Team of the Millennium... (Hey, it's the off-season)

2020 Patriots Season:
Upcoming Opponent:
Next Up: N/A

Current Patriots Twitter Feed:
Status
Not open for further replies.

PatsFanInVa

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
2020 Weekly NFL Picks Winner
So, the 1960-2000 NE Patriots had 2 SB appearances. Of course, for 7 of those years there was no SB to go to...

The SB was first played (going back to the retroactively named Super Bowl I) in January, 1967, when the KC Chiefs soiled the bed by a margin of 35-10 against the Green Bay Packers. 30 years later, the New England Patriots soiled the bed less spectacularly by the score of 35-21 to, drumroll, the Green Bay Packers. Of course, we soiled the bed legendarily against the Bears in between.

The simple way to break it down would be that from 1960-2000 the Patriots won zero SBs and went to 2 SB (40 years). Now we've won 6 in 18 years. These are identified with Brady and Belichick. In order to even things up, we would expect TFB to play another 22 years, and win another 7-8 super bowls. But this seems unlikely, and I am a bit of a pessimist at heart.

Here's another way to do it:
Pre-SB Years: 1960-1984, 24 years. (For this purpose let's call the 85 regular season the SB year, just as 96 was the year we went to the 97 SB)
Generational implication: You could be born into a Patriots-loyal home in 1960 and love this team your whole life until your mid 20s, and get your heart stomped by the 85 team. But at least you made it to see the promised land. You sniffed relevance under Fairbanks, with packed rosters that underachieved. Some years we were in it... but we all knew we only dreamed of winning it all.

SB Appearance Era: 1985-1996. 11 Years, wow, some QB should get the number 11 as if to represent the almost-good-enough era. Actually, 85 was a sacrificial lamb, but by God I believed until I ripped my "Berry the Bears" beefy T in half about mid way into the 2nd quarter, jesus, even saying "mid way" brings back bad memories of that year. Enough said. I told myself we'd make it back, we'd... well, we'd make a respectable show of it next time. I was right, just a decade+ later.
Generational implication: It was 1996 before you could be proud, really proud, of the way a Pats season ended, in a "Rocky" kind of way. They were actually in that SB for the first time. They actually had a real live shot. God Bless Drew Bledsoe in so many ways.

The Tuna Bowl Era: 1997-2000. 4 Years. Transition period. I'm calling BB's 1st year as head coach part of that era, because it was a soap opera era that was still not yet resolved. TFB was still holding a clipboard, Mo Lewis and Drew Bledsoe were still chugging through their lives like the iceberg and the Titanic in Hardy's "The Convergence of the Twain," with nary a clue of the place Lewis would have in Bledsoe's heart... and BB was still the "overrated" former Cleveland coach who couldn't handle the bright lights and resigned on a napkin. Every Pats-JETE game was called "The Tuna Bowl" or "Tuna Bowl II" or whatever, because these clowns up in heah thought that was an actual bowl that actually mattered. I believe I remember a "good riddance" or two emanating from the Jersey muck, as they celebrated the Curtis Martinness of it all.

It's-the-Pats'-world-you-only-live-in-it era (Our Millennium): 2001-2018 (soon to be '19.) 18 years and counting. 6 SB championships, 10 SB appearances (or as some would call them "AFC Championships," colts banner cough cough) 13 AFCCG appearances, if I counted right (prob. not).
Generational implication: Patriots fans born in the year this run began can drive and vote right now. We can add say, 5 years, to capture "years of meaningful fandom" where most really grasp the game, in both the earliest era and this one. Right now up to young adulthood, you could be born into a Pats-loving household and not understand the concept of not being in the hunt.... just as in that previous era, you could only hope, even with so few teams, especially in the AFL years... but it was as one out of many (I know, I know, we managed to lose an 8-team AFL title in 63, but really... we were a half game over 500 at 7-6-1, tied with the Bills... SD went 11-3... we soiled the bed magnificently in that one. The team that lost to the Bears was dominant by comparison.)

Conclusion: Let's set aside the "Appeared in the SB" and "Tuna Bowl" eras, and focus on the bookends.

By my calculations, we need 6 more seasons of the present era to balance the 24 seasons of pre-Super-Bowl-era Patriots history.

Brady's already been his own Steve Young in SB terms (6 Rings, compared with 4[Joe Cool] and 1[Steve Young]; 19 years w/the team, vs. 13[Joe Cool] + 11 [Steve Young]...) ...but let's say we'll need the beginning of another QB's career in terms of pure time served in order to get the next 6 seasons completed. I mean, let's say that... it might not even be true :D If Brady completes the full 24 years all by himself, he'll also be his own Steve Young in terms of time served... Montana and Young overlapped, however, playing in total 1979-1999, a 20-year span. This time-serving goal is eminently within reach.

