Matt Walsh Vindicated the New England Patriots!

Almost-semi-pro golfer Matt Walsh finally stopped in to chat with NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell about the videotaping he did for the Patriots. According to the NFL, Walsh told them absolutely nothing they didn't already know, and they considered the matter closed (for the third time), given that they'd already punished the Patriots for that.

However, the punditocracy just couldn't let it go. And in the absence of any new evidence, they rehashed the whole episode, lied about what the Patriots said, did a closer read of what Walsh and his lawyer said, and guessed at the Patriots motivates. And of course, they concluded that there is still more to the story. After all, more Spygate means more viewers, more readers, and more stories about the most popular sports league in the country. And how can that hurt them, right?

So much as I hate to spend the time, I'll take on the worst of the idiocies I've read/heard since Walsh met with Goodell. And I'll give you the straight skinny on what really went on and where the pundits went wrong -- again.

Pundit BS #1: Walsh's tapes from the 2000 and 2001 seasons disproved Goodell's claim that the Patriots videotaping program wasn't widespread.

In point of fact, Goodell knew from the start that the Patriots had taped since 2000. Belichick 'fessed up to it at the very beginning of the scandal -- some nine months ago. This was all over the media at the Super Bowl, but I guess some people were too busy anointing Eli Manning the greatest QB since the position was invented to remember those insignificant little details.

The Matt Walsh-O-Meter: Patriots 1, Pundits 0.

Pundit BS #2: Even without a videotape of the Rams pre-Super Bowl walk-through, Walsh's claim he watched that walk-through and reported back to coaches is proof of foul play.

The reality is that Walsh's claim is questionable at best. Not only did Bill Belichick deny it, so did the coach who Walsh supposedly reported back to. And that coach has no motive to cover up for the Patriots, because he now works for their bitter rival, the New York Jets. Yet, Brian Daboll doesn't seem to recall that conversation with Walsh.

In truth, Walsh could still be telling the truth. But since Daboll denies it and has no motive to lie, we should probably err on the side of caution before lobbing more charges. Or more to the point, the media pundits should have erred on the side of caution.

The Matt Walsh-O-Meter: Patriots 2, Pundits 0.

Pundit BS #3: The fiction that the rule about videotaping was crystal clear has been repeated ad nauseum.

When pundits say the rule was unambiguous, they mostly cite the clarifying memo, not the original rule. The rule itself is long, but I'll print it and let you decide if the last six words allow for interpretation.

Any use by any club at any time, from the start to the finish of any game in which such club is a participant, of any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited, including without limitation videotape machines, telephone tapping, or bugging devices, or any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game.

Seems to me that if the NFL wanted a clearly understood rule, they would have cut off this messy sentence after the word "prohibited." That would have left no ambiguity or interpretation to it. But as written, it is far from the pristine piece of writing most pundits say it is. And they should know better; most of them write for a frickin' living.

(Aside to the NFL: I also think you should eliminate "in which such club is a participant" from the rule. That makes it too easy to think you could send a scout to a game in which you were not a participant and videotape signals from the stands. Consider the legal advice my present to you.)

The Matt Walsh-O-Meter: Patriots 3, Pundits 0.

Pundit BS #4: Since Walsh says he was told to keep his videotaping secret, that proves Bill Belichick *knew* the activity was illegal, which proves BB lied about "misinterpreting the rule."

First off, the Patriots deny this charge, and have shown their staff videotaping completely out in the open in Patriots garb. But even setting aside the dispute over whether or not Walsh was under orders to keep things secret, there are two legitimate reasons the Patriots would have had Walsh keep things under wraps, even if the team believed they were in compliance with the rules.

1. It doesn't pay to expose advantages you develop to your opponents. After all, when Don Shula invented the hook-and-lateral play, should he have reminded the opposing coaches that such a play was legal? Does anyone think that when Dan Reeves had John Elway catch a touchdown pass he was obligated to remind the other team that a QB in the shotgun was an eligible receiver? Of course not.

So if the Patriots thought their video program was legal, why tip off other teams to that fact? If the opposition didn't think it was legal, it would be a slight advantage to the Patriots.

2. The second reason is that if the other team knew they were recording defensive signals, they might make it more difficult to tape them. They could have the coaches sending in those signals move further apart on the sideline. They could have coaches act like they were sending in signals but really have someone else doing it.

It was written long ago that all warfare is about deception. And if the Patriots thought they were acting within the rules, they would have no reason to let the other teams know about it.

