BelichickFan

You're probably right. I have a sour taste in my mouth about '96 in terms of the Broncos destroying the Patriots in the regular season and my assumption they would have done the same in the playoffs had they matched up. Whereas the '01 team did have to do to Pittsburgh and beat the #1 seed head to head.

Deus Irae

It's just a space filler of an article. There's really no need to get into a state over it. He doesn't even have the 2005 Steelers team on his list.

__________________
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
- Marcus Aurelius

BelichickFan

Or the 2005 Seahawks. As I have said before, Curran is a nice guy but way over his head on the national stage.

Richter

I'll fully admit I was terrified of those Broncos teams and was more than happy to see them go out early and get out of the Patriots way. Terrell Davis was a force of nature through those championship years, he'd bust off 20 yard runs like it was nothing. It was bizarre to me that the Broncos were considered the underdog against Green Bay the next year, when they were clearly the better team. Yeah, Green Bay was the defending champion, but by that point the balance of power had shifted and the AFC was the better conference, and what they were doing in the NFC wasn't as impressive. Plus, they had Brett Favre, which is a recipe for playoff doom unless you have Desmond Howard returning kicks.

Richter

What about the '80 Eagles (better record than their talent), the Ickey Woods Bengals, the 2000 Giants or either of the Superbowl V teams? Terrible article in general.

Rob0729

Ummm.... How can you include the 2001 Patriots and not the 2006 Colts. The 2006 Colts had the statistically worst run defense in league history. The AFC South was a joke that year too (the next best record in the division was 8-8). At least in 2001, the AFC East had three playoff teams. Everyone expected that Colts team to be one and done with Larry Johnson supposed to have a field day running all over them.

Patriotic Fervor

Well, for the benefit of Mr. Curran, let's step into the Wayback Machine (on loan from Mr. Peabody!) and refresh his memory a bit....

In '85, of course, they ran into the buzz saw that was the Chicago Bears. Except for the Dolphins game that season, they bullied everybody. But I do remember reading that year about scouts on other teams telling their guys at the start of the season that the Patriots had the talent to go to the Super Bowl. Whether or not they did was another matter entirely.

Given the season the Bears had, would it have mattered who played them in the Super Bowl? And would Mr. Curran have then substituted whoever did play them that year into his "Worst List"?

Let's not forget, too, that the Pats were leading that game 3-0 when Lin Dawson got hurt and left the game. Now, I'm not saying the game hinged on that, or that in the end it would have made a difference, but a good blocking tight end like Dawson would have helped against that "46" defense.

If I recall correctly, the two teams played again the following year, when Dawson was healthy, Flutie was QBing, and McMahon was knocked out of the game. The Pats won that one going away.

In '96, if Desmond Howard does not not make that return TD (i.e., Hason Graham actually tackles him), I can see the Pats winning that game, and I'm not the first guy to say that, either. That wasn't a bad Patriots team, and I'm a little surprised he's added that one to the list.

He (Curran) goes on to remind us that "the Broncos were knocking Denver from the playoffs", which was an interesting revelation.

Many of you have more than adequately covered the '01 team and it's many facets, but I just want to add that when the Pats squared off against the Rams earlier that season, if Antowaine Smith Doesn't fumble at the goal line at the end of the first half, and instead scores, I like their chances to win that game. Remember, too, that after that game, the following week the Rams lost to Tampa Bay, which was their last loss that season until the Super Bowl.

That '01 defense was a roughneck squad that would have gladdened any defensive coordinator's heart, and that team was the foundation stone of the current dynasty. Curious, too, that Mr. Curran would add that one.

In fact, it's still curious that Curran even has a public forum these days for tripe like this that is pawned off on the rest of under the guise of "journalism" and "analysis".

What's even more interesting is that he is writing for something called "Arkansas Matters". Maybe these were the only guys that would publish this pap.

Before leaving the subject, why does he say these teams he lists are the worst "ever", and then tell us it's since 1985? Why'd he use that date? I though the Super Bowl started in 1966?!? What about those Bronco teams that regularly got their asses handed to them? What about some of those Viking teams? Surely a little more depth would have promoted some degree of knowledgeableness and persuasiveness?!?

Or is it just me?

This whole thing has forced me to drink another cup of coffee....

__________________
....and that's the way I see it!

AFPatsFan12

"Hey, look at me!! I wrote a controversial list as a column!! Debate it! Argue about it!! Link to me!! Send this article to all your friends and look at the crazy stuff I said!!!"

If half the columnists out there just slapped this line at the top of their work...

Rob0729

I swear since Curran had been disputed by the rest of the media and Patriots fans over his Brady story, the guy seems to have gone a bit off the deep end. He seems to have taken this very personally and has allowed it to affect his objectivity when it comes to the Pats.

jmt57

Curran's really been on a roll the last few weeks. Did somebody in the Pats FO bed his wife, or take a dump on his front lawn? Based on the inclusion of three Patriot teams ('01 Pats?) and some of the comments ('beat New England to a pulp') he is either pandering to the national audience of a year ago (Pats haters) or he's got a huge chip on his shoulder for some reason and has an axe to grind over some perceived slight. The one column isn't all that bad, but when you look at all his work over the last month or two, there's something going on.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.