Hypothetical: Would you trade the first 3 SBs for the last 2?

[NSPF]

The Patriots three Superbowls in 4 seasons puts them in a dynasty discussion. The Patriots level of success in the 00's further emphasises that.

Feel free to argue semantics all you like. Three will always be greater than two. The reality is the 2007/2008 and the 2011/2012 Patriots were not good enough to win a Superbowl and don't deserve discussion compared against Patriots teams who were good enough to win the Superbowl.

I don't disagree, all I was saying is that all Super Bowl champions are not equal.

 

[Lifer]

In both the Super Bowls with the Giants i didnt trust that we would hold the lead. With the 2001,2003,and 2004 teams i always knew somehow we would find a way to win it. Starting with the 2006 AFC title game loss at Indy i havent trusted the defense like i did back then. I wouldnt give away anything from those years. The 20-3 playoff pounding of the invincible Colts symbolized what those years were about. Thats what i want again. Greatness on both sides of the ball.

 

[BaltimorePatsFan]

The losses sting a LOT and 19-0 would have been amazing, but then again the Pats dynasty, while it lasted, had its fair share of unbelievable moments as well.

Like, the 03 season was pure magic and was a season that truly defines the term "destiny's team." The OT victory in Miami? The last second goal line stand against Indy? The 31-0 thrashing of the Bills in week 17 that completed the full circle? Of course, what about Super Bowl 38 itself?

Yes, SB42 was bad (this year's not so much because most people picked the Giants to begin with), but honestly I'm not sure if I'd trade the first 3 SBs for the bragging rights of 19-0.

 

[ausbacker]

This is assuming all Super Bowls are the same. Super Bowl 42 would have been the most remembered game won by the greatest team of all time.

Our SB wins from 2001, 2003, and 2004 blend in with about 40+ other games.
SB 42 was for immortality.

I'm not denying SB42 would have been a historic victory for the ages however, the Patriots had their opportunity to win 42 and failed.

Imagine walking up to any one of the 36,38,39 winners and saying thanks for the effort but I would have preferred if the 42 squad was given your Superbowl immortality or not.

No thanks.

 

[ausbacker]

I don't disagree, all I was saying is that all Super Bowl champions are not equal.

I'm not disagreeing with that point I'm suggesting that the collective effort of 36 through 39 is dynastic and deserves collective appraisal rather than individual assessment.

That's why I wouldn't trade any one of the three for one of the two losses.

 

[NSPF]

I'm not disagreeing with that point I'm suggesting that the collective effort of 36 through 39 is dynastic and deserves collective appraisal rather than individual assessment.

That's why I wouldn't trade any one of the three for one of the two losses.

I didn't suggest otherwise, and made that point originally. It's not three Super Bowls, it's three Super Bowls in four years, which is far more impressive. Despite this, an undefeated season still obviously deserves some pretty special consideration. Greatest single team ever vs. greatest four year stretch ever.

I can absolutely understand if you would take sustained greatness over being the greatest. I just took slight offense to you claiming that "There is no reasonable opinion that can be put forth to exchange 3 for 2."

 

[ausbacker]

I didn't suggest otherwise, and made that point originally. It's not three Super Bowls, it's three Super Bowls in four years, which is far more impressive. Despite this, an undefeated season still obviously deserves some pretty special consideration. Greatest single team ever vs. greatest four year stretch ever.

I can absolutely understand if you would take sustained greatness over being the greatest. I just took slight offense to you claiming that "There is no reasonable opinion that can be put forth to exchange 3 for 2."

There is no reasonable opinion when discussing two against three. That's not an offensive comment it's a fact.

 

[NSPF]

There is no reasonable opinion when discussing two against three. That's not an offensive comment it's a fact.

Ah, you see, this is how you get people angry and turn an otherwise reasonable thread into a flame war. Dismiss all points of view other than your own.

