Pats on "Cycle" fot Three-Peat

Over the past week, far too much energy has been spent on discussing whether the 2001-04 Patriots are a dynasty and where this team ranks among the great teams in NFL history. This issue was front and center prior to the Super Bowl and is now being discussed on every sports talk show in America. On one side, Patriots fans are mounting a vigorous argument, stressing that this teams accomplishments in the salary cap era are simply astonishing. The team has won three championships in four years, two straight, won 21 in a row, had back to back 14-2 seasons, won nine post-season games in a row and has gone 57-14 since Mo Lewis caved in Drew Bledsoes chest cavity and Number 12 took over. "For gods sake, what do we have to do to get some respect," is the rallying cry of Pats fans around the country.

On the other hand, Pats critics, and there are plenty of them, were holding out hope that the Pats would lose the Super Bowl and this discussion would be a moot point. These prayers went unanswered and after Sunday night, the critics, many of whom live and work in the NYC-Bristol CT corridor, have reluctantly found Jesus, or in this case, Tom Brady. It now seems that the general consensus is that this Pats team is a dynasty, but one that couldn't compete with the Packers of the 60s, the Steelers of the 70's, the Niners of the 80's or the Cowboys of the early 90's. Much of this sentiment is being advanced by talking heads who played on those teams and whose objectiivty is a bit questionable. You hear me Michael and Terry? I don't necessarily agree with Mr Bradshaw or Mr Irvin, but I want to point out one thing that this team has going for it that none of those other teams can say. The Pats are still alive to add to their legacy while the resumes of those other organizations are cemented in stone.

What happens to this debate if the Pats continue this run? What happens if there is a three-peat, something that has NEVER happened in the Super Bowl era. What will Steeler defenders say at that point? They had a shot at a three-peat, but they went 10-4 in 1976 and ended up getting punked at Oakland in the AFC Championship. Steeler fans will argue that the black and gold lost to a terrific team and went in to that game undermanned after having been depleted by injury. Sorry, after what the Pats accomplished the past two years, injuries are no excuse. Bradshaw played. Ham played. Blount played. The Steelers just simply lost to a better team. Moreover, when the Steelers got an opportunity for a three-peat in 1980, they failed to even make the playoffs.

What about the Niners? Well, they got their chance to three-peat in 1990. They had a terrific season that year, but what happened with the three-peat on the line? They lost at home to an inferior Gaints team. If Roger Craig doesn't lay that ball on the ground, the Niners probably get their third in a row, but turnovers count the last time I checked. Moreover, am I the only one who remembers that the Niners were lucky in the first place to be going for a three-peat. People seem to forget the gift the Niners got from Lewis Billups in San Francisco's 1988 Super Bowl victory over the Bengals. If Billups holds on to that beach ball, the Niners lose and we aren't having this discussion.

And what happened when the Dynastic Cowboys were going for their triple play. Well, they came up against a very good and very angry San Francisco team on the road and lost 38-28. Steve Young was destined to win that game after coming up short the two previous years against the Cowboys. There was no shame in losing that game and the Cowboys did come back the next year to win a third title in four years. But that doesn't erase what happened on that day at Candlestick. They had their shot at history and they didnt get it done.

So that brings us back to New England. Unlike the aforementioned dynasties, the Pats still have a shot at a three-peat. They are bringing back a loaded squad and more importantly, they are right in the middle of their cycle. Before I move forward, I should probably describe my theory on cycles. It is my belief that great organizations have winning cycles. The cycles are premised upon a few years of foundation building and then a 4-6 years of success. Cycles are usually marked by a great coach and a terrific core group of players and they usually end when the coaches leave and the core ages. The Steelers cycle begins in 71 or 72, peaks from 74 to 79, and crashes in 1980. San Franciso is a bit of an anomaly because they had almost a 20 year cycle that begins in 1980. And while they had a terrific team in 1984, the peak of their cycle really begins in 1988 and wraps in 1994. The Cowboys cycle is much more finite: it begins in 1991, peaks from 92 through 95 and is over after Carolina mauled Dallas in a 1996 divisional playoff game.

I believe the Pats cycle began in 2001, but the peak did not start until 2003. Well how can that be - they won a championship in 2001? Lets be honest - the 2001 championship was a bit flookey and it was definetly ahead of schedule. Belicheck had come in the year before and I am confident he did not have a two year plan to win a championship and certainly not one that was led by a second year quarterback who had thrown four passes as a rookie. As a result, I do not think 2001 was the beginning of the Pats peak years. 2001 was phenomenal for Pats fans like myself but it happened while Belicheck was still building his foundation. Well, the foundation was finalized by 2003 and I believe that marks the begining of the Pats peak.

Some will argue that cycles don't really exist anymore under the restrictions of the salary cap, but I think New England has proven so adept at handling the cap that my cycle theory holds. When you throw in Belicheck's abilities, Brady's youth and a fairly young core, I feel that this team is going to be a leading contender for probably three or four more years. The Pats may not win next year, but they have a good shot and if they do win that third championship, the terms of this "dynasty" debate will be much different twleve months from now. Because if that happens, the Pats will be able to claim something that has never been accomplished. And what happens if the Pats win two more titles before this "Brady" cycle ends? Where does this team rank if Belicheck and Brady have a ring for each finger? I am not saying this will happen, but it is not inconceivable. And at that point, even the most hardened critics up in Bristol and San Francisco and Dallas and Pittsburgh will have to re-assess their nostaligc veiws.