Teams with 4 consecutive winning seasons?

[Wheelman]

I'm not denying the Patriots' achievement, just pointing out that I think the QB is the underlying cause behind the streak. We should consider ourselves lucky that we had Matt Cassell rather than Curtis Painter.



Firstly I wouldn't consider Brees an all time great in the same way I do Manning and Brady and secondly I'm not suggesting a great QB is the only factor in being able to establish a such a streak, clearly coaching, play calling, roster management, et al are a factor but I don't think it a coincidence that the two best QBs are the two that can claim such a streak. I very much doubt we'd have gone 13 seasons unbeaten without Brady at the helm.

You say we should consider ourselves lucky that we had Matt Cassel rather than Curtis Painter and then you point out coaching and roster management as a factor to establish such a streak. That is a bit of a contradiction.

Coaching and Roster management is why we had Matt Cassel playing and leading us to a 11-5 record in 2008. It wasn't luck. Bill Polian's arrogance and stupidity is why they had Curtis Painter and what ultimately led to his demise.

 

[Kontradiction]

Not me. If that team hadn't been squeezed out of the playoffs by the narrowest margin, they could have achieved a lot.

No they wouldn't have. They benefitted from having one of the easiest schedules in the league by a large margin that year. Any time they came up against a heavyweight, they didn't fare well. Further, since we're looking back now, unless they won the Super Bowl, then there was no point in having a successful regular season. I would have rather had Painter, watched a tank year, and watched my team obtain #1 overall.

 

[brdmaverick]

I agree...people will gripe about the Super Bowls, but even that argument shouldn't hold water.

I mean, those 13 consecutive winning seasons included 3 Super Bowl wins. What seems to be the real problem (in the eyes of the nay sayers) is finding ultimate success too early. The natural progression for teams to slowly ascend to the top and then finally get over the hurdle to win the big one. Instead, we did the opposite by having ultimate success right away and then became frustrated by 'just getting close' when in reality we should be lucky to be a good team this whole time.

 

[Danger Zone]

No they wouldn't have. They benefitted from having one of the easiest schedules in the league by a large margin that year. Any time they came up against a heavyweight, they didn't fare well. Further, since we're looking back now, unless they won the Super Bowl, then there was no point in having a successful regular season. I would have rather had Painter, watched a tank year, and watched my team obtain #1 overall.

So you think its worth tanking an entire season to move up 25 spots in Draft?

I will remember your position the next time you respond to my bi-monthly "the Patriots have drafted at the average spot of 26 for the last 14 years" argument I make to help try and explain how much I personally feel that it truly is a serious and highly insidious handicap to draft so late in every round year after year after year.

If I remember right you acknowledge the point but poopah how insidious that handicap really is.

Just my opinion, but I think the parity system of the NFL Draft is flawed... not a teams drive to be the best they can be year in and year out.

And after how interminably long this off-season was, I would hate to watch the team I love tank it just to take a chance on a number one pick.. there being no guarantee of that even.

Watch us lose twice against the Jets? Watch our players injure themselves pointlessly?

No thanks


(None of the above was meant snarkily)

 

[shmessy]

So you think its worth tanking an entire season to move up 25 spots in Draft?

I will remember your position the next time you respond to my bi-monthly "the Patriots have drafted at the average spot of 26 for the last 14 years" argument I make to help try and explain how much I personally feel that it truly is a serious and highly insidious handicap to draft so late in every round year after year after year.

If I remember right you acknowledge the point but poopah how insidious that handicap really is.

Just my opinion, but I think the parity system of the NFL Draft is flawed... not a teams drive to be the best they can be year in and year out.

And after how interminably long this off-season was, I would hate to watch the team I love tank it just to take a chance on a number one pick.. there being no guarantee of that even.

Watch us lose twice against the Jets? Watch our players injure themselves pointlessly?

No thanks


(None of the above was meant snarkily)

Plus, I haven't seen the Luck Colts make it to any AFCC Game yet. It's not like the Colts have seen any payoff yet. In the meantime, Manning has been to one and Brady has been to two during the same period.

 

[Mike the Brit]

No they wouldn't have. They benefitted from having one of the easiest schedules in the league by a large margin that year. Any time they came up against a heavyweight, they didn't fare well. Further, since we're looking back now, unless they won the Super Bowl, then there was no point in having a successful regular season. I would have rather had Painter, watched a tank year, and watched my team obtain #1 overall.

My memory of that season is that they were on a clear upward trajectory and that, by the end of the season, they were a tight, cohesive and well-prepared team. If only the Jets hadn't screwed them and left them on the wrong end of a tight tie-breaker I think we'd have been pleasantly surprised. Just my opinion.

 

[Kontradiction]

So you think its worth tanking an entire season to move up 25 spots in Draft?

If you don't have a shot at the Super Bowl anyway... yes. That team didn't. All they accomplished by beating up on the Little Sisters of the Poor was hurting their draft stock when there were some damn good players higher up the rung that could have helped. Instead, they ended up trading down for the privilege of selecting Patrick Chung.

And after how interminably long this off-season was, I would hate to watch the team I love tank it just to take a chance on a number one pick.. there being no guarantee of that even.

The quote that I responded to was in regard to having Cassel instead of Curtis Painter. With Painter at the helm, the Colts had the #1 overall pick. With Cassel at the helm, we had a useless season in which we failed to accomplish the goal we set out to accomplish pre-season. Either way, the season is a waste if you ask me.

Watch us lose twice against the Jets?

