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

Only real letdown was 2010, IMHO, I think we were better than Pitt and GB and could have won it (easily). 2012 to a certain extent but injuries decimated us before and during the Ravens game. 2013 was a long shot, 2015 was marked by numerous injuries in the second half of the season and lots of guys were well below 100% heading into AFCCG. 2009 was underwhelming, 2006 the receiving corps simply was not up to the task, 2005... another season marred by injuries all over the roster. So, yeah, I believe we could have had one or two more under the belt, but then again, GB had only one trophy in last 20 years with 2 HOF QBs.

interesting there is one lonely YES vote. It was not me. I am leaning "Ray" on this one.

GorBelSer said:

Only real letdown was 2010, IMHO, I think we were better than Pitt and GB and could have won it (easily). 2012 to a certain extent but injuries decimated us before and during the Ravens game. 2013 was a long shot, 2015 was marked by numerous injuries in the second half of the season and lots of guys were well below 100% heading into AFCCG. 2009 was underwhelming, 2006 the receiving corps simply was not up to the task, 2005... another season marred by injuries all over the roster. So, yeah, I believe we could have had one or two more under the belt, but then again, GB had only one trophy in last 20 years with 2 HOF QBs.

Click to expand...

From 2005-2013, it definitely felt like we left ring(s) on the table.

Overall though:

2001-We were a team of destiny IMO but I honestly think the Rams were the best overall team that year

2003-Best team.

2004-Best team.

2006-Overachieved with a weak WR group and even then, we blew a lead to IND where the winner was gona beat the Bears.

2007-No words need to be said.

2008-The big injury.

2009-Not good enough.

2010-Ahead of schedule in a "rebuilding" year but in a year with no dominant teams, we didn't take advantage and probably had our worse upset since it was to the Mark Sanchez-led NYJ in the Divisional round no less.

2011-In a year with 2 teams (GB, NO) who had a better statistical offense than us, we fell just short in a very winnable game for SB 46. Not sure if we were the best team all year where the competition was better overall than 2010.

2012-Injuries.

2013-Injuries.

2014-I thought we were the slightly better team than SEA. It was a strong year in the league overall.

2015-Injuries.

2016-I thought we were the best team all year.

5 rings (and counting) in 7 SB appearances for the current era thus far is a fair result IMO. The only year where I felt we were CLEARLY the best team and didn't win was obviously 2007.

If the NFL playoffs were a best of 7 series, we could be looking at as many as 5-10 rings as we were good enough to win it all in 2001, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2011, 2014, 2015, and 2016.

bormio said:

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

Click to expand...

And the only reason they got that was was that they played the Cleveland Indians in the World Series, the only team to cough up an even worse furball.......

bormio said:

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

Click to expand...

We could be the bengals under Lewis and never won a playoff game....that’s under achieving

We could have as many as 9 with really great luck. Could have as little as 1 with really horrible luck (2004 we really had firm control of every playoff game). So id say at this point 5 is a pretty fair measure of what we’ve been. 2-3 more years of brady including this year should net 6 and id be satisfied with that #.

PATSYLICIOUS said:

We could have as many as 9 with really great luck. Could have as little as 1 with really horrible luck (2004 we really had firm control of every playoff game). So id say at this point 5 is a pretty fair measure of what we’ve been. 2-3 more years of brady including this year should net 7 and id be satisfied with that #.

Click to expand...

Corrected that for ya.

drewskie said:

Corrected that for ya.

Click to expand...

If we win this year, i gotta agree with ya there very doable

robertweathers said:

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.

Click to expand...

Reality is winning a championchip is by definition a crap shoot.Fate always plays it's part because the chain of events are destiny.

What if Seattle runs the ball?

Likewise, does anyone not think a healthy Gronk means a blowout in Indy in 2012?

What achievement should mean is how many years was this team legitimately in the mix?

Not has a case in 2002,2005,2008,2009,2013?

That's NOT under achievement in any way.

Football in Super Bowl era hasn't had a 3 peat...is not by accident.

patsfanincleveland said:

Reality is winning a championchip is by definition a crap shoot.Fate always plays it's part because the chain of events are destiny.

What if Seattle runs the ball?

Likewise, does anyone not think a healthy Gronk means a blowout in Indy in 2012?

What achievement should mean is how many years was this team legitimately in the mix?

Not has a case in 2002,2005,2008,2009,2013?

That's NOT under achievement in any way.

Football in Super Bowl era hasn't had a 3 peat...is not by accident.

Click to expand...

True but luck finally even itself out after the two giants losses. It's about time. I don't think the giants will give back those two Super Bowls no matter how lucky it was.

Dumbest poll ever

I don’t think anybody can be disappointed but it’s hard not to feel like they missed some opportunities

ZoisKing said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yes the Pats COULD reasonably have won these Super Bowls...

