Patriots fans and co...please STFU

[ricojes]

3 of 4 SB's does not make a dynasty!! If they maintain their playoff appearences for the next 4 or 5 years and win another SB title, then they may be considered a dynasty. As of now, it's a mini-dynasty at best. So all you former Giants fans who bought your Pats gear when they started winning can quit your bitching.....

[JDG]

Thank you David Patten's unconscious head.

 

Sure, its a dynasty, but it was a combination of a great team, a great coach, and more than a little luck. 

 

JDG

570653[/snapback]

 

Nothing to be ashamed of, and the Patriots have their place in history. But some perspective is in order too. Right rule or wrong rule, the Patriots won some Super Bowls with the aid of some bounces that were completely outside their conscious control that went their way, and on Saturday they played a tough game, made a few more mistakes than usual, and didn't get a few lucky breaks that might have turned the game in their favor. It happens.

 

If the Patriots and Broncos played that game 10 times, I wouldn't be shocked by a 5-5 split.... but the NFL insists that there be one winner and one loser (would we have it any way), and people will just forever presume now that the Broncos were better. Such is life.

 

JDG

[Ramius]

Nothing to be ashamed of, and the Patriots have their place in history.  But some perspective is in order too.    Right rule or wrong rule, the Patriots won some Super Bowls with the aid of some bounces that were completely outside their conscious control that went their way, and on Saturday they played a tough game, made a few more mistakes than usual, and didn't get a few lucky breaks that might have turned the game in their favor.  It happens.

 

If the Patriots and Broncos played that game 10 times, I wouldn't be shocked by a 5-5 split.... but the NFL insists that there be one winner and one loser (would we have it any way), and people will just forever presume now that the Broncos were better.  Such is life.

 

JDG

570688[/snapback]

 

The Broncos ARE better. Whats to presume?

[Johnny Coli]

So all you former Giants fans who bought your Pats gear when they started winning can quit your bitching.....

570670[/snapback]

They're already out of Shockey and Barber jerseys here in Cambridge, and the emergency rooms are filling up with fans hurting themselves jumping from the Pats bandwagon to the Giants one. I hit three fans with my car this morning that jumped and missed. The side of the road is littered with them.

[BuckeyeBill]

I'm just SOOO GLAD that the Superbowl won't be tarnished by the Patriots this year.

[Ramius]

I'm just SOOO GLAD that the Superbowl won't be tarnished by the Patriots this year.

570716[/snapback]

 

Yup. It felt dirty watching the patsies play in the super bowl. prolly because deep down, you knew they didnt deserve to be in the game, and the NFL/officials greased the skids to get them there.

[OJ's Glove]

Only pathologically jealous Bills fans think the Pats weren't "dominant".

 

34-4 in two years. Never been done before.

 

Owning three consecutive wins records, including postseason. (21, 18, 10)

 

Never even trailing in a game between mid-November and the Super Bowl in the '03 season.

 

 

But just ignore all that, and pretend the margin of victory in the last game is the only definition of "dominance". If that's all you have to hang your hat on, keep those blinders on and pretend you don't hear me. Easier that way. Especially since the sting of getting whipped in the SB is still so fresh in the minds of Bills fans, it's all some of them notice.

 

By the way, the undefeated '72 Dolphins only won the Super Bowl 14-7. Don't let me ever catch some of you calling that team "dominant". We wouldn't want any hypocrisy around here, would we?

[Hollywood Donahoe]

Only pathologically jealous Bills fans think the Pats weren't "dominant".

 

34-4 in two years. Never been done before.

 

Owning three consecutive wins records, including postseason. (21, 18, 10)

 

Never even trailing in a game between mid-November and the Super Bowl in the '03 season.

But just ignore all that, and pretend the margin of victory in the last game is the only definition of "dominance". If that's all you have to hang your hat on, keep those blinders on and pretend you don't hear me. Easier that way. Especially since the sting of getting whipped in the SB is still so fresh in the minds of Bills fans, it's all some of them notice.

 

By the way, the undefeated '72 Dolphins only won the Super Bowl 14-7. Don't let me ever catch some of you calling that team "dominant". We wouldn't want any hypocrisy around here, would we?

Bravo!

[GhostsOfTheRockpile]

Only pathologically jealous Bills fans think the Pats weren't "dominant".

 

34-4 in two years. Never been done before.

 

Owning three consecutive wins records, including postseason. (21, 18, 10)

 

Never even trailing in a game between mid-November and the Super Bowl in the '03 season.

But just ignore all that, and pretend the margin of victory in the last game is the only definition of "dominance". If that's all you have to hang your hat on, keep those blinders on and pretend you don't hear me. Easier that way. Especially since the sting of getting whipped in the SB is still so fresh in the minds of Bills fans, it's all some of them notice.

 

By the way, the undefeated '72 Dolphins only won the Super Bowl 14-7. Don't let me ever catch some of you calling that team "dominant". We wouldn't want any hypocrisy around here, would we?

570876[/snapback]

 

Well said. I live in Boston and hate the Patriots fans, but the fact is they've earned their place in history.