As you admitted earlier, not all Super Bowls champions are equal. Therefore, two can be greater than three, the same way two quarters is more than three nickels. Now, you can debate how much each Super Bowl was worth all you want, and for you I understand that you value the first three as much or more than you would have the latter ones, but you have to at least attempt to support that viewpoint instead of just saying "3 > 2 herp derp."

I even agree with you. I would take the first three over the last two. But you're just being ignorant if you refuse to even accept the opposing viewpoint as a reasonable stance. And if you can't see understand this, well, have you ever considered a career in politics?

 

[LetsGoBuffalo]

Totally with Ausbacker on this. Come on guys. Your team has been to seven freakin' super bowls. Five in the last decade. Ya win some, ya lose some.

Take your 3 Lombardis in 4 years and enjoy them.

 

[Claremonster]

In both the Super Bowls with the Giants i didnt trust that we would hold the lead. With the 2001,2003,and 2004 teams i always knew somehow we would find a way to win it. Starting with the 2006 AFC title game loss at Indy i havent trusted the defense like i did back then. I wouldnt give away anything from those years. The 20-3 playoff pounding of the invincible Colts symbolized what those years were about. Thats what i want again. Greatness on both sides of the ball.

The defense needs to be better, and this years draft was obviously addressing the glaring need. I don't know when it will turn around, but, the sooner the better.

If Welker caught the ball, or, if Gronk's ankle was better, that game was the Pats.

 

[Joker]

i want everything i've ever seen on tv..and i want it now!

 

[Claremonster]

This thread is pointless and only makes me pissed off.

 

[ausbacker]

Ah, you see, this is how you get people angry and turn an otherwise reasonable thread into a flame war. Dismiss all points of view other than your own.

As you admitted earlier, not all Super Bowls champions are equal. Therefore, two can be greater than three, the same way two quarters is more than three nickels. Now, you can debate how much each Super Bowl was worth all you want, and for you I understand that you value the first three as much or more than you would have the latter ones, but you have to at least attempt to support that viewpoint instead of just saying "3 > 2 herp derp."

I even agree with you. I would take the first three over the last two. But you're just being ignorant if you refuse to even accept the opposing viewpoint as a reasonable stance. And if you can't see understand this, well, have you ever considered a career in politics?

NSPF you can argue all you like but if I give a child the choice between 2 lollies or 3 lollies of the same brand 99.9% of the time the children are going to take the 3 lollies.

I understand your point of view and have put forward many different reasons as to why it's invalid. Either way, this thread wouldn't be in existence if both teams had executed. That annoys me more than anything else, missed opportunities for all time status.

 

[Pessimistic Pete]

Keep in mind, your team won 3 of 4 at one point. Who cares about losses? 3 0f 4 is dynastic.

So did the 90's Cowboys, though. 19-0 would be unprecedented.

Again, clearly not "complaining" here, as this is on par with a billionaire choosing between yachts, but I just feel it's an interesting discussion.

if I give a child the choice between 2 lollies or 3 lollies of the same brand 99.9% of the time the children are going to take the 3 lollies.

These SBs weren't of the same "brand".

Are you saying if the 2007 Patriots would have won the SB they would be no different than the 2002 Bucs, seeing as how you feel all that matters is the bottom line of a SB title?

As said, someone wins a Super Bowl every season. 19-0 would have been the GREATEST ACHIEVEMENT IN NFL HISTORY. Period. It would not even be arguable. The greatest team of all-time, the benchmark for excellence. The ultimate model of PERFECTION at the highest level in the country's biggest sport.

We would have the right to say the 2007 Patriots were the greatest team in NFL history and no one would argue that. Not only were they perfect, they dominated the majority of the way. They would have even beat 8/12 playoff teams (seed #1 Cowboys, #2 Colts, #3 Chargers (x2), #4 Steelers, #5 Giants (x2), #5 Jaguars, #6 Redskins)

 

[ausbacker]

These SBs weren't of the same "brand".

