Teams with 4 consecutive winning seasons?

KontradictioN said:

Why? The competitive team didn't accomplish the ultimate goal and it was plainly obvious that the ultimate goal wasn't going to be accomplished in Week 1. If you ask me, I'd rather have the worse team and a high draft pick with the opportunity to select the next game changer than a competitive, feel good type of team that doesn't make the playoffs, gets a low draft pick, and takes Patrick Chung.

Click to expand...

Sorry - I don't agree that is was obvious that they couldn't accomplish their goal.

The 2008 Cardinals were a 9-7 team from a terrible division that was had the lead with less than 2:00 left in the Super Bowl. I don't need to remind anyone here of another 9-7 team that had no chance but broke our hearts nevertheless. Clearly those teams would not have been better off mailing it in for a draft pick.

History shows pretty clearly that if you are in the tournament, you have a chance. You play to win, you compete until you are eliminated. That's what the New England Patriots have stood for since 2001. In 2008, the team faced huge adversity and fought like hell. You may believe they never had a chance - I disagree.

Wheelman said:

As a fan I can agree a little if we were 0-10 I'd be like hell yes let's suck for Luck. But as a competitor I just can not agree to it. I wouldn't stop playing as hard as I could. I just wouldn't be able to do that.

The 2008 season wasn't like that though, so I wouldn't want the Patriots to tank. Even after we lost Brady I wasn't thinking the season was lost. That's just quitter attitude that I can't subscribe to.

Click to expand...

The season was lost, though. That team would have had a worse record if they didn't play the NFC West that year. A harder schedule and we're looking at a team that could have possibly been under .500.

KontradictioN said:

The season was lost, though. That team would have had a worse record if they didn't play the NFC West that year. A harder schedule and we're looking at a team that could have possibly been under .500.

Click to expand...

Maybe but we can never know for sure...that's why we play the game right? I'm damn proud of the 11-5 record despite playing "weaker" opponents that season.

I hate to use these guys as an example.. but the Giants were thought of as all but done in the latter half of both their recent SB wins.

They clicked at the right time, got lucky and went on a run and they just happened to be built in a way that matched up very favorably against the team they came up against in the SB.

The fuggers.

Zeus said:

Sorry - I don't agree that is was obvious that they couldn't accomplish their goal.

The 2008 Cardinals were a 9-7 team from a terrible division that was had the lead with less than 2:00 left in the Super Bowl. I don't need to remind anyone here of another 9-7 team that had no chance but broke our hearts nevertheless. Clearly those teams would not have been better off mailing it in for a draft pick.

History shows pretty clearly that if you are in the tournament, you have a chance. You play to win, you compete until you are eliminated. That's what the New England Patriots have stood for since 2001. In 2008, the team faced huge adversity and fought like hell. You may believe they never had a chance - I disagree.

Click to expand...

That Cards team and that Giants team both had franchise caliber quarterbacks. This team had a back-up that hadn't seen significant action since high school, a shot secondary (people forget this is the first year that the secondary became an ongoing issue), and an inconsistent pass rush. Anybody that was being honest with themselves knew they had little to no shot of winning it once #12 went down. It was all over the forum as well. But, as it stands, they played both the NFC and AFC West (a division that wasn't anything to write home about either) and finished with a respectable record because of it.

Zeus said:

They won 5 of their last 6. They won their last 4 in a row, 3 of which were on the road, by an aggregate score of 133-54. The beat the eventual NFC champion Arizona Cardinals 47-7. No one can say for sure how they would have fared on the playoffs, but they were playing their best football. I'd have loved to see that team in the playoffs.

Click to expand...

I agree 100% -- and the fact that I was there standing in the snow to watch them hand the Cardinals their backsides only makes it all the more of a vivid memory. As you say, no one can say for sure how the playoffs would have gone, but that was a team that was really coming good. Great memories!

KontradictioN said:

That Cards team and that Giants team both had franchise caliber quarterbacks. This team had a back-up that hadn't seen significant action since high school, a shot secondary (people forget this is the first year that the secondary became an ongoing issue), and an inconsistent pass rush. Anybody that was being honest with themselves knew they had little to no shot of winning it once #12 went down. It was all over the forum as well. But, as it stands, they played both the NFC and AFC West (a division that wasn't anything to write home about either) and finished with a respectable record because of it.

Click to expand...

The Cardinals came from the NFC West. The Patriots beat them by 40. You keep harping on the schedule which is irrelevant once you get to the playoffs. Belichick and Mayo and Wilfork and Seymour and Mankins and Welker didn't think they had no chance.

I'd be more sympathetic to your argument if they went 6-10.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

For the record, the first 6 picks in the 2009 draft were Matt Stafford, Jason Smith, Tyson Jackson, Aaron Curry, Mark Sanchez and Andre Smith. Anyone there worth tanking your season over?

KontradictioN said:

The season was lost, though. That team would have had a worse record if they didn't play the NFC West that year. A harder schedule and we're looking at a team that could have possibly been under .500.

Click to expand...

A team with Rex Grossman at the helm made the Superbowl that year. The season was not lost. Giving up before you are eliminated may be depriving oneself from the greatest of victories. The Pats didn't give up in 2001 and won the Superbowl against the "Greatest Show on Turf".

Galeb said:

A team with Rex Grossman at the helm made the Superbowl that year. The season was not lost. Giving up before you are eliminated may be depriving oneself from the greatest of victories. The Pats didn't give up in 2001 and won the Superbowl against the "Greatest Show on Turf".

Click to expand...

Superbowl XLIII

Arizona (Kurt Warner) v Pittsburgh (Ben Roethlisberger).