[LabattBlue]

Three Super Bowl wins in four years = Dynasty.

 

At least to all but a small sect of irrationals.

570240[/snapback]

Don't make me get out the Webster's Dictionary and prove you wrong. The Pats could win 3 SB's a decade for the next 100 years and it still wouldn't be a dynasty. Take my word for it.

[The Tomcat]

Well said. I live in Boston and hate the Patriots fans, but the fact is they've earned their place in history.

 

 

 

 

 

I agree.....We'd all give our left nut for Norwoods kick to go threw and win by 2 points....

 

Sour Grapes in my opinion....I'm giving them credit for the 3 in 4 years...how can you not....If we can justify the Bills being a dynasty...4 years in row is an incredible feat....how can you say NE isn't??

 

There were some bad calls against NE...they were...I'm happy that they're not in anymore but a bad call is a bad call no matter who it benefits...

 

Get over your NE jealousy.....accept what they've done and cherish that they're out but give credit where its due.

[Hollywood Donahoe]

Don't make me get out the Webster's Dictionary and prove you wrong.  The Pats could win 3 SB's a decade for the next 100 years and it still wouldn't be a dynasty.  Take my word for it.

You mean Belichick doesn't have some royal blood in him? :D

[Realist]

I can't believe some of you hate the Pats so much that you won't admit how good they really have been. I can't stand the Patriots, hate 'em more than I hate the 'phins, and yes I was around in the '70's. But you have to give credit where credit is due. What team have we been striving to beat the past several years, what coach have we all wished we had for the past several years?

 

The pats have been the best team in the league easily, until finally, the injuries caught up to them this year. Still, next year, who do you think is going to be the favorite in the AFC East. Its still going to be the Patriots, although they will be pushed by the 'phins.

 

Each one of us Bills' fans wishes what happened to NE the last four years actually happened to the Bills. We would be just as cocky and arrogant as a pats fan if it did.

 

Admit it, they are a dynasty whether we like it or not. If we can argue that the loser of 4 straight Superbowls was a dynasty, you have to admit the winner of 3 out of 4 is a dynasty, even if they were only by 3 points.

 

Now, F___ the Pats!!! Bills in '06!

[Johnny Coli]

What is a bit irksome to me is this talk of dominance and playoff win streaks.

 

The Pats dominated no one in 2001...got by Oakland with a questionable call, needed Bledsoe to take care of the Steelers, and needed an egomaniac in Martz to abandon the run in the Superbowl. That's not very dominating.

 

They didn't even make the playoffs in 2002...that's not very dominating.

 

I will give them '03-'04...but that's a mere 18 months, really. They were dominating for 18 months.

 

In '05, they benefitted from playing in the weakest division in football and went 3-6 against teams with winning records. There's your 10 wins. Hardly dominating. The Jags playoff victory was a joke because they benefited from playing a hobbled QB. They ended the season, including playoffs, 4-7 ahaginst teams with winning records.

 

So, I see maybe 18 months of solid football at best.

 

As for the playoff streak...it's not like this was done over consecutive seasons. They didn't even play a postseason game in '02. So, if a team wins three games and the SB, misses the playoffs for a few years, gets in and wins the SB, there's 6 playoff wins in a row. If they get in the following year, win two, and lose the conference game, that's 8 in a row. I just don't see the big deal in this 10 game winning streak.

 

Also, it's not like 3 SBs in 4 years has never been done before. Dallas just did it 10 years ago, and they did it far more convincingly than the Pats.

 

Look, you had a good team. Good for you. But, really, your team hasn't been good in 12 months. I just don't see them returning to their '03-'04 form, and I don't see the AFCE being as weak as it has been in recent years. Your "run" is over. You can now go back to your "Yankees Suck" chants in the Foxboro parking lots.

[dry martini]

Really, this is just silly.

 

Substitute Bills for Pats the last four years - dynasty?

 

nuff said.

[IDBillzFan]

What is a bit irksome to me is this talk of dominance and playoff win streaks. 

 

The Pats dominated no one in 2001...got by Oakland with a questionable call, needed Bledsoe to take care of the Steelers, and needed an egomaniac in Martz to abandon the run in the Superbowl.  That's not very dominating.

 

They didn't even make the playoffs in 2002...that's not very dominating.

 

I will give them '03-'04...but that's a mere 18 months, really.  They were dominating for 18 months.

 

In '05, they benefitted from playing in the weakest division in football and went 3-6 against teams with winning records.  There's your 10 wins.  Hardly dominating.  The Jags playoff victory was a joke because they benefited from playing a hobbled QB.  They ended the season, including playoffs, 4-7 ahaginst teams with winning records.

 

So, I see maybe 18 months of solid football at best.

 

As for the playoff streak...it's not like this was done over consecutive seasons.  They didn't even play a postseason game in '02.  So, if a team wins three games and the SB, misses the playoffs for a few years, gets in and wins the SB, there's 6 playoff wins in a row.  If they get in the following year, win two, and lose the conference game, that's 8 in a row.  I just don't see the big deal in this 10 game winning streak.

