Three Super Bowl wins vs two Super Bowl loses

[fnordcircle]

What I MEANT to ask was you you trade the three wins into loses if you could have the two loses be wins

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.

 

[Ozymandias]

Last I checked 3 > 2.

 

[stcjones]

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......

 

[PATSNUTme]

I loved them all. It hurt to lose the 2 but getting there was a blast.

 

[MassPats38]

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.

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.

 

[borg]

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.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

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.