Hypothetical: Would you trade the first 3 SBs for the last 2? - Page 5 - New England Patriots Forums

NSPF · 07-14-2012, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ausbacker

The Patriots three Superbowls in 4 seasons puts them in a dynasty discussion. The Patriots level of success in the 00's further emphasises that.

Feel free to argue semantics all you like. Three will always be greater than two. The reality is the 2007/2008 and the 2011/2012 Patriots were not good enough to win a Superbowl and don't deserve discussion compared against Patriots teams who were good enough to win the Superbowl.

I don't disagree, all I was saying is that all Super Bowl champions are not equal.

Lifer · 07-14-2012, 11:25 PM

In both the Super Bowls with the Giants i didnt trust that we would hold the lead. With the 2001,2003,and 2004 teams i always knew somehow we would find a way to win it. Starting with the 2006 AFC title game loss at Indy i havent trusted the defense like i did back then. I wouldnt give away anything from those years. The 20-3 playoff pounding of the invincible Colts symbolized what those years were about. Thats what i want again. Greatness on both sides of the ball.

***ausbacker*** · 07-14-2012, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PittPatriot

This is assuming all Super Bowls are the same. Super Bowl 42 would have been the most remembered game won by the greatest team of all time.

Our SB wins from 2001, 2003, and 2004 blend in with about 40+ other games.
SB 42 was for immortality.

I'm not denying SB42 would have been a historic victory for the ages however, the Patriots had their opportunity to win 42 and failed.

Imagine walking up to any one of the 36,38,39 winners and saying thanks for the effort but I would have preferred if the 42 squad was given your Superbowl immortality or not.

No thanks.

***ausbacker*** · 07-14-2012, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NSPF

I don't disagree, all I was saying is that all Super Bowl champions are not equal.

I'm not disagreeing with that point I'm suggesting that the collective effort of 36 through 39 is dynastic and deserves collective appraisal rather than individual assessment.

That's why I wouldn't trade any one of the three for one of the two losses.

NSPF · 07-15-2012, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ausbacker

I'm not disagreeing with that point I'm suggesting that the collective effort of 36 through 39 is dynastic and deserves collective appraisal rather than individual assessment.

That's why I wouldn't trade any one of the three for one of the two losses.

I didn't suggest otherwise, and made that point originally. It's not three Super Bowls, it's three Super Bowls in four years, which is far more impressive. Despite this, an undefeated season still obviously deserves some pretty special consideration. Greatest single team ever vs. greatest four year stretch ever.

I can absolutely understand if you would take sustained greatness over being the greatest. I just took slight offense to you claiming that "There is no reasonable opinion that can be put forth to exchange 3 for 2."

***ausbacker*** · 07-15-2012, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NSPF

I didn't suggest otherwise, and made that point originally. It's not three Super Bowls, it's three Super Bowls in four years, which is far more impressive. Despite this, an undefeated season still obviously deserves some pretty special consideration. Greatest single team ever vs. greatest four year stretch ever.

I can absolutely understand if you would take sustained greatness over being the greatest. I just took slight offense to you claiming that "There is no reasonable opinion that can be put forth to exchange 3 for 2."

There is no reasonable opinion when discussing two against three. That's not an offensive comment it's a fact.

NSPF · 07-15-2012, 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ausbacker

There is no reasonable opinion when discussing two against three. That's not an offensive comment it's a fact.

Ah, you see, this is how you get people angry and turn an otherwise reasonable thread into a flame war. Dismiss all points of view other than your own.

As you admitted earlier, not all Super Bowls champions are equal. Therefore, two can be greater than three, the same way two quarters is more than three nickels. Now, you can debate how much each Super Bowl was worth all you want, and for you I understand that you value the first three as much or more than you would have the latter ones, but you have to at least attempt to support that viewpoint instead of just saying "3 > 2 herp derp."

I even agree with you. I would take the first three over the last two. But you're just being ignorant if you refuse to even accept the opposing viewpoint as a reasonable stance. And if you can't see understand this, well, have you ever considered a career in politics?

LetsGoBuffalo · 07-15-2012, 01:23 AM

Totally with Ausbacker on this. Come on guys. Your team has been to seven freakin' super bowls. Five in the last decade. Ya win some, ya lose some.

Take your 3 Lombardis in 4 years and enjoy them.

Claremonster · 07-15-2012, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lifer

In both the Super Bowls with the Giants i didnt trust that we would hold the lead. With the 2001,2003,and 2004 teams i always knew somehow we would find a way to win it. Starting with the 2006 AFC title game loss at Indy i havent trusted the defense like i did back then. I wouldnt give away anything from those years. The 20-3 playoff pounding of the invincible Colts symbolized what those years were about. Thats what i want again. Greatness on both sides of the ball.

The defense needs to be better, and this years draft was obviously addressing the glaring need. I don't know when it will turn around, but, the sooner the better.

If Welker caught the ball, or, if Gronk's ankle was better, that game was the Pats.

***Joker*** · 07-15-2012, 02:00 AM

i want everything i've ever seen on tv..and i want it now!