Who cares? The season was lost the moment #12 went down anyway.

 

[Kontradiction]

My memory of that season is that they were on a clear upward trajectory and that, by the end of the season, they were a tight, cohesive and well-prepared team. If only the Jets hadn't screwed them and left them on the wrong end of a tight tie-breaker I think we'd have been pleasantly surprised. Just my opinion.

They probably would have made it to the divisional round before they were bounced. They feasted on weaker teams as well as the NFCW which was, at the time, the worst division in football.

 

[Danger Zone]

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.

 

[patfanken]

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.

I'mh fine with letting the worst teams get the top picks in the first round. However it would be much fairer if the order were reversed in the even numbered rounds. In other words the team that picks last in the first, gets the first pick in the 2nd and so on....

 

[patfanken]

Correct. Just two teams in the NFL have four consecutive winning seasons. The Pats have thirteen consecutive winning seasons.

I think that's why I get so aggravated with the home-town negativity.

I just ywish someone would point this out to Correy Williams, ESPN, PFT, and all the other media pukes and haters who continually keep on perpetuating the myth that by not winning a superbowl in 10 years somehow corroborates the fact that the Pats had to cheat to win the 3 superbowls. What makes it even MORE irritating to me is the idiots who fail to recognize that what the Pats were punished for in 2007 was perfectly legal in 2001, 2003, and 2004.

Again I call for Bob Kraft to start to defend his team against this kind of "Big Lie" attacks. If he doesn't want to do it to protect his own teams' brand, he should do it, so his fans don't constantly have to. Frankly I'm tired of it.

 

[Danger Zone]

I'mh fine with letting the worst teams get the top picks in the first round. However it would be much fairer if the order were reversed in the even numbered rounds. In other words the team that picks last in the first, gets the first pick in the 2nd and so on....

I really like that idea.

1. Still gives the worst teams the first shot at the elite difference makers.
2. And still rewards teams for doing well... making it to the Superbowl etc.

 

[Kontradiction]

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 put worked out that would give a boost to the worst teams and still offer a fair playing field to the rest.

I don't think it's a disservice to the fans if you end up drafting the next great franchise quarterback because you decided to mail it in when it became obvious that there was no shot at the Lombardi.

 

[Zeus]

No they wouldn't have. They benefitted from having one of the easiest schedules in the league by a large margin that year. Any time they came up against a heavyweight, they didn't fare well. Further, since we're looking back now, unless they won the Super Bowl, then there was no point in having a successful regular season. I would have rather had Painter, watched a tank year, and watched my team obtain #1 overall.

My memory of that season is that they were on a clear upward trajectory and that, by the end of the season, they were a tight, cohesive and well-prepared team. If only the Jets hadn't screwed them and left them on the wrong end of a tight tie-breaker I think we'd have been pleasantly surprised. Just my opinion.

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.

I'll take the competitive team any day over the team that lays down like beaten dogs and quits for a whole season. That Polian and the Colts were eventually rewarded for this is nothing short of a travesty It's the Colts who were cheaters - they cheated their fans and they cheated the game of football.

 

[Kontradiction]

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.

I'll take the competitive team any day over the team that lays down like beaten dogs and quits for a whole season. That Polian and the Colts were eventually rewarded for this is nothing short of a travesty.

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.

 

[Wheelman]

Kontra, let me ask you this. If you were a player would you tank the season if you lost your best player? I think the answer would most certainly be no. So why expect the team to tank or hope for it?

 

[Kontradiction]

Kontra, let me ask you this. If you were a player would you tank the season if you lost your best player? I think the answer would most certainly be no. So why expect the team to tank or hope for it?

I wouldn't give maximum effort if the team sucked. I don't think a single bad team, including the Colts, had a meeting and said "hey, let's tank the season". I'm sure it didn't go like that. But I'd bet the rest of the team more or less didn't give anything approaching full effort once it became obvious that they were going to fall woefully short of the prize. Nevertheless, hindsight being 20/20, I still would have rather undergone a season with Painter with a high draft pick than to watch a feel good story with Cassel, no playoff appearance, and a low draft pick. I suspect most would agree with that stance but won't admit it, for whatever reason.

 

[wizwor]

Discounting the year he missed, Peyton Manning has 11 consecutive years of QB'ing a team to a winning record. Not trying to put a downer on the Pats achievement but I think the value of having an NFL great QB on the roster can't be understated.

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.

 

[Wheelman]

I wouldn't give maximum effort if the team sucked. I don't think a single bad team, including the Colts, had a meeting and said "hey, let's tank the season". I'm sure it didn't go like that. But I'd bet the rest of the team more or less didn't give anything approaching full effort once it became obvious that they were going to fall woefully short of the prize. Nevertheless, hindsight being 20/20, I still would have rather undergone a season with Painter with a high draft pick than to watch a feel good story with Cassel, no playoff appearance, and a low draft pick. I suspect most would agree with that stance but won't admit it, for whatever reason.

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.

 

[Danger Zone]

http://cleveland.cbslocal.com/2014/04/25/is-there-such-as-thing-as-a-safe-pick-in-the-nfl-draft/

You are taking a pretty substantial chance to even attempt to tank a season for the #1 spot. Other teams might just suck worse or be better at sucking.. case in point: the Jets

And even with the number one pick.. you are still looking at a 15% to 30% window of "busts" and "average" quarterbacks..

What happens when that sure-fire qb comes up average..or a bust?

Its not worth the risk.