Your Super Bowl Champion NE Patriots

[PatsFanInVa]

It's off-season, and having a big-ass scandal involving the team is a natural inflection point as we head into next year.

But part of me wants to remind me -- and everybody else -- that the New England Patriots are the finest football team on the face of the planet, once again, and are recognized as such by everybody -- the NFL* included.

So yeah I'm kinda waiting for the Brady appeal thing blah blah blah... but when do they unveil the ring?

(Somebody should make a fortune by selling replicas of all 4 made out of stainless steel and glass and selling them for a couple hundred bucks each. I guess anybody except the team itself could do this and have fans gobble 'em up. With the present sentiment toward the team... ehhhh maybe not so much.)

Sorry for the side-track, but say it with me, for anybody who feels like it's "tainted" or "ruint" or something...

World Champion New England Patriots.

Ahhhhhhh that feels better.

 

[RayClay]

We are the champions of the world and the rest can stuff it.

In the old days, a great season was assumed to end by the coach leaving before the season's over, distracting the team (who had never won and didn't have overwhelming confidence) therefore leaving the question "what if."

Then, the league was competently run and you only had to worry about playing football.

We've got a great owner, coach/gm and quarterback in a diseased league and we are the best.

 

[Rawky77]

It's off-season, and having a big-ass scandal involving the team is a natural inflection point as we head into next year.

But part of me wants to remind me -- and everybody else -- that the New England Patriots are the finest football team on the face of the planet, once again, and are recognized as such by everybody -- the NFL* included.

So yeah I'm kinda waiting for the Brady appeal thing blah blah blah... but when do they unveil the ring?

(Somebody should make a fortune by selling replicas of all 4 made out of stainless steel and glass and selling them for a couple hundred bucks each. I guess anybody except the team itself could do this and have fans gobble 'em up. With the present sentiment toward the team... ehhhh maybe not so much.)

Sorry for the side-track, but say it with me, for anybody who feels like it's "tainted" or "ruint" or something...

World Champion New England Patriots.

Ahhhhhhh that feels better.

The rest of the Fans can call us arrogant and those who are just Haters can even say we are Cheaters but what none of them can ever call us is what they all are LOSERS!!! GO PATS

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Two more consecutive Super Bowls please...

And with an astrerisk next to the words "Super Bowl*"

*Despite the efforts of the NFL** to ensure the Patriots would not win

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Tribute to the AFCCG:

 

[Ring 6]

We are the champions of the world and the rest can stuff it.

In the old days, a great season was assumed to end by the coach leaving before the season's over, distracting the team (who had never won and didn't have overwhelming confidence) therefore leaving the question "what if."

Then, the league was competently run and you only had to worry about playing football.

We've got a great owner, coach/gm and quarterback in a diseased league and we are the best.

One glaring error in your post.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

By the way, my Pats-homer view of dynasties:

First of all, I am not going to get into the Akron Pros vs. the Decatur Staleys' claims to the 1920 championship or anything. I'm going from the merger-straddling Packers onward. That said:

1. SF 49ers. SB Victories 1980; 1981; 1984; 1988; 1989; 1994. I'm stretching their legacy to 94, hell, that's about the length of times the Pats are talking about. 6 SB wins; NFCCG Appearances/losses in 1983, 1992; 1993. So if you set the bar at "competing for the conference championship," 9 appearances (as w/2000s Patrriots). If you set the bar at "won SB", Well, we're just 2 behind, that's all there is to it.
penalty factors: Not fully evolved free-agency + Salary cap era if I have this part right; Just ignored the salary cap part; stickum, but why get picky. League talent heavily concentrated in NFC.

2. NE Patriots, 2001-present. Similar to San Francisco 49ers (above) but there's time. Comparing across eras has pitfalls, but the pitfalls stacked against the Pats will only be clear with the passage of time. The rules have changed to favor a rotation of championships rather than dynasty formation. The Pats formed one anyway. Domination over a 32-team league. Claims to fame:
- 4 SB victories
- 6 AFC Championships (AKA, 2 SB losses; 3 if you stretch back pre-Brady to '96, but why?) Total 9 AFC Championship appearances. (2006; 2012; 2013 lost the AFCCG).
- 2007: Only undefeated regular season in 16-game format. Pity about that Gintz game.
Since 2001, Patriots have made the playoffs every year since Brady/BB have been together, except 2002 - and BB won 11 games with Cassel in 08. A 14-year stretch where the team made the playoffs 12 times, the AFCCG 9, the SB 6, and the SB victory 4 times.