However, we might need another "Steve Young" to complete the 6 years to balance the 24 before SB contention.

During this 6-year span, to average out previous seasons in the present era (selling us short, really, given the down years between SB-winning spans...) statistically, we should appear in 4 AFCCGs, winning 3 (i.e., 3 more SB appearances.) We should win 2 of the 3 Super Bowls in which we play.

How spoiled am I? That actually sounds rather bleak.

I mean, reading the above prognosis... My final comment as a spoiled Pats fan would be, quit slackin', Brady. I'd rather see 6 more years like the last 6, with 3 Super Bowl wins, 4 SB appearances, and 2 AFCCG losses (sad, but we have to accept the likelihood given the data to date :D)

I would especially like to hear what this looks like to @JetFan79 (If I got that name right). But any replies are, of course, welcome.
 
Last edited:

Actual Pats Fan

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
like your enthusiasm and observations; everyone's experience as a fan will vary depending on age, perception, etc., so nothing negative to say about any of your points. So,

Zero Super Bowl/Title wins and zero playoff wins is the most deceptive and misleading statistic in history. Even when losing, the Patriots were so much more fun to watch and root for than any other team it's not close. Billy Sullivan did bumble, but he also made everything possible by, for example:

Founding the team
Hiring Mike Holovak
Honoring Gino Cappelletti
Getting Schaefer Stadium built
Hiring Chuck Fairbanks
Hiring Dante Scarnecchia (OK via Meyer but who cares)

Escapades like the new head coach electrocuting himself at the introductory press conference, and a fire breaking out in the stands just added to the entertainment. Please don't pretend other teams didn't have drunks in the stands on Monday night or players not behaving like saints off the field
The SB was first played (going back to the retroactively named Super Bowl I) in January, 1967, when the KC Chiefs soiled the bed by a margin of 35-10 against the Green Bay Packers.
The Patriots lost by 10 points at Shea in the season finale to lose the chance to host the Chiefs at Fenway for the title and a spot in Super Bowl I. Yes, we probably would have "soiled the bed" but the Packers were all time legit.

We then experienced the longest losing streak in our history: Seven seasons. A fraction of the length of stretches of futility burped out by dozens of other franchises, including all the other dynasties.
You sniffed relevance under Fairbanks, with packed rosters that underachieved. Some years we were in it... but we all knew we only dreamed of winning it all.
Dismissing 1976 prevents any analysis from being accurate. Never before or since have I seen a succession of egregious noncalls and calls favoring one team literally hand a game to the inferior team [a nightmare for sure, but no dream], and whoever proceeded to the AFCCG punched their ticket to two more playoff wins and the championship. That's the way it was that year.

From Hannah and Gray not starting in '77, to Jack Tatum, and more, a succession of events prevented the Pats from making it the rest of the decade. But here is how they started each year:

1973: ............2-7
1974: 6-1
1975: ............3-5
1976: 5-2
1977: 5-2
1978: 8-2
1979: 6-2
1980: 6-1
1981: .............2-5
1982: 5-4
1983: 6-5
1984: 5-2
1985: 8-3
1986: 10-3
1987: 4-3
1988: 7-5
1989: .............3-5

In a ten year span, the Patriots won the ninth most games out of 28 NFL teams.

That's 19 franchises more worthy of being labeled a "laughingstock" than us.

We'll never know what would have happened had Eason NOT been started in '86 at the SuperDome, or in '87 and '88 at Denver.
The Tuna Bowl Era
Coach Parcells, I saw Chuck Fairbanks build teams. I saw Chuck Fairbanks coached teams. Coach, you're no Chuck Fairbanks.
BB was still the "overrated" former Cleveland coach
Bill wasn't the one who was overrated.

Who Said So, I saw Steve Grogan play. I saw Steve Grogan lead teams. I saw Steve Grogan win games we weren't supposed to. Drew, you're no Steve Grogan.
Our Millennium
I stick with everybody else and accept Y2K as the beginning of this century:

I prepared for Y2K & had enuf food for a family of 4 for a year or enuf for 1 person for 4 years. I had all the food groups & lots of water too. I went up into the wilderness & came back to find out Y2K didn't even happen! Supposedly ATM machines & grocery stores' cash registers wouldn't work. The 1st thing I bought was a gallon of Hershey's Chocolate Syrup!

1)Year 2000. (Y=year, 2k=2 times k, k being short for kilo which means 1000)

2)Computers only counted the last two digits of a number, so they didn't know the difference between 2000 or 1900. This would cause various problems with dates and finances, and would cause a big mess. People were panicking and saying that when 2000 rolled around, all the computers would crash and the nuclear bombs would go off or something.

Indeed, all the doomsayers turned out to be correct; only the disaster was the New England Patriots not only winning, but always winning and becoming the dominant sports team not only of the century, but approaching all time.

