Curran lists 3 Patriot teams as worst teams ever in Super Bowl - Page 3 - New England Patriots Forums

***BelichickFan*** · 01-21-2009, 09:55 AM

The worst thing about this list is there's only 7 teams total and he picked 3 Patriots teams. If there were, say, 15 it would be a little better I guess.

Curran - I don't know where you've gone but it's not a good place.

BradyManny · 01-21-2009, 10:02 AM

As I've said I've always found him reasonable and I've emailed him a few times in the past. Perhaps he just put the Pats on there b/c he's from around here, worked around here, and knows those teams better/knows less about other weak SB teams in the past.

***BelichickFan*** · 01-21-2009, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BradyManny2344

Perhaps he just put the Pats on there b/c he's from around here, worked around here, and knows those teams better/knows less about other weak SB teams in the past.

In other words, he's WAY over his head on the national stage.

Lifer · 01-21-2009, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lloyd_Christmas

I love how Tom Curran lists the 1985, 1996, and 2001 Patriots among the worst teams to ever go to a Super Bowl, yet leaves out the Ravens (2000?) that had ZERO offense and NONE of the Buffalo teams that lost 4 Super Bowls in a row. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples.

I know I'm biased, but I'd say it was a pretty crappy article:

The worst teams in Super Bowl history

That was the most idiotic football article ive ever read. He made Nick Cafardo sound like a genius!
The 1985 and 1996 Patriots were 11-5 teams. The 2001 Patriots won the Super Bowl!! The 2007 Giants won the Super Bowl.

the '79 Rams, sure. this years Cardinals, sure.. the whole premise of the article is pretty stupid. if you make the Super Bowl, how bad can you be?

BadMoFo · 01-21-2009, 10:16 AM

Can't argue the 1985 team, that should have been the worst Super Bowl team. I actually thought the 1996 team had more talent than the 2001 team.

***363839*** · 01-21-2009, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottieC

He's really endearing himself to Patriot fans. Perhaps he's lobbying for a job at ESPN.

That sounds about right to me.

Bash the Pats and you win favor with certain
sports news outfits.

Wax Frog · 01-21-2009, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patriotic Fervor

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.

Two years after, actually; I hated the Bears so badly at the time, that I kept the newspaper clipping! Still have it

Quote:

Oct 30 1988 - "Flutie, Patriots Top Bears, 30-7... McMahon Injures Knee, Expected Out 4 to 10 Weeks"

***Leave No Doubt*** · 01-21-2009, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottieC

He's really endearing himself to Patriot fans. Perhaps he's lobbying for a job at ESPN.

Seriously. He'd do well there too; they're apparently equally informed about the Pats

JoeSixPat · 01-21-2009, 10:53 AM

I'm not sure I disagree with him though I'll look closer later.

We've always known that with the Patriots the sum is greater than the parts - and Belichick can do more with less. Many of the players on the SB rosters aren't going to make too many teams quake in their boots - but all they did was win.

BradyManny · 01-21-2009, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BelichickFan

In other words, he's WAY over his head on the national stage.

More that he has a local bias on a national stage, like most of the national writers. Think about SportsGuy, and how Boston centric he used to be. Or how NY centric a lot of ESPN guys are. I don't think its a big deal.