The Matt Walsh-O-Meter: Patriots 4, Pundits 0.

Pundit BS #5: And lastly, the idea that the Patriots were the only ones violating this particular rule has been repeated over and over.

When the story first broke, extremely well-respected NFL writer Peter King estimated that between 13% and 34% of the league was engaged in the same practice. Yet the pundits have recently said that the Patriots are the "only ones who misinterpreted the rule" and that they were the "one arrogant organization" that thought they could get away with it.

Well, when up to one-third of the league was doing the same thing, I'd say the rule needed to be rewritten or enforced across the board. But the Patriots were left holding the bag because you can be sure that when they were caught, all the other teams stopped doing it and destroyed any evidence that they ever did. But nonetheless, this pundit idea is as easy to shoot down as a blimp.

The Matt Walsh-O-Meter: Patriots 5, Pundits 0.

Looks like the pundits got spanked again. Maybe they'll learn someday. But until they do, I'll be there to try to set them straight.

Keep the faith,

- Scott

Patriots Pre-Draft Update (4/25/2008)

Hi all,

I hope you have sufficiently recovered from the Super Bowl loss, and that you are beginning to thaw out from the longish Winter. Time's come around again for the NFL Draft (this Saturday and Sunday). And even with one fewer pick than expected (thank you, Spygate), the Patriots will be heavily involved, choosing seventh the year after they went 16-0 in the regular season.

I don't pay much attention to college football or players, so I can't give you any insight about which specific players the Patriots should choose. But I do have a few thoughts on their off-season thus far and on how they should approach the draft. Here goes:

1. The Patriots most important move of the off-season didn't involve a player; it was the hiring of Dom Capers as their secondary coach. Capers is a long-time NFL coach, with multiple stints at head coach and defensive coordinator. And his resume seems to indicate he is significantly over-qualified to run the secondary for the Patriots. But with his vast football knowledge, at the very least, he should be able to upgrade the play of the secondary. And with Asante Samuel leaving for the Eagles, it's critical that he do so.

However, there's another reason the hiring of Capers was so important. It is a change of habit for head coach Bill Belichick. Over the past few years, we've seen a steady stream of BB clones move up through the system and get promoted into important coaching roles. And the results, frankly, haven't been all that great. The offense hasn't been the same since Charlie Weis left. No slight intended to Josh McDaniels, but he hasn't learned much about the NFL that Belichick didn't teach him. So it wasn't that surprising that he had trouble adjusting to the Giants defense in the Super Bowl. And when BB protégé Eric Mangini replaced Romeo Crennel, the defense got worse, not better. In fact, it didn't start to improve until he left and Dean Pees was brought in from, you guessed it, outside the organization.

The conspiracy theory about hiring Capers goes like this: "They need him in case Belichick gets suspended for Son of Spygate." But I don't buy it. It's healthy to hire qualified people from outside the organization. It's just another way the Patriots are trying to improve their team for next year, and if it becomes a trend in Foxboro, it could be more important than any draft pick or free agent signing.

2. The Patriots spent their $9,000,000/year wisely. Asante Samuel is an above-average cornerback, and he signed with the right team. The Eagles blitz like crazy, and Samuel needs pressure on the QB to cover his short-comings and make all those INTs possible. The Patriots spent the same amount on Randy Moss ($9 million a year) as the Eagles spent on Samuel. There is no doubt that Moss is one of the top five wide receivers in the league. Anyone want to make the case that Samuel is one of the top five cornerbacks? He might be in the to 25, but not exactly a huge difference-maker.

Given the recent rule changes, WRs have a lot more impact on the game than cornerbacks do. The NFL likes offense (and apparently trembles at the sight of Bill Polian). And their re-interpretation of the rules after the 2004 season made it all but impossible for a cornerback to have as much impact on the game as a wideout. So the Patriots made the right call with their $9,000,000/year. The put it down on the horse that can help the most.

3. Aside from the Samuel loss and re-signing Randy Moss, the Patriots have lost a few and added a few of those complimentary players they are famous for. They've got two more linebackers (Victor Hobson and T.J. Slaughter), a tight end (Marcus Pollard), another special teamer (Sam Aiken), and two more defensive backs (Tank Williams and Fernando Bryant). They also signed a punter.

They lost Donte Stallworth, Rosevelt Colvin, Eugene Wilson, Kyle Brady, and Randall Gay. All were contributors last year (some of the more so in past years), but probably only Colvin will be missed. The rest had sub-par years compared to the rest of their careers.

