Regardless of talent.........

Joined
Aug 1, 2017
Messages
1,072
Reaction score
198
........how much does "luck" plays into the championship teams to win so many Super bowls?

Good teams always find ways to win.
 

XPack

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
3,702
Reaction score
567
Location
Garden State
Not much.

Since you have to go through regular season and playoffs to get to SB teams have to be consistently good to get to this level. I don't believe anyone can be consistently lucky for that long. But then you get cases like Immaculate Reception, which goes a long way into the win, but the fact is the playing team should still be good enough to take advantage.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
33,680
Reaction score
8,914
Location
Madison, WI
Depends on what you are terming as "luck".

Every team is going to have its share of good luck and bad luck when it comes to turnovers, referee calls, etc. and they may win a game or lose a game because of it. Now the timing of when good or bad luck happens, could be just enough to win or lose a really big game.

I would weigh "the luck of injuries" pretty high, especially after witnessing the Packers 2017. Teams that get a bit lucky and avoid the big injuries, have a better shot at winning it all, than those teams who have a major injury or two could end up having their season derailed because of it. The better balanced teams and those teams with deeper rosters can absorb injuries much better than some teams, so at least you can try and hedge against bad luck in the injury department.
 
Last edited:

G0P4ckG0

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 1, 2015
Messages
761
Reaction score
153
Luck is a product of preparation, or lack thereof. This includes preparing for injuries and officiating crew tendencies. One play nor one player will determine the outcome of any game unless said team was in such a position due to unpreparedness.

The Fail Mary wasn't luck. 4th & 26 wasn't luck. The Immaculate Reception wasn't luck. The Minnesota Miracle wasn't luck. The Patriots winning, and contending for, Super Bowls on a regular basis isn't due to luck. They have just been more prepared than every other team.
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,797
That sounds nice and all, but luck always plays a factor. Call it luck, call it circumstances, call it misfortune, call it being unprepared when some team makes a play that doesn't get made 1 out of 10,000 times, but does and is followed by another play that happens once in a decade in the entire league and couldn't do it again in a thousand tries being "prepared" if you must. But sometimes very unlikely things happen and depending on what side of that event you're on, it can be the difference between winning and losing.
 

RepStar15

"We're going to relentlessly chase perfection."
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
1,469
Reaction score
277
Location
Cranston, RI
I mean the Patriots always have a pretty easy road to the Super Bowl at home:
2018- Tennessee, Jacksonville
2017- Texans, Steelers
2015- Ravens, Colts

Their schedule is famously easy. Pretty lucky.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
33,680
Reaction score
8,914
Location
Madison, WI
I mean the Patriots always have a pretty easy road to the Super Bowl at home:
2018- Tennessee, Jacksonville
2017- Texans, Steelers
2015- Ravens, Colts

Their schedule is famously easy. Pretty lucky.

I get what you are saying but, doesn't that mean that the other 15 teams in the AFC could have had a pretty easy road to the Super Bowl had they been as good as the Patriots?
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
15,905
Reaction score
6,830
That sounds nice and all, but luck always plays a factor. Call it luck, call it circumstances, call it misfortune, call it being unprepared when some team makes a play that doesn't get made 1 out of 10,000 times, but does and is followed by another play that happens once in a decade in the entire league and couldn't do it again in a thousand tries being "prepared" if you must. But sometimes very unlikely things happen and depending on what side of that event you're on, it can be the difference between winning and losing.
To me the word “Luck” reminds me of the word “Coincidence” IMO, both are futile attempts to deprive the recipient of their part in the outcome. While the timing certainly has to be there there are steps involved in putting you in those circumstances to “Luck Out”
Not just one, but hundreds and even sometimes thousands of decisions you had to make to get you there.

If you go out and buy a lotto ticket and win the Mega Millions, Noone would argue that many would call that luck.
I’d argue that Luck is when you put forth effort of preparation and it meets good timing.
For instance, you still had to get up that morning, make sure you timed it when the store would be open. You then had to put your shoes on and make an effort to go to the store. You also had to make the effort to get the $$ that it took to pay for the chance to win. Was it Luck you decided to spend hard earned $ or was it a conscious decision to buy that ticket and make sure you qualified your answer to fit within the parameters of how the game is played? (Btw there are actually people who have won the lottery multiple times) talk about Lucky! :tdown:
You then had to keep track of the ticket without losing it. Finally you had to follow the lottery closely to ensure your numbers matched. The lottery doesn’t come find you when they draw the winning numbers. They know where the ticket was sold and if someone won way before anyone claims the prize.
Lottery makes you track the ticket. Then you had to verify those numbers to make sure it was a match.

Ironically one of the most famous quotes I’ve heard concerning “Luck” was by the Legendary Jack Youngblood. He was quoted as saying..
“Good Luck is a residue of preparation”.

