Three Super Bowl wins vs two Super Bowl loses

[festy1986]

So I was thinking from a previous post I made in another thread about this. Maybe this question has been posed before but I didn't see it. Now I admit its a dumb question but it may have its merits for some.

Would you rather of won the two super bowls we lost, and most recent appearance, one of which included a perfect season or would you rather be the winners of the three we did win. It's one more Super Bowl win but all of them are approaching 10 years old.

As much as I hate that we lost the perfect season, I feel having one more Super Bowl and Brady with 3 being too good to trade

Of course the easy answer is I'd rather we have 5. 7 if you include the two times we lost the afc champ

 

[IcyPatriot]

Hopefully not trending off topic but I would have loved to have a healthy Welker and a healthy Gronk and Belichick and Brady wearing 5 rings.

 

[fnordcircle]

This poll is basically -

Which would you rather:

[_] Bang the 3 hottest chicks in the world
[_] Sit in the room while someone else bangs the 2 hottest chicks in the world.

 

[PatsFanJess]

More SB wins= better

 

[oldrover]

Which would I rather have: something, or almost something? Gee...

 

[Wax Frog]

reopen old wounds - Idioms - by the Free Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

:nono:

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Not sure i get this poll

Edit: never mind, but the poll is written confusing

 

[festy1986]

Yea my bad, written on my iPhone and obviously did not proof read.

What I MEANT to ask was you you trade the three wins into loses if you could have the two loses be wins.

Like I said, it's really a silly question. I know I'd rather not of lost the first 3 and win the last two personally but some of the fans certainly had a high emphasis on perfect season and such.

 

[JoeSixPat]

:wha:





:idontgetit:


:confused2:


:crazy:


opcorn:

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

Wins are better than losses, so I have to vote for the wins.


If you meant to say have the two losses be wins which would include an unbeaten season, I'd still say 3.

Actually F that, I want all 5 - no all 7 be wins.

 

[LuRkeR1978]

I believe that without the first 3 SB wins, the next 2 appearances don't happen.

BB's reputation was shaky coming in, in 2000. The only reason his coaching style survived in NE is because of 2001. If the tuck rule doesn't exist, there is no dynasty. The 2002 team wasn't as good as 01, and maybe Rodney doesn't sign in 2003. Branch doesn't become SB39 MVP and leaves, to open the door for WWW, and Moss.

So many things had fell into place for that insane run from 01-04, we may just never see something like it again, with any team.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Yea my bad, written on my iPhone and obviously did not proof read.

What I MEANT to ask was you you trade the three wins into loses if you could have the two loses be wins.

Like I said, it's really a silly question. I know I'd rather not of lost the first 3 and win the last two personally but some of the fans certainly had a high emphasis on perfect season and such.

OK - now I get it - sorry 'bout the smilies above.

The answer is still no 3 is still better than 2

 

[upstater1]

First of all, half the fans on this board would be dead from suicide.

We lived through 1976, 1978, 1986, 1996, and you want to throw 3 Super Bowl losses in 2001, 2003, 2004, a Brady pick against Denver in the 2005 playoffs, a meltdown and ref bag job against the Colts in the 2006 AFC CG into the mix?

If that's what you're asking, 9 years when you have a chance to win it all and you crap the bed, we'd all be dead.

But that 10th year of 19-0 would have made the Red Sox 8 or 9 decade drought look like nothing. There would have been a huge explosion. I think Boston would have been destroyed if the Patriots had lost 5 Super Bowls and then gone 19-0.

 

[Froob]

I want 53 championships.

 

[Brady6]

Re: Re: Three Super Bowl wins vs two Super Bowl loses

So I was thinking from a previous post I made in another thread about this. Maybe this question has been posed before but I didn't see it. Now I admit its a dumb question but it may have its merits for some.

Would you rather of won the two super bowls we lost, and most recent appearance, one of which included a perfect season or would you rather be the winners of the three we did win. It's one more Super Bowl win but all of them are approaching 10 years old.

As much as I hate that we lost the perfect season, I feel having one more Super Bowl and Brady with 3 being too good to trade

Of course the easy answer is I'd rather we have 5. 7 if you include the two times we lost the afc champ

So basically I think the real question you're attempting to ask is would we rather have 2 SB wins and a perfect season or 3 SB wins and no perfect season. Is that the correct way to view it?

 

[the Patriot]

3 Super Bowls. Duh!

 

[ausbacker]

In my opinion, 3 Super Bowls is better than 2 Super Bowls including a perfect season. That said, the Patriots beat themselves in those 2 losses so it's a moot point.

 

[doesntmatter1]

I've got a better solution. Use my fancy time machine and go back in time to kick archie manning in the balls. No Peyton and Eli=3 more rings.

 

[patsfan-1982]

if they don't win the 3 SB's in Brady's first 5 years in the NFL dose he become the house hold name and super star he is today ? and if brady has 0 ring until 2007 dose BB go out and get Brady Moss and welker for him if he has not shown he can win the big one is BB still the HC if there are now SB wins.


bottom line is if brady dose not win in 2001 Bledsoe dose not get traded and BB ends up with Cleveland 2.0 and dose not even make it to coach the pats in 2007 so ill take the 3 SB's

 

[PATRlOT]

I'd rather lose in 2004 in exchange for a win in 2007 (undefeated)

Still 3 wins.

I know that's not what you're asking but still...