 

Also, it's not like 3 SBs in 4 years has never been done before.  Dallas just did it 10 years ago, and they did it far more convincingly than the Pats.

 

Look, you had a good team.  Good for you.  But, really, your team hasn't been good in 12 months.  I just don't see them returning to their '03-'04 form, and I don't see the AFCE being as weak as it has been in recent years.  Your "run" is over. You can now go back to your "Yankees Suck" chants in the Foxboro parking lots.

570984[/snapback]

Why people have a hard time understanding and accepting this very clear post is beyond me.

[Ramius]

Why people have a hard time understanding and accepting this very clear post is beyond me.

571038[/snapback]

 

Its tough to accept when your the majority of your time currently is spent finding ways to trade in your brady jersey for a tiki barber jersey.

[Orton's Arm]

I'm going to take the middle road with this post. On the one hand, the Patriots over the last few years have benefited from favorable officiating and weak competition. Consider that in 2004, only one playoff game took place in which both NFC teams had winning regular season records. Over in the AFC, there were very few complete teams. You had Indy, with a perfectly good offense but no defense. You had Pittsburgh, with a good defense but questionable offense. But other than the Patriots, there weren't many AFC teams that had the whole package.

 

Still, one can't help but respect the Patriots for their consistency. I remember them putting together a very long winning streak during the regular season. Going 10-0 in the playoffs over a three year span is a solid achievement. Did they achieve the same level of dominance as the 49ers of the '80s or the Cowboys of the '90s? No. But I do remember the way the Patriots defense held Peyton Manning and the Colts to just three points in that playoff game. Consider that with Holcomb under center, the Bills have never scored fewer than 16 points in a game. So holding Peyton & co to just three makes a much stronger statement of dominance than anything the Patriots did in the Super Bowl; much like the Bills' most emphatic statement of dominance came in the playoff game against the Raiders.

 

But ultimately, the Bills of the '90s had the consistency to make it to four consecutive Super Bowls. Thankfully, the Patriots have fallen short of this.

[Johnny Coli]

Going 10-0 in the playoffs over a three year span is a solid achievement.

571090[/snapback]

This is a common misconception about the Pats. They won 10 games over a 5 year stretch, really.

 

3 in '01

no playoffs in '02

3 in '03

3 in '04

1 in '05

 

So, not even getting into the playoffs in '02 inflates this "record". Had they gotten in, they would have no doubt lost at some point, thus making their string of wins only 7. We can all agree that this year's win over the Jags was kind of a joke. So, their string of consecutive playoff victories against teams with a chance is really 6.

 

If a team wins the Superbowl one year, then doesn't make the playoffs for five years, and then wins it again, they could have 6 straight wins in the playoffs. Big deal.

 

I will give the Pats credit for the 18 months covering the '03 and '04 seasons. But how many other teams are "consistent" over an 18 month period?

 

 

Let's look at the hated Dallas Cowboys.

From '91 to '96 they went 12-3 in the playoffs, with 3 SB wins in 4 years ('92, '93, '95) . Unlike the Pats, though, the Cowboys actually went to the playoffs in the year between SB win #2 and SB win #3 (1994). According to Pats fans, the Cowboys should be penalized for actually having a good enough team to actually get into the post season, yet not win it all. The Cowboys playoff win streaks are as follows:

W, L

7 W (including 2 straight SBs) then a Loss (in the NFC championship game)

4 W (including a SB) then a loss

 

So the Cowboys are consistent for almost 6 years, an NFC championship game loss from going to 4 straight Superbowls, playing in an era when the NFC was dominant, and the Pats are consistent for 18 months in a period of mediocrity.

 

Yup. The Pats are a Dynasty, all right.

 

 

PS. I hate you for making me compare the Cowboys and Pats. You owe me.

[Johnny Coli]

Looks like one of the biggest Pats cheerleaders doesn't think the Pats were a dynasty either.

 

Dynasty?

 

Here's the bigger issue: why were we calling them a dynasty in the first place? Bill Russell's Celtics won 11 titles in 13 seasons -- now that was a dynasty. We live in a sports world where hyperbole rules, so it's easy to forget that Webster's defines a dynasty as "a powerful group or family that maintains its position for a considerable time." Four years is not a considerable time. This Patriots run seemed significant because they were aiming to control the NFL for a considerable time and because the league has been carefully constructed to prevent this from happening. They weren't a dynasty. Not yet.

 

A new, teenage coach for the Jets. Pats in decline. Miami is Miami. It's starting to look good for the Bills in the AFCE.

[ExiledInIllinois]

I agree it's a dynasty. But, I take the 85 Bears in a heartbeat over any of those three team NE put on the field. As far as "best teams ever" I wouldn't even put any of those Pats squads in the top five.

570658[/snapback]

 

There are only two dynasty's in sports... New York Yankees and Montreal Canadiens.

 

You really have to look at it over the long haul... We really love to throw the word around now, it makes good spin.