4. Of the three theories in the draft, here is the order the Patriots should follow this year: first choice, trade your high pick for value picks later in the draft; second choice, draft the best player available regardless of position (with the exception of quarterback and kicker); third choice, draft for need.

The draft is supposedly a deep draft without a lot of difference between the top players. So with no consensus #1, and with similarly talented players across the board, if the Pats can get good value for their picks, they can probably get equal players further down in the draft. And they will pay them less money, thus freeing up cash for free agent spending or re-negotiating contracts.

However, if they can't get value in a trade, they should draft the best available player, NOT the best player at a position where they think they have needs. Picking for need means you are picking a lesser player. And when you are as loaded with talent as the Patriots are, those lesser players can't even make the Patriots squad. Less than a year after the 2007 draft, there is only *one player* still with the team. One player -- I mean, are you kidding me???

If they choose the best available player, they are more likely to keep him, and will have quality backups for injuries and players who leave in free agency. In fact, you can make the case that a linebacker injury cost the Patriots a Super Bowl championship in each of the past two years. In 2006, Junior Seau got injured, and backup Eric Alexander couldn't do the job. In 2007, Rosevelt Colvin got injured, and backup Pierre Woods couldn't even secure a fumble (a Giants player ripped it right out of his hands).

So when it comes to draft philosophy, stick with "trade down for value" or "the best available player." Because the best at a specific position might not even make it through training camp.

That's about all for now.

Keep the faith,

- Scott

Patriots Post-Super Bowl Wrap-up (2/20/2008)

So there are a few lingering issues with the Patriots, and I just wanted to wrap them up before moving on to a breakdown of what they need this off-season. A lot of this is rant-worthy post-Super Bowl crapola being spit out by national pundits, who seem to think that their belief is stronger than reality.

PUNDIT BS #1: Eli Manning came of age during his final touchdown drive in the Super Bowl

The truth is that Eli Manning was closer to imploding than he was leading his team to victory at the end of the Super Bowl. He threw at least three passes that should have been intercepted. In fact, if Asante Samuel, Rodney Harrison, or Brandon Meriweather makes a catch he should have made, Eli would be labeled a goat who crumbled under pressure and blew his team's stellar defensive effort with ill-timed interceptions.

And if you think this is sour grapes, think again. I give Eli's brother, Peyton, all the credit in the world for leading his team to a winning score in the 2006 AFC Championship game against the Patriots. On that drive, Peyton took care of the ball, never putting it in the hands of defenders as Eli did. It was just Peyton making one good play after another, and all of that good added up to a great drive.

Oh, and for those who want to compare Eli to Tom Brady in his first Super Bowl, Brady did the same thing that year that Peyton did in 2006 -- took care of the ball and got his team in position to win. If he'd "pulled an Eli" in that game, the Patriots would likely have lost to the Rams and who knows where we'd be now.

PUNDIT BS #2: Super Bowl XLII was one of the greatest upsets in the history of sports

It wasn't even one of the greatest Super Bowl upsets. Upsets are largely about perception, because they happen when our expectations are violated by a big favorite who loses -- and of course, the favorite is only in that position because we think that favorite should win big. My measuring stick for a huge upset is how many people believed the underdog could win the game, and what percentage chance they give the underdog to pull off the upset. By those two measures, most everyone thought the Giants could win the game, and most gave them a 20- to 30-percent chance to do it. So while it was an upset, it wasn't an historic upset. After all, the Patriots won the regular-season meeting by a mere three points, so how much of an upset could it have been?

To further my point, contrast the expectations of this year’s Super Bowl with those of the Jets victory in Super Bowl III and the Patriots win in Super Bowl XXXVI. In both of those other cases, virtually no one outside of teams' fans gave them any chance of winning. The Jets were from the AFC, which in 1969 was considered an inferior league to the NFL. And remember that the Rams entered Super Bowl XXXVI with the league's #1 offense and #1 defense, and they were supposed to bury the Patriots to cement their dynasty.

I think the Giants win was about on par with the Raiders 38-9 win over Washington in Super Bowl XVIII. Washington had rolled over their playoff competition, but in the regular season, they barely beat the Raiders (by just two points) -- and the Raiders were missing both of their starting cornerbacks in that game. So even though most people thought Washington would win, they gave the Raiders a fighting chance because the earlier contest was so close. Sound familiar?