2001 - Done
2003 - Done
2004 - Done
2006 - Flu, Colts turn up heat, would have crushed the Bears in the SB
2007 - Tyree helmet catch
2011 - Manningham perfect sideline catch; Welker drop
2014 - Done
2015 - Failed with HFA with a dismal last two weeks, cost them vs Den
2016 - Done

So I count NINE very reasonable shots.

That said, in every one of their Super Bowl wins, they barely won them. I'll say they beat Philly more handily than the score indicated, but they barely beat the Rams, got fortunate against the Panthers with their bad kickoff late, were fortunate that the Seahawks threw that pass, and then had the greatest comeback ever last year. So that's easily four SBs they could have LOST.

The reality is that this is already the greatest run in modern NFL history, the BB/Brady era. When you have the greatest run ever, it's hard to call it "underachieving". It's just really, really, really, REALLY hard to win it all, and so it's not underachieving to win 5 in 16 years. It's absolutely incredible.

Well said ivanvamp. Feel like we should have beaten Philly big time. Let them stay close. Thank goodness for Harrison with the shut down pick at the end. Would love to have a playmaker like him on our defense right now.

mosslost said:

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.

Click to expand...

Whether the Patriot dynasty is or is not superior to the Celtic dynasty of the sixties has nothing to do with the question in the thread title. There seems to be a shift in the goal posts - or perhaps a thread title that is the equivalent to a clickbait headline.

One dynasty hypothetically being better does not equate to a second dynasty underachieving. They are not mutually exclusive.

If we were to decide that the Montreal Canadiens of the late 5os were the greatest dynasty in NHL history, would that mean that the late 60s or late 70s Montreal teams 'underachieved', by winning 'only' four Stanley Cups rather than five in a row?


If you want to talk about underachieving teams (ie very good, but could have and should have been great), there are far better examples.
The Chicago Bears of the mid-80s.
The Cleveland Browns of the late 80s.
The San Diego Chargers from 2004-09.
The Tony Dungy era Bucs, with Sapp, Brooks, Lynch, etc. from 97-01.
The Peyton Manning era Indianapolis Colts.

You might want to add the Greatest Show on Turf and depending on how things turn out, the Pete Carroll era Seattle Seahawks to that list of 'underachievers' as well.

2001 - won it
2002 - awful season by whole league, Pats not good enough, probably lose to Raiders or Titans in divisional round
2003 - won it
2004 - won it
2005 - that was a touchback, **** Triplette. Pats get through that game, host Steelers, face Seahawks, anything could happen
2006 - even without much receiving help, felt like Pats should've won it that year, and would've if not for blowing a 21-3 lead
2007 - on the "catch" play, Eli was in the grasp and Mike Carey missed an obvious hold, this was the most disappointing sports loss I've ever experienced
2008 - fluke that team didn't get into playoffs with 11-5 record, could've won it all even with Cassel, healthy Brady would've been better chance
2009 - not good enough, losing Welker didn't help either
2010 - this season really betrayed me, felt like Pats were in for a magic run, stomach punch loss
2011 - wanted them to win it for Myra, Welker's drop killed, thought maybe Bradshaw going into end zone too soon was going to give the Pats a chance but it wasn't to be
2012 - thought Pats still could've won against 49ers, that final drive mismanaging the clock before halftime haunts me
2013 - injuries derailed them and may have suffered same fate as Broncos at the hands of the Seahawks for all we know
2014 - won it
2015 - started out 10-0 and lost to Brock freaking Osweiler in Denver which made the difference (as well as mailing in the final two weeks of the regular season)
2016 - won it

Out of the 11 seasons that the Pats didn't win it, definitely should've won it in 06, 07, 10, and 11, and I feel like had a decent chance in 05, 08, 12, and 15. I think 02, 09, and 13 they just weren't going to win it all.

No the Pats did not under achieve.. how can you under achieve when they have gone on the greatest run of all time? That doesn't make any sense? Yeah maybe we could have 1 or 2 more but we could also have lost the last 2 Super Bowls. Remember the ending against Seattle?.. and ya know.. 28-3 .. late 3rd quarter.

Cmon man.. Ray killed a guy

Haha there have been like 8 posts in this thread going through each year and whether we should have won (including mine) and then all deciding that 5 rings is about right.

Comparing the current NEP to the 60's Celtics is about as idiotic as it gets, like comparing raisins and grapefruit..

The salary cap came into being for two reasons to aid the owners and to try to add parity to the league, unfortunately most teams f.. the salary cap up mercilessly, the Pats have been winners in this area..

I am forever grateful for what the Pats have been able to achieve, but what we all know by now is it takes great play on the field, great players, great coaching and a little bit of luck to win a SB.. from my POV 5 SB's in 16 years is better than expected, particularly after the 40 years of not being able to produce one.. the problem is with that era, not this one.

This is a laughable poll. You’re better than this mosslost. I hope this is a joke