Curran lists 3 Patriot teams as worst teams ever in Super Bowl

[PATSYLICIOUS]

98 Falcons - Fluke team
00 Giants - Very weak NFC that season

Both teams got blown away, definately deserve mention before teams like the 01 Pats and 07 Giants, teams that actually won their games.

 

[billdog3484]

its amazing how people always say we lost because of the dreaded tuck rule, yet the rule is still in place

 

[Patriotic Fervor]

Two years after, actually; I hated the Bears so badly at the time, that I kept the newspaper clipping! Still have it

You're right! My memory failed me on that one! I remember watching that game on TV. It was sweet! Just a tad late, though.

Thanks for the correction!

 

[fillylabinga]

OK, I'll bite.

I can't argue about the 85 team. The 96 team is underrated though. Coates, Armstrong, Martin, McGinnest, Milloy, and Law are boarderline HOFers. That's maybe better individual talent than the 2004 team had. They also went up against the best of the Brett Farve teams and up until that Desmond Howard kick return were in good position to win the game. Pretty respectable IMO.

If you asked me in 2002 I would have agreed that the 2001 team was one of the worst, but winning 2 of the next 3 superbowls will certainly change how you are perceived. In retrospect, I think you can trace the start of the Pats dynasty back to the narrow loss at home to St. Louis. They went on a tear in the last half of the season with some really dominant defense and never looked back. Out of 80+ superbowl attendees no way are they in the bottom 10.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

I agree that the 2001 Pats were not only one of the worst teams to make the superbowl, but to win the superbowl. I think that regardless of whether the Cardinals win or lose, they are the worst team to ever make the superbowl. However, the 2005 and 2008 Steelers should be added as well. No way the Steelers make it this year had Tom Brady played the entire season.

 

[ausbacker]

Reporters can produce all the facts and present their opinions as much as they like, but at the end of the day, winning the Superbowl with a 11-5 season or a 14-2 season makes no difference to me whatsoever. Winning the Superbowl is an ultimate achievement in itself. I'd be happier to say it was a great team, rather than a team loaded with individual talent.

Our 2007 team was one of, if not the most talented team ever assembled to that point. We lost out to a 10-6 Giants team which executed their game plan to perfection, whilst the Patriots stumbled.

 

[brdmaverick]

I think the 1996 is a vastly underrated team. The team lost by two touchdowns in the Super Bowl to a team that was ranked #1 on offense and defense. Sure, that is not good but definitely not embarrassing. Okay, what would be considered embarrising about that game would be the number of interceptions and sacks allowed, BUT.......

let's think about that 1996 team.

Bledsoe was playing like a Pro Bowl quarterback at the time, and he had incredible weapons on offense such as Curtis Martin, Ben Coates, Terry Glenn, Shawn Jefferson, Troy Brown, Vincent Brisby, Keith Byers, Sam Gash (a true fullback), and Dave Meggett. They were absolutely loaded on offense.


I can't say that I completely disagree with the selection of the 2001 Patriots. That team may very well have been the worst Super Bowl winning team ever, but honestly, should that really bother us? Tom Brady was not the Tom Brady that we have gotten to know. He was not the game changer. He was a play it safe, dump off pass QB that season. He only had like 145 yards in the Super Bowl, with at least 65 of them coming in the last two minutes. So for the first 58 minutes of the Super Bowl in a dome, Brady only had like 80 yards passing. The defense came up huge that game and played like, well, the 2000 Ravens. They really knew how to hit the Rams, and hit them hard. They still did surrender 350+ yards of passing. In the end they won the game, which I am tremendously greatful for, but I will not fool myself into thinking they were a great team.

Who was the third and fourth receivers that year? Charles Johnson? Bert Emanuel?

 

[brdmaverick]

98 Falcons - Fluke team
00 Giants - Very weak NFC that season

Both teams got blown away, definately deserve mention before teams like the 01 Pats and 07 Giants, teams that actually won their games.

While I wasn't a huge fan of that Falcons team either, they did go 16-3 that year including the playoffs. That can not be overlooked.

 

[brdmaverick]

OK, I'll bite.

I can't argue about the 85 team. The 96 team is underrated though. Coates, Armstrong, Martin, McGinnest, Milloy, and Law are boarderline HOFers. That's maybe better individual talent than the 2004 team had. They also went up against the best of the Brett Farve teams and up until that Desmond Howard kick return were in good position to win the game. Pretty respectable IMO.

If you asked me in 2002 I would have agreed that the 2001 team was one of the worst, but winning 2 of the next 3 superbowls will certainly change how you are perceived. In retrospect, I think you can trace the start of the Pats dynasty back to the narrow loss at home to St. Louis. They went on a tear in the last half of the season with some really dominant defense and never looked back. Out of 80+ superbowl attendees no way are they in the bottom 10.

I should have read your post before adding my own. We basically share the same sentiments.

 

[brdmaverick]

Reporters can produce all the facts and present their opinions as much as they like, but at the end of the day, winning the Superbowl with a 11-5 season or a 14-2 season makes no difference to me whatsoever. Winning the Superbowl is an ultimate achievement in itself. I'd be happier to say it was a great team, rather than a team loaded with individual talent.

Our 2007 team was one of, if not the most talented team ever assembled to that point. We lost out to a 10-6 Giants team which executed their game plan to perfection, whilst the Patriots stumbled.

True, winning is winning and that is all that matters, but it sure is a fun debate.

 

[pheenix11]

You guys just figured out that Tom Curran is a ****?

In the immortal words of Pedro Martinez, where you been man?

 

[Patjew]

Better to be the worst team to win the Super Bowl than the best team to lose one.

 

[Lloyd_Christmas]

I think someone summed it up nicely by pointing out that he only lists 7 teams and 3 of them are Patriot teams.

The article title seems to indicate worst in history although he does make an allusion to 1985 as if the list is intended to be since then.

Still, there have been about 26 teams in a Superbowl since 1985 and I have a hard time believing that 3 of the worst 7 were Patriot teams.

This article is not well researched and written.

 

[DisgruntledTunaFan]

I love how Tom Curran lists the 1985, 1996, and 2001 Patriots among the worst teams to ever go to a Super Bowl, yet leaves out the Ravens (2000?) that had ZERO offense and NONE of the Buffalo teams that lost 4 Super Bowls in a row. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples.

I know I'm biased, but I'd say it was a pretty crappy article:

The worst teams in Super Bowl history

80's Broncos 3 X's
'98 Falcons
'87 "Winning Ugly" Redskins
'02 "Old enough to cash SS checks" Raiders
'05 Seahawks, who were fortunate to have a very soft NFCW schedule
'06 GrossMAN's Bears
'94 Chargers-their Super Bowl was stealing one @Pitt in the NFCCG

Yah-I've seen worse.