I honestly don’t think of the word luck as “no effort” like many do.
 
Last edited:

Half Empty

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
4,548
Reaction score
659
Just so it doesn't get lost, I want to lead with sports examples. The one that always comes to mind when the Pats are involved (frustratingly frequently) is the 'helmet catch' with which the Giants beat them. I understand, ala the discussion in another thread, that that play could well have been insignificant if a bunch of others hadn't gone the way they did. However, given the circumstances at the time, I find it really, really hard to believe that the Giants had a drill where they practiced grabbing a pass above their heads and pinning it against their helmet for a catch. And, I find it hard to believe that, if that scenario is repeated, the catch would be made. It was, IMO, a lucky catch.

Then, there are lucky breaks which have no bearing on your own preparation. If a placekicker, who prepares and practices to put the ball between the uprights, shanks one, and hits the upright, and it bounces through for the FG, that seems to be a lucky bounce. How about if Tom Brady trips coming on to the field for the SB - wouldn't that be a lucky break for the Eagles? Yes, they'd still have to play a good game that they prepared to do, but it would be a whole lot easier, due to an occurrence for which they didn't plan.

Now, the Steeler fumble in the Packer SB looks much more like preparation than luck. I still get goosebumps every time there's a replay of the game with Greene and Matthews just before the fumble - THAT was preparation meeting timing. Sure, the fumble might not have resulted, but there was obviously more than luck involved.

As to the lottery thing, what about a guy who wanders around looking for someplace to buy a six-pack, has a couple of bucks in change coming and figures 'what the heck?', buys the ticket, forgets about it, has a friend tell him the winning ticket was sold at the store where he bought his, rummages around his desk, finds the tickets, and...?
 

Patriotplayer90

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 2, 2015
Messages
1,874
Reaction score
130
I get what you are saying but, doesn't that mean that the other 15 teams in the AFC could have had a pretty easy road to the Super Bowl had they been as good as the Patriots?
It's not just that the other teams aren't as good as the Patriots . It's that they aren't good at all. Jacksonville, Tennessee, Buffalo in the playoffs? What a joke. That conference has very few QBs and even fewer coaches who are decent.
 

ARPackFan

Knock it off with them negative waves
Joined
Sep 29, 2013
Messages
725
Reaction score
262
Location
Arkansas
Usually what is seen as luck in football is a lack of focus of one or more of the participants. The Vikings were "lucky" a few weeks ago in the fact that the New Orleans defender had not focused on the moment. If he had stayed behind the WR, let him make the catch, and then just wrapped him up the game would have been over. The Viking were prepared and stayed focused. Make a play and hope the Saints make a mistake - preparation met opportunity. Gripe all you want about the Patriots but apparently they prepare and stay focused better than the other 31 teams.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
I mean the Patriots always have a pretty easy road to the Super Bowl at home:
2018- Tennessee, Jacksonville
2017- Texans, Steelers
2015- Ravens, Colts

Their schedule is famously easy. Pretty lucky.

It's not just that the other teams aren't as good as the Patriots . It's that they aren't good at all. Jacksonville, Tennessee, Buffalo in the playoffs? What a joke. That conference has very few QBs and even fewer coaches who are decent.

The Patriots have faced some pretty good teams during the playoffs. In addition their 51-13 (.797) record vs. NFC teams since the league realigned the divisions in 2002 indicates they would have been dominant in the NFC as well.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
33,680
Reaction score
8,914
Location
Madison, WI
The Patriots have faced some pretty good teams during the playoffs. In addition their 51-13 (.797) record vs. NFC teams since the league realigned the divisions in 2002 indicates they would have been dominant in the NFC as well.

Thanks for looking that stat up, I was wondering the same thing. People talk about how "easy" the Pats have it over there in the AFC, as a way to try and diminish what they have done over the years, when in reality, they are just that good.
 

RRyder

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Messages
1,781
Reaction score
192
It's not just that the other teams aren't as good as the Patriots . It's that they aren't good at all. Jacksonville, Tennessee, Buffalo in the playoffs? What a joke. That conference has very few QBs and even fewer coaches who are decent.

I'm with you on the latter two but Jacksonville has a damn good team
 

PikeBadger

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
6,693
Reaction score
1,971
The Patriots have faced some pretty good teams during the playoffs. In addition their 51-13 (.797) record vs. NFC teams since the league realigned the divisions in 2002 indicates they would have been dominant in the NFC as well.
Agree. They’ve been the standard bearer overall in the league since 2000. Not dominant like the Celtics or UCLA in the 60’s but certainly at the level just below that. They’re a threat to win it all every year.
 

RRyder

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Messages
1,781
Reaction score
192
In addition the Patriots have never faced the Bills in the playoffs during the Belichick era.