Yes, they are.

Are you saying if the 2007 Patriots would have won the SB they would be no different than the 2002 Bucs, seeing as how you feel all that matters is the bottom line of a SB title?

It doesn't matter because the 2007 Patriots weren't good enough to win the title on the day.

As said, someone wins a Super Bowl every season. 19-0 would have been the GREATEST ACHIEVEMENT IN NFL HISTORY. Period. It would not even be arguable. The greatest team of all-time, the benchmark for excellence. The ultimate model of PERFECTION at the highest level in the country's biggest sport.

The 2007 Patriots weren't good enough to win the title on the day. Everything you propose is hypothetical and matters for naught thanks to the loss.

We would have the right to say the 2007 Patriots were the greatest team in NFL history and no one would argue that. Not only were they perfect, they dominated the majority of the way. They would have even beat 8/12 playoff teams (seed #1 Cowboys, #2 Colts, #3 Chargers (x2), #4 Steelers, #5 Giants (x2), #5 Jaguars, #6 Redskins)

We would, had the Patriots won. They didn't.

 

[PittPatriot]

Besides us on Patsfans, no one recalls or cares about the 2004 Pats. All they remember is "The Patriots won a few SBs in the early 2000s."

Whenever greatest teams are discussed, people talk about the 85 Bears or the 72 Dolphins…no one even mentions the 2001, 2003 or 2004 Pats.
The 2007 team would have been 1 and 1a with the 85 Bears. There would be repeated talk of "could the Bears D stop the Pats O?"
So yes, I would trade 2007 and 2011 for the other 3.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Only fans of a team that has been as succesful as the Pats have been recently could ask such a question.

I would never, ever, trade in a SB win for "future success". Ever. Regardless of how those SB wins were decided.

Keep in mind, your team won 3 of 4 at one point. Who cares about losses? 3 0f 4 is dynastic. You guys have been able to wake up on SB Sunday 5 times in the last 11 years with something to cheer for that day.

Take it from a Bills fan. You never trade away a SB win nor do you take getting there for granted.

Well said. There is no doubt that it is easy for Pats Fans to forget how good we have had it since 2001 and how fragile it can all be.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

still surprised this thread is still going

Training Camp and the Olympics haven't started. We're predictable.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

This is assuming all Super Bowls are the same. Super Bowl 42 would have been the most remembered game won by the greatest team of all time.

Our SB wins from 2001, 2003, and 2004 blend in with about 40+ other games.
SB 42 was for immortality.

This is all just a "Hypothetical wrapped in a 'Maybe' wrapped in a 'What If.'"

We have no idea how the Pats would have evolved if they hadn't won those three Super Bowls.

Would Moss have ever even joined the team?
Would Welker have come to play here for minimum wage?
Would Brady have evolved into the leader and champion he became?
Would players have taken haircuts on contracts to make room for others just so they could play with Belichick and Brady on a Champion?
Would Belichick even have stuck around after the drubbing he would have taken in the media and from the fans if the Pats had lost three trips to the SB in four years or would he have resigned as "HC of the NEP" and moved on to a friendlier venue?

Who knows? Maybe? Maybe not?

The 2007 team and attempt are intrinsically connected to what happened earlier in the decade. Talking about that team and that game outside of the context of the earlier wins is just meaningless.

 

[BradyManny]

There's a lot of reasons to dwell on those losses as Patriot fans - and believe me, this guy does.

But in hindsight, people hugely overrate what 19-0 would've meant.

Look at the perfect season Dolphins. They became a caricature of a team, and we look back on them with so little respect. They are unanimously mocked by the sporting community at this point, and as a result, their achievement is almost largely ignored.

19-0 is like throwing a no hitter or a perfect game. For the good players, it doesn't really add to the resume any more or less than a W. We could go 8-8, make the playoffs and win ring #4, and it wouldn't feel any less special.