``Man, they were lucky out there tonight.'' And making comments about horseshoes and rabbits' feet. By now it should be obvious that luck has nothing to do with this team's success. Good teams make their own luck and championship teams -- like these New England Patriots -- make it all the time. The Pats did again Thursday in beating the Indianapolis Colts, 27-24, at Gillette Stadium. If Tedy Bruschi [news] makes a diving interception at his 1-yard line, that could be luck. If Willie McGinest [news] takes advantage of a blown call by the Colts for a sack at a critical time in a game, maybe that's luck. If Ty Warren [news] slaps the balls out off a running back's hands, that could be luck. If Eugene Wilson [news] steps up and forces a fumble at his own goal line, maybe that's luck, too. But when they all happen in the same game, against a very good opponent and come at time when big plays are needed, that's not luck. That's character. That's championship toughness. Which is what these Patriots have. UMass basketball once used the slogan, ``Refuse to Lose.'' These Patriots live by it.
Posts: 5

09-16-2004, 07:47 PM	#14
morphius World's finest morphius Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $6825027	I'm not going to bother reading the entire article, because lets face it, the Pats are good and they are sometimes lucky. Lucky will help you out here and there, but without good play to back it up, you don't win many games.
Posts: 25,977