3. GB, 1961-62, 1965-1967. GB won the NFL* championship in a 14-team league in 1961, 1962, 1965.
In 1966-67, they won SB I and II. "Woulda coulda shoulda" won SB -1 if they played it in '65, so it gives people the impression of a "threepeat" - which it was, in NFL* terms (not counting the AFL). With the AFL included, they began to play in a pool diluted roughly to present-day proportions. Still the most impressive stretch of NFL dominance - in many "off years" thereabouts they were in the thick of it (e.g., 1960, barely missed an NFL championship). But I'm sorry, having about 1/2 the odds that later teams had to beat does not cut it in comparative terms. You don't give them SBs when they're beating 13 other teams not 31. Additionally, it was a brief 8-year period of at-or-near-the-top, and that's the way I view it through my pats homer eyes.

4. Pittsburgh Stillers, 1974-75; 78-79. 4 out of 6 years, won it back-to-back twice. But that was it. Could not extend that long shadow for a matter of decades.

5. Dallas Cowboys, 92, 93, 95; Lost in NFC Championship to 9ers in 1994. See Pittsburgh, above. Not nearly as dominant as the Stillers in their short window, but faded into oblivion. Nothing like the smothering reign of the 9ers or Pats.

Guys who make me laugh when they try to claim "dynasties" - 72-73 Dolphins (W/SB loss in 71); '97-'98 Broncos; any team making a claim based on "2 out of 4 SB wins" (your modern Stillers, Gintz; your back-in-the-day Raiders.) Not even in the conversation.

As you can see from the above, I'm placing the threat hovering over the rest of the league at a premium -- the fact that there are whole teams that just "couldn't possibly make it b/c the _____s were in the way." The longevity of that reign still puts the 9ers at the top of my heap, disheartening though it might be. But I'm also thinking give us a couple more years

 

[1960Pats]

Tribute to the AFCCG:

I was watching one of those top 100 players shows and when they wanted to show a RB making a great run they showed him running against Indy. It makes perfect sense.

 

[RayClay]

One glaring error in your post.

He put his own money into a stadium and other items. Had he not, the team would be in St. Louis. Despite a bad experience with Parcells, he took a chance, giving complete control to Belichick, a coach seen by man as being a failure [though a great assistant].

 

[RayClay]

“They always tease me about being their intern, and I love that,” Goodell said.

Goodell was asked if he grew up a Jets’ fan living in Bronxville, N.Y.

“I wasn’t,” Goodell said. “I was originally a Colts fan, then became a Redskins fan for a little bit, and then had the good fortunate of working for the Jets, so I was a Jets fan in 1983.”

http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/jets/post/_/id/8996/intern-goodell-was-one-for-jets-in-1983

What a shock.

 

[1960Pats]

He put his own money into a stadium and other items. Had he not, the team would be in St. Louis. Despite a bad experience with Parcells, he took a chance, giving complete control to Belichick, a coach seen by man as being a failure [though a great assistant].

I thought that Kraft's bad experience with Parcells was because he didn't let Tuna Crap "shop for the groceries." It's possible that Kraft knew he messed up by getting involved in the football operation.

And, as we all know, Kraft isn't comfortable with confrontation.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

I just watched the Colts-Pats reg season game... it is to laugh

 

[RayClay]

I thought that Kraft's bad experience with Parcells was because he didn't let Tuna Crap "shop for the groceries." It's possible that Kraft knew he messed up by getting involved in the football operation.

Yes, but he nevertheless saw what it would be like to give over all power to someone like Parcell's [who was a prick, let's face it].

I think Orthwein had made Parcell's "first among equals", in other words final say in a group process.

Just thought after that and his mistake with Carroll going the other way, it took some guts to step back and give complete control to someone who could be fairly difficult, especially with public relations.

Anyway, after his money on the line and decisions, I think he deserves at least the benefit of some doubt. Everybody wanted him to make a huge scene and give goodell the finger, but would that have helped the team or Brady's MUCH stronger appeal [with a real adversary with standing and lots of accomplishments and leverage, the NFLPA.

My favorite response from multiple posters is that Kraft should "step down."

Can anyone be less clear on the concept? Kraft isn't going to an ad on craig's list offering the team and paid for stadium to anyone with a good home. lol.

 

[1960Pats]

Yes, but he nevertheless saw what it would be like to give over all power to someone like Parcell's [who was a prick, let's face it].

I think Orthwein had made Parcell's "first among equals", in other words final say in a group process.

Just thought after that and his mistake with Carroll going the other way, it took some guts to step back and give complete control to someone who could be fairly difficult, especially with public relations.

Anyway, after his money on the line and decisions, I think he deserves at least the benefit of some doubt. Everybody wanted him to make a huge scene and give goodell the finger, but would that have helped the team or Brady's MUCH stronger appeal [with a real adversary with standing and lots of accomplishments and leverage, the NFLPA.

My favorite response from multiple posters is that Kraft should "step down."

Can anyone be less clear on the concept? Kraft isn't going to an ad on craig's list offering the team and paid for stadium to anyone with a good home. lol.

I've never had a problem with Bob Kraft at all. As a matter of fact, prior to this latest incident, I was having some decent conversations about him here.

That all changed with his statement that he'll side with his team, the NFL, over our team, the Pats. I don't know why people want to defend that attitude.

Yes, I'll give him time and see if there was a decent reason behind his stance. He has certainly earned that much. But I have my doubts that anything will change.

 

[robbomango]

By the way, my Pats-homer view of dynasties:

First of all, I am not going to get into the Akron Pros vs. the Decatur Staleys' claims to the 1920 championship or anything. I'm going from the merger-straddling Packers onward. That said:

1. SF 49ers. SB Victories 1980; 1981; 1984; 1988; 1989; 1994. I'm stretching their legacy to 94, hell, that's about the length of times the Pats are talking about. 6 SB wins; NFCCG Appearances/losses in 1983, 1992; 1993. So if you set the bar at "competing for the conference championship," 9 appearances (as w/2000s Patrriots). If you set the bar at "won SB", Well, we're just 2 behind, that's all there is to it.
penalty factors: Not fully evolved free-agency + Salary cap era if I have this part right; Just ignored the salary cap part; stickum, but why get picky. League talent heavily concentrated in NFC.

2. NE Patriots, 2001-present. Similar to San Francisco 49ers (above) but there's time. Comparing across eras has pitfalls, but the pitfalls stacked against the Pats will only be clear with the passage of time. The rules have changed to favor a rotation of championships rather than dynasty formation. The Pats formed one anyway. Domination over a 32-team league. Claims to fame:
- 4 SB victories
- 6 AFC Championships (AKA, 2 SB losses; 3 if you stretch back pre-Brady to '96, but why?) Total 9 AFC Championship appearances. (2006; 2012; 2013 lost the AFCCG).
- 2007: Only undefeated regular season in 16-game format. Pity about that Gintz game.
Since 2001, Patriots have made the playoffs every year since Brady/BB have been together, except 2002 - and BB won 11 games with Cassel in 08. A 14-year stretch where the team made the playoffs 12 times, the AFCCG 9, the SB 6, and the SB victory 4 times.



3. GB, 1961-62, 1965-1967. GB won the NFL* championship in a 14-team league in 1961, 1962, 1965.
In 1966-67, they won SB I and II. "Woulda coulda shoulda" won SB -1 if they played it in '65, so it gives people the impression of a "threepeat" - which it was, in NFL* terms (not counting the AFL). With the AFL included, they began to play in a pool diluted roughly to present-day proportions. Still the most impressive stretch of NFL dominance - in many "off years" thereabouts they were in the thick of it (e.g., 1960, barely missed an NFL championship). But I'm sorry, having about 1/2 the odds that later teams had to beat does not cut it in comparative terms. You don't give them SBs when they're beating 13 other teams not 31. Additionally, it was a brief 8-year period of at-or-near-the-top, and that's the way I view it through my pats homer eyes.

4. Pittsburgh Stillers, 1974-75; 78-79. 4 out of 6 years, won it back-to-back twice. But that was it. Could not extend that long shadow for a matter of decades.

5. Dallas Cowboys, 92, 93, 95; Lost in NFC Championship to 9ers in 1994. See Pittsburgh, above. Not nearly as dominant as the Stillers in their short window, but faded into oblivion. Nothing like the smothering reign of the 9ers or Pats.

Guys who make me laugh when they try to claim "dynasties" - 72-73 Dolphins (W/SB loss in 71); '97-'98 Broncos; any team making a claim based on "2 out of 4 SB wins" (your modern Stillers, Gintz; your back-in-the-day Raiders.) Not even in the conversation.

As you can see from the above, I'm placing the threat hovering over the rest of the league at a premium -- the fact that there are whole teams that just "couldn't possibly make it b/c the _____s were in the way." The longevity of that reign still puts the 9ers at the top of my heap, disheartening though it might be. But I'm also thinking give us a couple more years

The 9ers have 5 Championships they didn't win in 1980.

 

[RayClay]

I've never had a problem with Bob Kraft at all. As a matter of fact, prior to this latest incident, I was having some decent conversations about him here.

That all changed with his statement that he'll side with his team, the NFL, over our team, the Pats. I don't know why people want to defend that attitude.

Yes, I'll give him time and see if there was a decent reason behind his stance. He has certainly earned that much. But I have my doubts that anything will change.

Actually, unless you have stock, it's his team. I know i didn't have a billion dollars to buy a broken down racetrack, then the worst stadium in football, the leverage that into keeping the team from going to st. Louis, the original agenda of the meeting, to financing the stadium out of pocket.

It's definitely his team, more than any other owner, who begs the taxpayers to build a stadium.

So, what you're saying his, he's taking sides against himself. I kind of find that hard to believe.

There are 31 other teams, so unless someone here owns a team, or has the were with all to buy a team [and a stadium, since he might use that for soccer or something] you're kind of stuck with either watching his team, or one of the other owner's teams.

I still watched Victor Kiam's team, no matter what i thought of him, but i never thought of it as "my" team, I just hoped they weren't blacked out and there was something to watch on Sunday.

 

[Wordsmyth]

http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/jets/post/_/id/8996/intern-goodell-was-one-for-jets-in-1983

What a shock.

What a flip-flopping flapjack.

 

[RayClay]

I thought that Kraft's bad experience with Parcells was because he didn't let Tuna Crap "shop for the groceries." It's possible that Kraft knew he messed up by getting involved in the football operation.

And, as we all know, Kraft isn't comfortable with confrontation.

Not sure what you mean by confrontation, but the guy did turn a local box company into 4 billion. Maybe he's learned to take a public insult and bide his time til he can "get even", as in "don't get mad, get even."

 

[Patriot Missile]

I just watched the Colts-Pats reg season game... it is to laugh

Whenever you are feeling down, sad or blue. either Colts game will do.

 

[Tony2046]

By the way, my Pats-homer view of dynasties:

First of all, I am not going to get into the Akron Pros vs. the Decatur Staleys' claims to the 1920 championship or anything. I'm going from the merger-straddling Packers onward. That said:

1. SF 49ers. SB Victories 1980; 1981; 1984; 1988; 1989; 1994. I'm stretching their legacy to 94, hell, that's about the length of times the Pats are talking about. 6 SB wins; NFCCG Appearances/losses in 1983, 1992; 1993. So if you set the bar at "competing for the conference championship," 9 appearances (as w/2000s Patrriots). If you set the bar at "won SB", Well, we're just 2 behind, that's all there is to it.
penalty factors: Not fully evolved free-agency + Salary cap era if I have this part right; Just ignored the salary cap part; stickum, but why get picky. League talent heavily concentrated in NFC.

2. NE Patriots, 2001-present. Similar to San Francisco 49ers (above) but there's time. Comparing across eras has pitfalls, but the pitfalls stacked against the Pats will only be clear with the passage of time. The rules have changed to favor a rotation of championships rather than dynasty formation. The Pats formed one anyway. Domination over a 32-team league. Claims to fame:
- 4 SB victories
- 6 AFC Championships (AKA, 2 SB losses; 3 if you stretch back pre-Brady to '96, but why?) Total 9 AFC Championship appearances. (2006; 2012; 2013 lost the AFCCG).
- 2007: Only undefeated regular season in 16-game format. Pity about that Gintz game.
Since 2001, Patriots have made the playoffs every year since Brady/BB have been together, except 2002 - and BB won 11 games with Cassel in 08. A 14-year stretch where the team made the playoffs 12 times, the AFCCG 9, the SB 6, and the SB victory 4 times.

3. GB, 1961-62, 1965-1967. GB won the NFL* championship in a 14-team league in 1961, 1962, 1965.
In 1966-67, they won SB I and II. "Woulda coulda shoulda" won SB -1 if they played it in '65, so it gives people the impression of a "threepeat" - which it was, in NFL* terms (not counting the AFL). With the AFL included, they began to play in a pool diluted roughly to present-day proportions. Still the most impressive stretch of NFL dominance - in many "off years" thereabouts they were in the thick of it (e.g., 1960, barely missed an NFL championship). But I'm sorry, having about 1/2 the odds that later teams had to beat does not cut it in comparative terms. You don't give them SBs when they're beating 13 other teams not 31. Additionally, it was a brief 8-year period of at-or-near-the-top, and that's the way I view it through my pats homer eyes.

4. Pittsburgh Stillers, 1974-75; 78-79. 4 out of 6 years, won it back-to-back twice. But that was it. Could not extend that long shadow for a matter of decades.

5. Dallas Cowboys, 92, 93, 95; Lost in NFC Championship to 9ers in 1994. See Pittsburgh, above. Not nearly as dominant as the Stillers in their short window, but faded into oblivion. Nothing like the smothering reign of the 9ers or Pats.

Guys who make me laugh when they try to claim "dynasties" - 72-73 Dolphins (W/SB loss in 71); '97-'98 Broncos; any team making a claim based on "2 out of 4 SB wins" (your modern Stillers, Gintz; your back-in-the-day Raiders.) Not even in the conversation.

As you can see from the above, I'm placing the threat hovering over the rest of the league at a premium -- the fact that there are whole teams that just "couldn't possibly make it b/c the _____s were in the way." The longevity of that reign still puts the 9ers at the top of my heap, disheartening though it might be. But I'm also thinking give us a couple more years

I wonder how many the 49er's would have without Mr. Sticky Rice.