Curran lists 3 Patriot teams as worst teams ever in Super Bowl

[BelichickFan]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[Leave No Doubt]

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:singing:

 

[JoeSixPat]

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]

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.

 

[Deus Irae]

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.

It is when it results in piss-poor work.

 

[ScottieC]

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

They can all get together and talk about their "League Sources" about what's going on at Foxboro.

ESPN's League Sources on the Patriot's = The dude that cleans the toilets at night (or Chris Bermans Daughter, you pick).

 

[Leave No Doubt]

It is when it results in piss-poor work.

That's exactly it; most here don't seem to want continued homerism from the media and nobody minds a solid,factual critique. It's the continued misrepresentation, sensationalism,and self-serving fluff that's so aggravating imo. Too many Woodward and Bernsteins with no Deep Throats

 

[BradyFTW!]

'85 I'd probably agree with, and '96 might be a possibility, but 2001? That was a good team. Certainly better than the '04 Panthers, '03 Eagles, '00 Ravens, '00 Giants, '02 Raiders, and '07 Bears in this decade alone, just for starters (and probably more in this decade too).

 

[RDS11]

At least he could have provided the basis for his analysis. Was it the season win/lost ? Team stats ? Number of pro bowlers ? Coaches ?

He said nothing about his citeria for worst ever. The 1996 and 2001 teams were both #2 seed coming into the playoffs. So win/lost must not have been a factor for Mr Curran. The Giants were a #5 or #6 seed last year, but so were the 2005 Steelers which were not included.

The 1996 Pats team finished in the top 10 in most statistical categories. Must not be the stats either...

I guess he had to fill a column and wasn't very inspired...

 

[DaBruinz]

I am amazed at how poorly written that article is, including this glaring mistake:

But the Patriots defense got hot down the stretch. New England stunned the Steelers in the fog at Foxboro 28-3 while the Broncos were knocking Denver from the playoffs.

Denver IS the Broncos, Tom.

 

[tuckeverlasting]

even though i don't agree with the article, i'd rather be the worst teams in the super bowl than the best teams to not make it.

 

[wdkantro2]

I love how some of is evidence is actually what makes that team NOT overrated, such as saying they didn't allow anyone to score over 17 points in one game in the last 10. If you do it 10 times in a row, it's a lucky fluke? Unreal.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

It is just freakin' amazing to me how these guys get to write for national media outlets like NBC. His article is pure opinion without a single stat to be seen. It's like picking a somewhat knowledgeable, but otherwise unremarkable, fan at random and asked him/her to write about the worst SB teams ever. And, he gets paid for producing this stuff. Amazing!

 

[Double G]

He should also check his facts; he claims the Cardinals and the Rams are the only 9 win teams to get to the Super Bowl.

I'm pretty sure the NFL Champion Packers that played the AFL Champion Chiefs in the first Super Bowl were 9-4-1 that year, but I might be wrong; what do I know, I'm not a professional writer like Curran is.......