PUNDIT BS #3: Super Bowl XLII was the greatest Super Bowl ever played

Not even close. In the immediate rush (and New York press’ saturation-coverage), it's fashionable to crown this the greatest Super Bowl ever. But in a few years, we'll all think that was silly. Two scores in the first 15:05, and then lots of offensive ineptitude for more than 30 minutes, followed by three scores in the final 11 minutes. These games aren't all about offense, but no big special teams plays and a bunch of bad play-calling and bad adjustments by both teams doom this one to also-ran status.

Sure, the New York press will keep it alive as one of their greatest memories, and Giants fans will treasure it forever. But it'll never match the back-and-forth nature of the Broncos win over Green Bay in Super Bowl XXXII or the Giants nail-biter over Buffalo in Super Bowl XXV ("Norwood's kick is... WIDE RIGHT!").

PUNDIT BS #4: Patriots dynasty was over after February 2005

You may or may not have heard this, but some in the corps of press experts are claiming that the Patriots dynasty ended with their three-point win over the Eagles in Super Bowl XXXIX. Problem is, there's no way of knowing that for a while. Dynasties can't be judged while they are in progress; it always takes a few years to put a great team in perspective. The Dallas Cowboys dynasty ended with their 1995 Super Bowl victory, but no one said it was over until they finished 5-11 in 2000 and Troy Aikman retired. And the San Francisco 49ers dynasty lasted from 1981 - 1994, but it wasn't declared over until Steve Young retired and the team went 4-12 in 1999. (BTW, notice a pattern here? Dynasties seem to end when the quarterback retires and the team starts losing.)

The Patriots won three championships in four years. And since then, they've won the division crown and at least one playoff game every year, once losing by four points in the AFC Championship game and once losing by three points in the Super Bowl. Sure, if the Pats never win another Super Bowl under Belichick and/or Brady, history will say their dynasty ended with their Super Bowl victory over the Eagles. But let's not jump to conclusions. After all, the Las Vegas wiseguys have installed them as the odds-on favorites to win next year's Super Bowl.

PUNDIT BS #5: The Patriots loss in Super Bowl XLII is a worse choke than the Yankees loss to the 2004 Red Sox

This idiotic idea has been proposed by New Yorkers who are anxious to remove the “Greatest Chokers of All Time” from their beloved Yankees. But it’s easy enough to dispel.

The Patriots lost an NFL Championship to a Giants team that they'd barely beaten in the regular season, something done by over a dozen teams in NFL history. The 2004 Yankees lost a 3-0 lead in a 7-game series, something that hadn't been done in 133 years -- that's right, 133 YEARS!!! -- of professional baseball. The Yankees collapse will always be in a category by itself; because it will probably be another 133 years before we see it again. We might see the same Super Bowl scenario next frickin' year.

Sorry, New Yorkers, but your 2004 Yankees remain in a category all by themselves.

SEMI-FINAL word on the Son of Spygate controversy

Son of Spygate is the allegation, by former Patriots employee Matt Walsh, that the Patriots videotaped the Rams walk-through the Friday before playing them in Super Bowl XXXVI. Belichick and Scott Pioli (Vice President - Player Personnel) both vehemently denied the allegation, with BB going so far as to say that all his years of coaching, he'd never been on a staff that did anything like that.

Here's my semi-final words on that: Belichick and Pioli are telling the truth, take it to the bank. How can I be so sure? Think about it; if there was any chance such a videotape existed, would these guys have come out with such unequivocal statements? I don’t think so. In fact, if they thought there might be a videotape, they would almost certainly leave themselves some wiggle room. The two of them must be sure that either the videotape doesn't exist or that if it does exist, it was the work of a rogue employee and that BB never saw or used the tape. Otherwise, they will end up suspended and perhaps fired for lying.

Unlike what some of the pundits have said, this isn't at all like Roger Clemens' steadfast denials about HGH or steriods. The reason is, there is almost no chance at all that there will be videotape evidence proving Clemens did drugs, so he is just about guaranteed to end up in a "he said, he said" situation with his accusers. Given the possibility of videotape evidence, there just isn't any way the Patriots would make absolute statements.

That’s about all for now, folks. I’ll be back next week with an update on what the Patriots need to do this off-season to get back in position for a Super Bowl run.

Keep the faith,

- Scott

PS. 0-0!

"See! Told ya we didn't cheat!"

