Reading many articles, you get the impression that New England are just going to come into the '09 season, average 40 points per game, go 16-0, and win the Super Bowl.
Sorry, it ain't happening.
Don’t get me wrong, they will win a lot of games, as they have great talent. But you can’t take their '07 exploits and just put them on the '09 season.
Simply because a lot of teams have caught up.
If New England were taking on the '07 league again, I’m sure that they’d win 15 or 16 games. They aren’t though. They are facing the 2009 versions.
Have New England moved forward from their 2007 roster? If anything they may have gone backwards.
The 2008 season was a good barometer of where they probably stand for the 2009 season. Sure, Brady was a huge loss, and would have won them a couple more games.
But not five more.
San Diego, Miami, and Pittsburgh all put 30-plus points past New England. What does the quarterback have to do with that?
New England will be serious Super Bowl contenders, like five or six other teams. But the theory that they are going to dominate the league like they did in 2007 is, quite simply, flawed.
Purely because the league has got much better—and New England can’t get any better.
Like the new article format? Send us feedback!