Patriots clinch team of the decade

[jmt57]

If the Colts or Steelers, especially the Colts, get to 3 Super Bowl wins, they'll be able to make a very legitimate argument.

Tampa Bay did do pretty well in their first year without Dungy as head coach as I recall . . .

 

[PatriotNMP43]

Just need to point out that next January 1st is 2010 and a new decade.

Count them up, there are 10 years in a decade not 11.
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009

 

[jmt57]

I don't know about anybody else, but when I think of, for example, the 2002 champion, I think of the team that won for the games played in 2002 season (Tampa Bay) and not the team that won in February of 2002 (the Pats.) And although technically the decade may be from xx01 to xx00, when I think, for example, of 'the '70's', my mind automatically registers '1970 - 1979' - and not '1971 - 1980.'

I'm pretty sure most other people around the country will think that way too, so enough with the semantics and technicalities; the decade is thought of by most people as being from 2000 - 2009. Let's leave it at that and discuss the Pats, Colts, Steelers and Giants rather than technical definitions of a term.

 

[wistahpatsfan]

I have to agree, epsecially the back to back 2003 & 2004 seasons, were as dominant I've seen a team (maybe ever). 17-2, two seasons in a row, 34-4 total, with two of the most difficult schedules. In 2004, The Pats D held the #1 offense, Indy, to 3 points (Indy was the first team ever, to score over 500 points in the regular season, and not score a TD in the playoffs). Then, in the AFCCG, to score 41 points against the #1 defense, on their field. Then they beat the #2 defense (The Eagles were tied with the Pats for #2) in the Super Bowl. One key point to remember, The Pats were without their starting CB's the whole playoffs ! People forget, the Pats had plenty of injuries in 2003 & 2004.

People don't give this Dynasty credit, but this team was amazing. 3 Super Bowl Titles, 4 Super Bowls, 5 AFC Championship Games, and so far, 7 AFC East Titles. Team of the decade indeed !

:yeahthat::woohoo::eat1:

 

[bizarroAndres]

cant forget about 18-1. and the times we didnt make the playoffs

 

[Pat the Pats Fan]

The list for team of the decade (so far) is...

1. Patriots
2. Steelers
3. Colts
4. Eagles
5. Ravens maybe?

I would not include the Ravens on the list. They have not been consistent at all. In this decade they are 83-61, making the playoffs 5 times in 9 years, including this year. The 4 years they missed, they stunk. Twice when they made the playoffs, they were one and done. Until this year, the last time they won a playoff game was in the 2001 season! From their superbowl win to the beginning of this season, that's 7 years, they made the playoffs 3 times, won 1 game, and finished sub 500, 3 times. This team consistently has produced good season, followed by a bad season, almost mirroring their schedule.

 

[Patjew]

Just need to point out that next January 1st is 2010 and a new decade.

Count them up, there are 10 years in a decade not 11.
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009

2000 is not part of the current decade, officially. This decade is Jan 1 2001 to Dec 31 2010. Decades start with year 1, there was no year 0... etc.

 

[Patjew]

And not once this decade (not counting 2000) did the Pats not at least tie for the best record in the AFCE, I think.

 

[nashvillepatsfan]

2000 is not part of the current decade, officially. This decade is Jan 1 2001 to Dec 31 2010. Decades start with year 1, there was no year 0... etc.

Thanks PJ, now i'm completely confused.

 

[CanadianPat'sFan]

Team of the Decade I think would mean Championships.

New England - 3
St. Louis - 1
Baltimore - 1
Tampa - 1
Pitt -1
Indy - 1
NY Giants - 1

I say the Pat's win with only Steelers and Ravens looking for their second SB this year of the decade. The only team that comes close has never won the big one is the Eagles who this weekend are playing in their 5th conference championship in the last 9 years.

 

[Pat the Pats Fan]

2000 is not part of the current decade, officially. This decade is Jan 1 2001 to Dec 31 2010. Decades start with year 1, there was no year 0... etc.

Welcome back Patjew......and i think this is actually similar to the discussion that came up about when the millenium started and ended. Y2K got all the hype because of the computer issues, but it wasn't the end of the 20th century. The 20th century ended when we finished the 100th year of the century, 12 31/2000.

 

[Patjew]

Thanks PJ, now i'm completely confused.

I am here to confuse everyone with my douchebagery.

 

[Patjew]

Welcome back Patjew......and i think this is actually similar to the discussion that came up about when the millenium started and ended. Y2K got all the hype because of the computer issues, but it wasn't the end of the 20th century. The 20th century ended when we finished the 100th year of the century, 12 31/2000.

Thanks.

Yeah, it's really a nerd thing to have mentioned this. But I yam what I yam.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

Welcome back Patjew......and i think this is actually similar to the discussion that came up about when the millenium started and ended. Y2K got all the hype because of the computer issues, but it wasn't the end of the 20th century. The 20th century ended when we finished the 100th year of the century, 12 31/2000.

While Pat Jews analysis has some valid points, it is not any more or less correct than saying the decade began January 1, 2000 because in fact there was no year 1 and the calender was not developed until much later.

As the vast majority of people consider the beginning of the 21st century to be 1/1/2000. And as most sports writers (ESPN, SI, AP, NFLN,etc) will most likely go with 2000-2009 as the period of discussion we should too.

 

[Patjew]

While Pat Jews analysis has some valid points, it is not any more or less correct than saying the decade began January 1, 2000 because in fact there was no year 1 and the calender was not developed until much later.

As the vast majority of people consider the beginning of the 21st century to be 1/1/2000. And as most sports writers (ESPN, SI, AP, NFLN,etc) will most likely go with 2000-2009 as the period of discussion we should too.

Perhaps, but don't forget that the Pats sucked in 2000, so our argument is stronger my way.

But I actually don't care about this argument. All I want are Super Bowls.