Hi All,

Well, the contest was about as close as you could get, with two of the entries tied at the top and another entry just one vote behind. As promised, I flipped a coin to decide the winner. Or more accurately, I had someone from the firm of Waters, Pricehouse flip the coin (note: I called Price, Waterhouse, but they actually charge you money to flip a coin). "And the award goes to..."

"See! Told ya we didn't cheat!" -- congratulations to Christine Kittle

Second place was "Patriots almost perfect, Manning wins again" -- Sean Lento

Third place was "Go Pats Go! Going, going... gone." -- Karen Correnti

The booby prize goes to all the five-word and seven-word entries I got. Your reward is another year of English composition :)

Thanks to all who entered. This was a lot of fun, and if I can get another prize, I'll run another contest in the future.

I expect to write a wrap-up email for next week, and then an off-season needs assessment for the week after. Until then, take care.

Keep the faith,

- Scott

PS.

2-1!
&
18-1!

"2007 Patriots in Six Words" Contest Update (2/6/2008)

Hey guys,

So it isn't all wine and roses after all, but that hasn't stopped you from coming up with some of the best stuff so far. A reminder, the contest for the best six-word description (link) has only a few days to go. So not much time to vent your anger or express your sorrow.

Here are three of the best ones that came in since the Super Bowl disappointment:

"Cassandra Buress foretold: Patriots will fold." T.B.

"Best season and worst ending -- Ever!" C.G.

"18-1, On the Road to Imperfection" K.C.

Send 'em in as you see fit; might even help the healing process.

- Scott

Patriots 14, Giants 17 (2/3/2008)

I said all along that I'd rather the Patriots go 10-6 and win the Super Bowl than 16-0 and lose it. Well, maybe next year... sigh. The Giants rode heavy defensive pressure to a 17-14 victory for their first Super Bowl championship in 17 years. The loss was New England's first of the season and dropped them from possible immortality to a second straight year losing on a last-minute touchdown drive by some guy named Manning. I know that uncertainty is central to what we like about sports (otherwise we'd all watch wrestling instead), but it doesn't make it any easier when your team is on the downside of it.

In a game of opportunities, the Patriots didn't take anything close to full advantage of theirs. After an Ellis Hobbs interception, the offense lost a yard on two running plays into eight- and nine-man fronts and then punted. A second-quarter hold by Ben Watson cost them a first down and they ended up fumbling the ball away. On a third-quarter drive, a Giants penalty gave them new life, but the Pats ended up going for it on fourth-and-13 instead of kicking a 49-yard field goal (in a game they lost by 3 points). And they continually tried to throw deep when Brady didn't have enough time. And so the team that won eighteen straight games by adjusting to what the other team would give them failed to adjust and lost the most important game of the year.

The offensive line played their worst game since the Baltimore tilt in December. Stephen Neal only played about a half, and his replacement, Russ Hochstein couldn't handle the inside rush. Meanwhile, tackles Matt Light and Nick Kazcur couldn't stop the outside rush, and that left Tom Brady nowhere to hide. Six weeks ago, I chided the Dolphins "inept offense" for allowing 20 quarterback hits. Well, our offense just gave up 14 "official" hits (5 sacks, 9 QB hits), though the Fox coverage said it was at least 3 more than that. In addition to all the pressure on Brady, the team ran for an anemic 2.8 yards per rush, and committed two false start penalties that really hurt. Oh, and that rushing average and number of QB hits tells you what kind of day the running backs had, too. Not good.

As for Brady and the receivers, the numbers look decent. Tom was 29-48, 266 yards, a touchdown, and no interceptions. But I think he didn't do enough checking off of plays. The Giants could have been had with short passes, but far too often, Brady ran the ball into stacked defenses or tried long passes against blitzes. Not a good game by him or offensive coordinator Josh McDaniels. They looked as hubristic as Rams coach Mike Martz did against the Patriots in Super Bowl XXXVI, and they suffered the same fate: a three-point loss. Wes Welker (11-103) and Kevin Faulk (7-52) were as reliable as ever. And Randy Moss finished strong, with 4 catches for 44 yards and a touchdown in the second half. But as a group, they didn't do enough to get open on short routes to take the pressure off Brady, and frankly they had a bad day blocking (especially on WR screens).