True but I believe he was referrng yo the conference in a simply broad term. Just didn't agree with him throwing the Jaguars in the same boat as they were arguably one of the 3 best teams in the league this season
 

BrokenArrow

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 14, 2017
Messages
2,979
Reaction score
1,427
The Patriots have faced some pretty good teams during the playoffs. In addition their 51-13 (.797) record vs. NFC teams since the league realigned the divisions in 2002 indicates they would have been dominant in the NFC as well.
Keep in mind their record would not be he same as an NFC team. The Patriots play 4 NFC teams based on division only, and half of those teams finish in the bottom half of their division. As an NFC team, they would play better teams on average based on order of finish within their division. So it stands to reason that their .797 record would likely be significantly lower, say in the .625 to .675 range, which much closer to our record in the NFC during the same span.
 
I

I asked LT to delete my acct

Guest
What I want to know is how do the Patriots just go out and sign players regardless of price ??? Do they get seriously fined or what ?
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Keep in mind their record would not be he same as an NFC team. The Patriots play 4 NFC teams based on division only, and half of those teams finish in the bottom half of their division. As an NFC team, they would play better teams on average based on order of finish within their division. So it stands to reason that their .797 record would likely be significantly lower, say in the .625 to .675 range, which much closer to our record in the NFC during the same span.

The Patriots have played every single NFC team four times since 2002. I don't believe their record would be any different if they had to switch conferences as they would only face an additional two teams per season based on division standings the previous year.

What I want to know is how do the Patriots just go out and sign players regardless of price ??? Do they get seriously fined or what ?

As long as the Patriots stay under the cap there's no reason to fine them.
 
I

I asked LT to delete my acct

Guest
The Patriots have played every single NFC team four times since 2002. I don't believe their record would be any different if they had to switch conferences as they would only face an additional two teams per season based on division standings the previous year.



As long as the Patriots stay under the cap there's no reason to fine them.

So you`re saying in theory WE could sign big names too ??
 

RepStar15

"We're going to relentlessly chase perfection."
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
1,469
Reaction score
277
Location
Cranston, RI
Every debateable call this year went the Patriots way:

1. The Jets “fumble” out of the back of the end zone that resulted in a Patriots win. (Note: I saw no fumble)
2. Brandon Cooks game winning “catch” against the Texans. (Note: I saw the ball clearly hit the ground)
3. Jesse James “no catch” against the Pats D. (Note: This was the correct call as the ball did hit the ground. Steelers lost this game because of a bad decision by the QB on the next play- kick the field goal and go into OT)
4. A clear “no call” defensive pass interference against the Patriots defense before halftime of the Titans Division playoff game (I was literally 15 feet away from this play- the Titans receiver was TACKLED before the ball was in catchable distance)
5. A questionable like 50-something yard defensive pass interference call against Jalen Ramsey on Brandin Cooks to set up a Patriots comeback in the AFC Championship game (Note: I think this could have gone either way. I don’t think it was a catchable ball and Brandin Cooks was clearly out of bounds, but if your going to call that, you better call the defensive pass interference against Mercedes Lewis, which was not called)
6. All turnovers should not be blown dead because they are reviewable, right? Well at least that has been the consensus on most of the year. With the sole exception of the AFC Chanpionship game, where Myles Jack scores a touchdown on the ball he strips from Dion Lewis.
7. A clear “no call” hold against the Patriots on third down of their game winning drive against the Jaguars

...So I am going to say, yes, luck plays a massive role in winning games. And I think luck is the only reason the Patriots are playing Sunday. Their offense is good, but their defense is garbage. I actually heard someone on the Panthers (I think it was Greg Olson, but not positive because I turned on my radio mid interview) say the entire Panthers team did not think Bryd caught that ball, that he gained control out of the end zone against the Packers.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
33,680
Reaction score
8,914
Location
Madison, WI
So you`re saying in theory WE could sign big names too ??

Yes, we could have signed a guy like James Harrison, but did we want/need him at the time he was released? No. I think the Patriots have a leg up on teams with those kinds of signings due to the fact that they are very relevant and potential SB entrants every year. If you are an aging veteran on the last leg of your career and find yourself unemployed and the Patriots come knocking, wouldn't you want to end your career with a shot at the Super Bowl?
 

rmontro

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Messages
4,857
Reaction score
1,452
Yes, we could have signed a guy like James Harrison, but did we want/need him at the time he was released? No. I think the Patriots have a leg up on teams with those kinds of signings due to the fact that they are very relevant and potential SB entrants every year. If you are an aging veteran on the last leg of your career and find yourself unemployed and the Patriots come knocking, wouldn't you want to end your career with a shot at the Super Bowl?
Yeah, I think players will sign with NE, even if they could get more elsewhere, because they want a chance to get a ring. Plus players respect what's going on there, so even players who might be trouble elsewhere will behave while in NE.
 

Members online

Top