Welcome to PatsFans.com

Three Super Bowl wins vs two Super Bowl loses

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by festy1986, Sep 19, 2013.

?

What would you rather have?

  1. Three superbowl wins

    29 vote(s)
    93.5%
  2. Two Super Bowl loses, including the perfect season.

    2 vote(s)
    6.5%
  1. festy1986

    festy1986 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    Messages:
    652
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    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
  2. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ~~~Out of Order~~~ PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    36,491
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +24 / 1 / -0

    #87 Jersey

    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.
  3. fnordcircle

    fnordcircle tfw not enough helmets PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    3,416
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +13 / 2 / -4

    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.
  4. PatsFanJess

    PatsFanJess Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2008
    Messages:
    1,495
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    More SB wins= better
  5. oldrover

    oldrover Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,070
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

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

    Wax Frog Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Messages:
    2,576
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

  7. TommyBrady12

    TommyBrady12 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2008
    Messages:
    3,329
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -1

    Not sure i get this poll :confused:

    Edit: never mind, but the poll is written confusing
  8. festy1986

    festy1986 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    Messages:
    652
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    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.
  9. JoeSixPat

    JoeSixPat Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    9,798
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +24 / 0 / -0

    :wha:


    :confused:


    :idontgetit:


    :confused2:


    :crazy:


    :popcorn:
  10. Armchair Quarterback

    Armchair Quarterback Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2009
    Messages:
    2,542
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    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.
  11. LuRkeR1978

    LuRkeR1978 Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2005
    Messages:
    126
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    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.
  12. JoeSixPat

    JoeSixPat Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    9,798
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +24 / 0 / -0

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

    The answer is still no 3 is still better than 2
  13. upstater1

    upstater1 Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    12,926
    Likes Received:
    9
    Ratings:
    +9 / 0 / -0

    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.
  14. Froob

    Froob Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    4,822
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    #32 Jersey

    I want 53 championships.
  15. Brady6

    Brady6 Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2013
    Messages:
    7,680
    Likes Received:
    27
    Ratings:
    +29 / 6 / -2

    #12 Jersey

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

    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?
  16. the Patriot

    the Patriot Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2007
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    3 Super Bowls. Duh! :rolleyes:
  17. ausbacker

    ausbacker Brady > Manning. PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2008
    Messages:
    12,962
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +22 / 0 / -0

    #51 Jersey

    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.
  18. doesntmatter1

    doesntmatter1 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Messages:
    933
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +12 / 0 / -0

    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.
  19. patsfan-1982

    patsfan-1982 Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,016
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    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
  20. PATRlOT

    PATRlOT Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2013
    Messages:
    1,100
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    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...
  21. fnordcircle

    fnordcircle tfw not enough helmets PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    3,416
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +13 / 2 / -4

    Oh, ok, makes more sense.

    Also, UGH, tough question. Because I don't want to give up that SB against the Rams but 17-0 and a SB win would have been sweet.

    Guess I'm gonna go with 2 SB wins and an undefeated season because there will be 50 more super bowl champions over the next 50 years but possibly no other undefeated championship teams.
  22. Ozymandias

    Ozymandias Rookie

    Joined:
    May 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,419
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Last I checked 3 > 2.
  23. stcjones

    stcjones Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,640
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    Lets see here...this is a tough one.......

    1) Have amazing sex with a Victoria Secret Lingerie model for 3 days straight......OR

    2) Get repeatedly kicked in the nuts over and over and over again for an eternity by an 80 year old woman with poor hygiene dressed only in an Eli Manning shirt..........

    Wow.....that is a tough one....let me think about this here......:)
  24. PATSNUTme

    PATSNUTme Paranoid Homer Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2005
    Messages:
    15,133
    Likes Received:
    27
    Ratings:
    +30 / 0 / -0

    #75 Jersey

    I loved them all. It hurt to lose the 2 but getting there was a blast.
    [​IMG]
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2013
  25. MassPats38

    MassPats38 PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,973
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    That losing scenario would have worked well with the "hard luck" Red Sox mentality in place until 2004, and I would suspect the fan base here would be very different. If the Pats lost 2001, 2003 and 2004, then they would be the AFC equivalent of the Eagles. I suspect many of the "championship or nothing" posters would not be here, replaced by the morose "they'll never win it all" posters. But without a winning history prior to 2004, the Pats would likely not attract free agent talent, would probably have a harder time being stingy in contracts, and Brady likely would not be more than a Donovan McNabb. After 3 losses, BB may not be with the Pats now, as ownership would have to consider if he is like the Tampa Bay Dungy, and new blood is needed to push the team to a title.

    So I do believe you could not have the last two without the first 3 wins. Having watched for such a long time without those wins, and having watched that 1985 beatdown by the Bears, and a 1996 loss that gave fans hope that the Pats might win, I can accept that a conference championship is an accomplishment in itself and a season is not considered a failure by a fan if your team doesn't win it all. I hated 2007 because of the scandal garbage, not really because of the loss (although I would have enjoyed seeing an end to the annual champagne swilling Golden Girls party in Miami with Mercury Morris). Would have loved to see the Pats get the rings against the Giants, but I liked the fact the Pats had a chance to win in the last drives both years, and even the average NFL fan would call those great, competitive games. Strangely, I was not despondent after the last two losses in the title game, and took the losses to the Ravens, Jets and Colts in the playoffs far worse than those losses.
  26. borg

    borg Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2004
    Messages:
    3,712
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    I'm going alter the premise and rank the 5 BB/TB SB years in order of most importance to me personally
    1) 2001 ...losing your virginity is A#1
    2) 2007.......what should have been a house warming party on top of Mount Olympus, on a cliff looking at down on Don Shula and Mercury Morris
    3) 2004......The best Pats team ever. This team has never achieved the historical respect that I always felt they deserved....playing Philadelphia in Jacksonville....yawn....with the opposing QB puking. I put the '04 Pats in the same category as the '85-'86 Celtics. That Celtic team (15-3 in the playoffs) was the best NBA team of that era but because they played the Rockets in the finals instead of the Lakers, their absolute greatness was never measured fairly.
    4) 2003......verification/legitimization.....the Pats are a force, not a one hit wonder.
    5) 2011.....unexpected surprise...but team deficiencies get exploited. I felt very little pain from that loss which surprised me. My youngest cried for days though.
  27. PATSYLICIOUS

    PATSYLICIOUS Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    10,960
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    #12 Jersey

    2007 makes it a legit question I think. 19-0 means you are undoubtedly the best over one season and something which was never done, likely never will be duplicated so I think it's unfair to rip the OP.

    I'd still say no though. Without the first 3 super bowls there's no universal jealousy that makes those titles any sweeter. 2004 there was plenty of it and even in 2003 there was a little. As there will be even more now if we make it back.

Share This Page