Back to the original question for a moment before returning to George and Gracie:
I wouldn't use the word "redeem" myself, but let's skip that for now. As has been debated in other threads, the Pats should go down as the team of the decade, even if the Steelers do win the Super Bowl this year. However, with both teams having won the same number of championships this decade if that does occur, it obviously makes it far less clear cut. A fourth Super Bowl victory in the decade not only seals the deal and eliminates any doubt, but it would also place the Pats of the 2000's among the best "team of the decade" in NFL history.
Although it seems to hold true in the court of public opinion, I don't understand why a Super Bowl loss tarnishes a team's reputation. Why is it that in many people's minds that ending the season earlier in the playoffs - or not making the playoffs at all - is better than losing in the Super Bowl? This is not something new; people used to get down on the Vikings, the Broncos and the Bills for their Super Bowl losses. Now some people act like the Pats loss makes three wins less impressive than two wins, or even teams with one win this decade. Three wins > two wins; four appearnces > two appearances.
An extra benefit that would be provided is that the "haven't won anything since 2004" and "can't win without spying" crowd would be quieted down - at least until they came up with another excuse. The flip side to that unfortunately is that anything less will be used as "proof" by the haters that the Pats of this decade weren't all that great, they were chokers, and couldn't win without cheating. Whether it be this year or somewhere down the road, another BB/Brady Super Bowl win is going to be needed to get those folks to STFU.