But don't think that the offense was all to blame for the loss. The defense had three chances to close out the game on the Giants final drive, and missed all three. Both Adalius Thomas and Jarvis Green let (Giants QB) Eli Manning slip through their fingers and Manning completed a pass to the Patriots 25 yard-line. Earlier in the drive, Asante Samuel dropped a sure interception, and Brandon "hands of stone" Meriweather let another potential pick go through his hands (that was the sixth or seventh one he's missed this year). And in the first half, Pierre Woods should have recovered a fumble, but the Giants Brandon Jacobs wanted it more and simply took it away from Woods.

Overall, the defense played a decent game. They held the Giants to 17 points, and that performance would have won all eighteen other games this year. The front seven got more pressure in this game (3 sacks, 5 QB hits) than they did in the last game (1 sack, 2 QB hits). Adalius Thomas was the man up front, and you could see why they signed him in the off-season. He had two sacks, a forced fumble, and five solo tackles. And Tedy Bruschi acquitted himself nicely, but his partners in crime, Junior Seau and Mike Vrabel were controlled by the Giants all day long. On the D-line, Ty Warren and Vince Wilfork played quite well, plugging up gaps in the middle and slowing down the run. But Richard Seymour, Jarvis Green, and Le Kevin Smith were basically absent for the day. I hope Seymour returns to his old form next year, because his knee injury obviously hurt him a lot more than he let on.

With the exception of Ellis Hobbs, the secondary played a very good game, especially when compared to their prior game against the Giants. They got an interception, knocked down seven other passes and hit hard enough to jar the ball loose at least three times. Rodney Harrison had 12 tackles, and James Sanders (4) and Brandon Meriweather (3) pitched in with some big hits and a few passes knocked down. The coverage was very tight on a lot of plays and then non-existent on others. But for the most part they didn't allow big plays (a 45-yard catch-and-run by Kevin Boss was one exception), and their performance should have been good enough to win. And if Asante or Brandon could just have caught a football, it would have been.

The biggest special teams play of the game was the one that Bill Belichick didn't call. Leading 7-3, he eschewed a 49-yard field goal attempt to go for it on 4th-and-13. Now, if it had been 4th-and-1 or 4th-and-2, I could see it. But I think it revealed Belichick's lack of faith in kicker Stephen Gostkowski. And in a three-point loss, it's tough not to look back on that play. Other than that, the coverage teams were good, and they got one big kickoff return from Laurence Maroney. Gostkowski did send one kickoff out of bounds, and punter Chris Hanson sent one off the side of his foot. But the Giants didn't score on either of the ensuing drives, so no harm, no foul.

And now to the coaching. Belichick should have tried the field goal. Josh McDaniels should have kept true to his adjusting-self -- not become the reincarnation of Mike Martz and go for long passes when short ones would do. The offense's poor performance and his unwillingness or inability to adjust his play-calling probably cost the Patriots the game. And since he gets so much praise, I think offensive line coach Dante Scarnecchia deserves some blame. If he couldn't protect Brady, he should have employed more protectors or used "chipping" running backs or tight ends.

So where does that leave us? Awaiting the return of Rosevelt Colvin and (rookie) Oscar Lua to shore up an aging linebacker corps. Perhaps looking for another cornerback and safety to spell Rodney Harrison. Fine-tuning an offense that scored over 20 points in every game except the Super Bowl. Pining for sought-after free agents who want one shot at a ring. And with one more year of Tom Brady's career gone by the books with no ring. 18-1 wouldn't be bad for most teams, but you never want the "1" to come in the playoffs.

Statistical Oddity of the Week: In a year of firsts, the Patriots had yet another one -- first team in NFL history to win 18 games in a season and not be crowned champions.

Weekly Water-cooler Wisdom: "You know, I heard all year about how the Patriots adjust better than any team in the NFL. So where were the offensive adjustments in the frickin' Super Bowl?! I mean, I could see the eight- and nine-man fronts on television -- couldn't they audible to a play-action pass?"

Keep your faith warm for the Winter. Punxsutawney Phil saw his shadow, so we probably have at least six more weeks.

- Scott

PS.

2-1!
&
18-1!

"2007 Patriots in Six Words" Update!

Well, the response has been huge so far. I got 15 entries in the first 10 minutes after asking for your best six-word description of the Patriots historic season (link). And they haven't even played the last game yet -- so it should be massive once the Super Bowl is over!

Here are three of my favorites so far:

"Belichick's humble pie, a champion's feast." -- A.W.

"New century, new set of heroes." -- P.C.

"Victories, despite videos, that made history." -- C.C.

I'm impressed and amazed by your passion and creativity.

Keep 'em coming, and go Patriots!

- Scott