ganesh Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Truth be told, Bills fans should appreciate the Pats* "failure" to win a Super Bowl since 2004 because it proves what we have always taken to heart -- it is VERY difficult to win the damn thing, even if you have the best team. That "failure" does not take away from a damn near unprecedented run of excellence. Spygate or no spygate, they have been dominant for a long time. I don't agree. I don't think the Pats were anywhere close to being the best team in the league in all those years. Sure they are ONE of the top team, but not the best team. This year they definitely were not the best team in the league. I think that was the 49ers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 I don't agree. I don't think the Pats were anywhere close to being the best team in the league in all those years. Sure they are ONE of the top team, but not the best team. This year they definitely were not the best team in the league. I think that was the 49ers. You are misinterpreting my statement. Remove all reference to the Pats* or Bills or anyone else -- as a general statement, it is VERY difficult to win the Super Bowl, even if you have the best team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 I don't agree. I don't think the Pats were anywhere close to being the best team in the league in all those years. Sure they are ONE of the top team, but not the best team. This year they definitely were not the best team in the league. I think that was the 49ers. I don't want to speak for eball but I don't think he was specifically making a case for the Patriots being the best team this year (arguably, they were). I think he was just saying that the best team doesn't always win the Super Bowl in any year. To me, in the last 11 seasons or so, the Patriots have been the team to beat pretty much every year, or at the very least one of the top teams to beat. Other teams end up having better years, but year in year out, they are the team to beat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanC883 Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Aside from 76* regular season games and 5 playoff games? You're right, nuthin'. *an average of 12.7/year over 6 years. Ask Falcons fans if that is really a dynasty. I think they averaged about the same number of wins over the past 5 seasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Also, I don't think anyone would consider the teams that they* actually BEAT in the Super Bowl to be among the top half of all Super Bowl participants. The Rams, Eagles and Panthers have a grand total of one other Super Bowl appearance among them. Then when you consider that they* only won those three games by an average of three points, and were proven to have cheated to do so? And before someone brings up the LA Rams and the Jaworski-era Eagles, I'm talking about contemporary appearances that would suggest the teams' cores were good enough to go to multiple SBs and weren't just flashes in the pan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 I don't want to speak for eball but I don't think he was specifically making a case for the Patriots being the best team this year (arguably, they were). I think he was just saying that the best team doesn't always win the Super Bowl in any year. To me, in the last 11 seasons or so, the Patriots have been the team to beat pretty much every year, or at the very least one of the top teams to beat. Other teams end up having better years, but year in year out, they are the team to beat. Yup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punch Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Ask Falcons fans if that is really a dynasty. I think they averaged about the same number of wins over the past 5 seasons. This would be valid if the Patriots didn't go to 5 Super Bowls and win 3. Atlanta has won 1 playoff game. It's not really the same at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 I don't think it's tarnished, but it's been lessened to a degree. How can this be? Something that is tarnished IS lessened to a degree. ?? There is no other word to describe their legacy. Tainted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meathead Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Don't think they will win another but they are one of the best organizations hands down. really? what makes them a great organization? why werent they a great organization pre-brady? why does belicheat have a .500 career winning pcentage pre-brady? why will they be a great organization after brady loses his skills? drives me nuts. they were a sh organization with a sh coach before they made the luckiest sixth round pick in the history of the nfl. suddenly they are all geniuses. oye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 really? what makes them a great organization? why werent they a great organization pre-brady? why does belicheat have a .500 career winning pcentage pre-brady? why will they be a great organization after brady loses his skills? drives me nuts. they were a sh organization with a sh coach before they made the luckiest sixth round pick in the history of the nfl. suddenly they are all geniuses. oye ^^ This. Plus, how many players took LESS money for the chance to win* a Superbowl? Think other teams could've benefited from having players take less money to sign with them? So even if the cheating didn't happen post-SpyGate, it still helped them win games for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 ^^ This. Plus, how many players took LESS money for the chance to win* a Superbowl? Think other teams could've benefited from having players take less money to sign with them? So even if the cheating didn't happen post-SpyGate, it still helped them win games for years. They took less money because they were a great team, with great coaching, and it gave the player in his opinion the best chance of getting a ring. That argument helps the Patriots case, not hurts it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 The entire team took PEDS? Well, they were known as a team where aging vets seemed to find fresh legs and one of those vets (Sir Rodney) was found to have ordered HGH online. As there was no test for it he was only caught by being dumb enough to use his own name in buying it and then getting ensnared when the pharmacy was raided. Who knows how many other teammates there were using? If that team turned a blind eye or even encouraged such things it would not shock me in the least personally.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 really? what makes them a great organization? why werent they a great organization pre-brady? why does belicheat have a .500 career winning pcentage pre-brady? why will they be a great organization after brady loses his skills? drives me nuts. they were a sh organization with a sh coach before they made the luckiest sixth round pick in the history of the nfl. suddenly they are all geniuses. oye I'd say Kraft ownership starting is where to measure things.... And by that, before Brady and bellichik they were parcells and Bledsoe and were in the superbowl. Since the mid90s, they've been as good as it gets. If you want to judge all the way to past owners, then sure but I'd say that's a whole different organization, essentially Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 They took less money because they were a great team, with great coaching, and it gave the player in his opinion the best chance of getting a ring. That argument helps the Patriots case, not hurts it. That's my point -- if not for the SpyGate cheating, I bet fewer good players would've joined the team (especially at a salary cap discount!), which would've made the Patriots worse and improved other teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 That's my point -- if not for the SpyGate cheating, I bet fewer good players would've joined the team (especially at a salary cap discount!), which would've made the Patriots worse and improved other teams. There is zero reason to believe that though, IMO, since every year since Spygate, up til today, they are considered to be just as good and just as good a chance at winning the Super Bowl by these free agents. Obviously, almost inarguably, these players don't believe Spygate had anything to do with the Pats success, otherwise they wouldn't still be signing for less money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 There is zero reason to believe that though, IMO, since every year since Spygate, up til today, they are considered to be just as good and just as good a chance at winning the Super Bowl by these free agents. Obviously, almost inarguably, these players don't believe Spygate had anything to do with the Pats success, otherwise they wouldn't still be signing for less money. But if there was no Spygate and the Patriots never won a Superbowl, would those same players have signed there? Doubtful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 But if there was no Spygate and the Patriots never won a Superbowl, would those same players have signed there? Doubtful. His point is if it was so tarnished they wouldn't still be. Further it's a pretty big assumption that they lose if not for spygate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 But if there was no Spygate and the Patriots never won a Superbowl, would those same players have signed there? Doubtful. If there was never a Spygate, I still think the Patriots win the Super Bowls, because I don't think Spygate helped them win those Super Bowls at all. I just think they were guilty of cheating, and should have been punished by the league for it, which they were. Bellichick IMO was trying to gain every single advantage he could, and he went too far. Brady has got significantly way better at reading defenses and running his offense since Spygate ended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Adams Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 (edited) Mr. Hubble says dynasties are for people with self-esteem issues... ... ... ... Mr. Hubble would be right. BA Edited January 21, 2013 by Bud Adams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 If there was never a Spygate, I still think the Patriots win the Super Bowls, because I don't think Spygate helped them win those Super Bowls at all. If it didn't help, then why would they bother breaking the rules to do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts