Poll Added I think: Has the Pats Dynasty UNDER-Achieved?

[mosslost]

Forgive me as I am still on vacation and hit the sauce quite heavily today.

However, thinking about the Pats greatness, 8 straight first round byes, an undefeated 2007 where we coughed it up at the end... 2006 where we literally puked up the 2006 title.. 2005 we still could have 3 peated without that 100 yard pick return (which should have been a touch back.. we would have had the Steelers in the AFCCG and we all know how that goes LMFAO)

Should we be closer to the 60's Celtics than we are?

Happy New Year almost....

PS: Sorry too hammered to figure out the poll controls
EDIT: The Poll seems to be working

 

[ZoisKing]

Feel like we could have 4 more rings than we do now. All the Mannings' losses in either the AFC championship game or the SB.

Regardless, this era will go down in NFL lore as being the greatest.

 

[fnordcircle]

Please go back to work.

 

[bormio]

We could also have 1 championship and be the Atlanta Braves. That’s underachieving.

 

[102 Pat]

Hey, it's a mosslost thread...

 

[RobertWeathers]

I give full credit to @mosslost for being up-front in saying hes starting a thread 1/2 in the bag.

My hot take: No.7 Sb appearances. 5 SB titles is incredible. 7 is optimal. 0 is Buffalo Bills. 1 is Atlanta Braves

Seeing how 7 Super Bowls have been decided by an average of 3.71 points I think we've done ok winning 5 of 7.

Football is hard. I'm good with how this team has maximized its opportunities.

 

[mosslost]

Please go back to work.

forget f$%^C%ng 2010 too

 

[TB_Helmet]

I think our team was good enough to win it all in the following years:
01, 03, 04, 06, 07, 08, 10, 11, 14, 16.

08's a little questionable because Brady got hurt, but gotta think that putting him on an 11-5 team would have made us the favorite.

The other years we were either injured at the end ('15) or there were 1-2 teams that were clearly better than we were (Denver in '13, etc).

So we won 5 out of 10. Given that four of our wins were basically coin flips and any wrong bounce could have turned them into a loss, and you could say the same thing about losses in '06, '07, and '11, then I'd actually say that 5 titles is not underachieving, or overachieving, but simply achieving. The titles being clustered together instead of spread out over that period might make one feel otherwise though.

 

[ALP]

No, because for every close one we lost, there’s just as close a one we won

-Seattle down 10 in 4th
-flacons sb
-ravens down twice by 2tds

Etc

 

[mosslost]

I give full credit to @mosslost for being up-front in saying hes starting a thread 1/2 in the bag.

My hot take: No.7 Sb appearances. 5 SB titles is incredible. 7 is optimal. 0 is Buffalo Bills. 1 is Atlanta Braves

Seeing how 7 Super Bowls have been decided by an average of 3.71 points I think we've done ok winning 5 of 7.

Football is hard. I'm good with how this team has maximized its opportunities.

ok fair enough. However, is it better than the 60s Celtics? It is interesting to discuss. I say yes, but admit folks that say no have some other decent arguments.

 

[mosslost]

I give full credit to @mosslost for being up-front in saying hes starting a thread 1/2 in the bag.

My hot take: No.7 Sb appearances. 5 SB titles is incredible. 7 is optimal. 0 is Buffalo Bills. 1 is Atlanta Braves

Seeing how 7 Super Bowls have been decided by an average of 3.71 points I think we've done ok winning 5 of 7.

Football is hard. I'm good with how this team has maximized its opportunities.

ok fair enough. However, is it better than the 60s Celtics? It is interesting to discuss. I say yes, but admit folks that say no have some other decent arguments.

 

[FourierSeries]

 

[mosslost]

I think our team was good enough to win it all in the following years:
01, 03, 04, 06, 07, 08, 10, 11, 14, 16.

08's a little questionable because Brady got hurt, but gotta think that putting him on an 11-5 team would have made us the favorite.

The other years we were either injured at the end ('15) or there were 1-2 teams that were clearly better than we were (Denver in '13, etc).

So we won 5 out of 10. Given that four of our wins were basically coin flips and any wrong bounce could have turned them into a loss, and you could say the same thing about losses in '06, '07, and '11, then I'd actually say that 5 titles is not underachieving, or overachieving, but simply achieving. The titles being clustered together instead of spread out over that period might make one feel otherwise though.

what about 05? If we won that stupid Denver game? Then get Steelers in Foxboro AFCCG? then Seahawks?

 

[farn]

They’ve been great. BB will be the first to tell you : winning is tough. Very tough. They have been spectacular.

Also : I love mosslost. This guy is gold.

 

[TB_Helmet]

ok fair enough. However, is it better than the 60s Celtics? It is interesting to discuss. I say yes, but admit folks that say no have some other decent arguments.

There were like 10 teams in the NBA in the 60s. If you started a league in 2001 with the Patriots and 9 other random NFL teams then we'd have won between 12 and 14 titles over that span.

 

[jri37]

I don't think you can call it underachieving, especially since it's so difficult to just get to Super Bowls. If anything they caught some bad breaks and were unlucky in 2006, 2007, 2011 and 2015. This run has been incredible and to think I used to say after the 76 season all I want is the opportunity to see them win 1. After the loss to the Bears I thought forget it and after the loss to GB I figured well perhaps they would be one of those franchises that competed to get to the SB once a decade.

What they've done is mind boggling during this run.

 

[RobertWeathers]

ok fair enough. However, is it better than the 60s Celtics? It is interesting to discuss. I say yes, but admit folks that say no have some other decent arguments.

I think the degree of difficulty for the 01-17 Pats is much higher, however winning 11 of 13 is crazy. I get how there were only a handful of teams in the league but there were a number of G7s and OTs in there. They always just found a way...

I dont have a straight answer.

The interesting thing is how only one player for each dynasty was the constant for all the titles....Russell and TB12.

 

[mosslost]

the best argument is that it all comes out in the washh. 4 or the 5 wins could have gone the other way easyaly. the two loses could have gone our way. 5 is a great nuymreerber for winss.

But want the 6th this year obviously

 

[RobertWeathers]

what about 05? If we won that stupid Denver game? Then get Steelers in Foxboro AFCCG? then Seahawks?

The 05 loss sticks in my craw. I don't know why. Two BS plays cost a 3-peat.

 

[PatriotsNumero1Fan]

I just wanna pass those crybabies in ****zburgh! Go pats! Let's start by finding a way to tying them this season!