Or have I missed something?

Mike the Brit said:

Superbowl XLIII

Arizona (Kurt Warner) v Pittsburgh (Ben Roethlisberger).

Or have I missed something?

Click to expand...

That's embarrassing. Still though, neither of those teams was a powerhouse.

Galeb said:

That's embarrassing. Still though, neither of those teams was a powerhouse.

Click to expand...

True.

Tanking does not guarantee that your team's future would be better than if your club had competed the best they could.

Likewise, going 'all-in' for one season is not a guarantee of a championship or more success than balancing short-term and long-term goals.

Danger Zone said:

Sucking for Luck is a disservice to the fans.

We could have 24 teams who have no expectation of winning the Superbowl vying to lose the most games.

That's just a recipe for disaster imo.

Its why the current parity system of the Draft is inherently flawed in my opinion.

I am positive that there is some system that can be worked out that would give a boost to the worst teams and still offer a fair playing field to the rest.

Click to expand...

Eh, if you ask Colts fans today if they'd rather have had that humiliating season and end up with Luck, or have a heartfelt, courageous 9-7 year barely missing the playoffs and having God knows who to replace Manning, I'm almost positive a vast majority will easily live with the former.

If it weren't for Luck I normally disagree with the "okay with 1-15" crowd, but in the cases where you have a surefire prospect like Andrew Luck, we're talking about the next 10-12 years your team is likely at least going to be in the playoff hunt. Personally, I would gladly take that over one season that is 99.9% most likely going to come up short of the ultimate goal.

PATSYLICIOUS said:

Eh, if you ask Colts fans today if they'd rather have had that humiliating season and end up with Luck, or have a heartfelt, courageous 9-7 year barely missing the playoffs and having God knows who to replace Manning, I'm almost positive a vast majority will easily live with the former.

If it weren't for Luck I normally disagree with the "okay with 1-15" crowd, but in the cases where you have a surefire prospect like Andrew Luck, we're talking about the next 10-12 years your team is likely at least going to be in the playoff hunt. Personally, I would gladly take that over one season that is 99.9% most likely going to come up short of the ultimate goal.

Click to expand...

OTOH, I bet you Bill Polian would like a do-over. . . .

wizwor said:

Manning is not a team. The Pats had a winning season with Brady off the field. Injuries are part of this game and a team that wins without its top players is special. The Pats are special and the fan base is spoiled rotten.

Click to expand...

None of this has anything to do with what I said. I merely focused on the fact that an outstanding QB is needed for any such streak to happen. If people want to think that the Pats could have had thirteen winning seasons with Matt Cassell at the helm, then they are welcome too. I'm saying that you can only do it with a great QB.

Interesting factoid iterated by Michael Holley yesterday, that this "dismal team" has gone 93-30 since spygate... that is over a 76% winning percentage, which is unheard of in this day and age.

ctpatsfan77 said:

OTOH, I bet you Bill Polian would like a do-over. . . .

Click to expand...

Hey if their fans are anything near normal nowadays I bet they are happy that guy's gone too

Zeus said:

The Cardinals came from the NFC West. The Patriots beat them by 40. You keep harping on the schedule which is irrelevant once you get to the playoffs. Belichick and Mayo and Wilfork and Seymour and Mankins and Welker didn't think they had no chance.

Click to expand...

For one, the schedule isn't irrelevant since, had the Pats had a tougher schedule, they likely don't even see 11-5. For another, the Cardinals never got off the bus in that game. That much was admitted by players, analysts, and fans alike. Put them in a dome or a warm climate and the game is likely different.

I'd be more sympathetic to your argument if they went 6-10.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Click to expand...

They very well could have if they didn't have 8 games against the two worst divisions in football that year.

For the record, the first 6 picks in the 2009 draft were Matt Stafford, Jason Smith, Tyson Jackson, Aaron Curry, Mark Sanchez and Andre Smith. Anyone there worth tanking your season over?

Click to expand...

Not for Stafford but the #1 overall pick could have been traded to move down, collect more picks, and speed up the rebuilding process. Further, even if they didn't obtain #1 overall, they would have had acces to guys like Percy Harvin, Alex Mack, and Brian Orakpo... all three positions where they could have used upgrades and solid depth.

Either way, looking back, I would have much rather had a higher draft pick than a "magical" Cassel-led non-playoff season. I guess that's just me.

Galeb said:

A team with Rex Grossman at the helm made the Superbowl that year. The season was not lost. Giving up before you are eliminated may be depriving oneself from the greatest of victories. The Pats didn't give up in 2001 and won the Superbowl against the "Greatest Show on Turf".

Click to expand...

That was in 2006 and the Bears were clearly a team that was making, and going deep into, the playoffs. Brady went down in 2008 and it was clear that they were probably a middle of the pack team that season that beneffited largely from a cake schedule (something this forum loves to criticize the Broncos for) that got beaten against the better competition.

Galeb said:

That's embarrassing. Still though, neither of those teams was a powerhouse.

Click to expand...

The Cards had one of the more potent passing attacks in the NFL that year and the Steelers had one of the most dominating defenses of the 2000's in 2008.

KontradictioN said:

For one, the schedule isn't irrelevant since, had the Pats had a tougher schedule, they likely don't even see 11-5.

Click to expand...

It is irrelevant because that is the schedule they had. It doesn't matter what they're record might have been if they had a different schedule. My opinion - they were playing their best football at the end of the season. I don't think they would have been a particularly easy out.

On another note, every time I see you avatar, I can hear - "Lester, have you been a bod boy?"