Anyway, Bill was hired on January 27

https://pbs.twimg.com/ext_tw_video_...pu/img/KxbyYfUj4KbQoYNP?format=jpg&name=small

Bob can always of course be counted upon:

"he is the most capable person at this point in time to help us win next year.":confused:

And, Tom was drafted on Bill's birthday, April 16

On this date: The Patriots drafted Tom Brady 199th overall 16 years ago

Which means Bill Belichick never coached a Patriots team without Tom Brady on the roster for Week 1. It's all about the 21st century.

Breakin' it down:

AFL ERA: Lots of heroes, history and hijinks

MODERN ERA: Schaefer Stadium, Jim Plunkett, Chuck Fairbanks and competitiveness for a quarter century

BITTERSWEET ERA: Robert Kraft lustily hopped on board the tsunami of Patriots denigration prior to his purchase, clearly due to resentment of his predecessor. Kraft never did anything to dissuade or discourage or debunk the propaganda, including participating and endorsing and preserving an insulting makeover, in an effort to promote his ownership as the genesis of New England football participation, enthusiasm and success. He essentially threw gasoline on the fire that has culminated in two (so far) fake scandals and two stolen first round draft picks and national enmity toward the franchise since Tom Brady took over as the starter, and the team thus started winning titles.

He will never view his ownership in the context of an already established franchise; tainting his own legacy.

So nothing will ever make up for 1976; We want to win #7 ASAP because we hate being tied with the Squealers, and we will in fact be successful after Tom retires, building on the foundation set by Bill and Tom, and catch up with the Packers for most NFL titles.

[So we definitely want to avoid Paul Gaston/Rick Pitino or Harry Frazee type implosions:eek:]
 

PatsFanInVa

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
2020 Weekly NFL Picks Winner
like your enthusiasm and observations; everyone's experience as a fan will vary depending on age, perception, etc., so nothing negative to say about any of your points. So,

Zero Super Bowl/Title wins and zero playoff wins is the most deceptive and misleading statistic in history. Even when losing, the Patriots were so much more fun to watch and root for than any other team it's not close. Billy Sullivan did bumble, but he also made everything possible by, for example:

Founding the team
Hiring Mike Holovak
Honoring Gino Cappelletti
Getting Schaefer Stadium built
Hiring Chuck Fairbanks
Hiring Dante Scarnecchia (OK via Meyer but who cares)

Escapades like the new head coach electrocuting himself at the introductory press conference, and a fire breaking out in the stands just added to the entertainment. Please don't pretend other teams didn't have drunks in the stands on Monday night or players not behaving like saints off the field

The Patriots lost by 10 points at Shea in the season finale to lose the chance to host the Chiefs at Fenway for the title and a spot in Super Bowl I. Yes, we probably would have "soiled the bed" but the Packers were all time legit.

We then experienced the longest losing streak in our history: Seven seasons. A fraction of the length of stretches of futility burped out by dozens of other franchises, including all the other dynasties.

Dismissing 1976 prevents any analysis from being accurate. Never before or since have I seen a succession of egregious noncalls and calls favoring one team literally hand a game to the inferior team [a nightmare for sure, but no dream], and whoever proceeded to the AFCCG punched their ticket to two more playoff wins and the championship. That's the way it was that year.

From Hannah and Gray not starting in '77, to Jack Tatum, and more, a succession of events prevented the Pats from making it the rest of the decade. But here is how they started each year:

1973: ............2-7
1974: 6-1
1975: ............3-5
1976: 5-2
1977: 5-2
1978: 8-2
1979: 6-2
1980: 6-1
1981: .............2-5
1982: 5-4
1983: 6-5
1984: 5-2
1985: 8-3
1986: 10-3
1987: 4-3
1988: 7-5
1989: .............3-5

In a ten year span, the Patriots won the ninth most games out of 28 NFL teams.

That's 19 franchises more worthy of being labeled a "laughingstock" than us.

We'll never know what would have happened had Eason NOT been started in '86 at the SuperDome, or in '87 and '88 at Denver.

Coach Parcells, I saw Chuck Fairbanks build teams. I saw Chuck Fairbanks coached teams. Coach, you're no Chuck Fairbanks.

Bill wasn't the one who was overrated.

Who Said So, I saw Steve Grogan play. I saw Steve Grogan lead teams. I saw Steve Grogan win games we weren't supposed to. Drew, you're no Steve Grogan.

I stick with everybody else and accept Y2K as the beginning of this century:

I prepared for Y2K & had enuf food for a family of 4 for a year or enuf for 1 person for 4 years. I had all the food groups & lots of water too. I went up into the wilderness & came back to find out Y2K didn't even happen! Supposedly ATM machines & grocery stores' cash registers wouldn't work. The 1st thing I bought was a gallon of Hershey's Chocolate Syrup!

1)Year 2000. (Y=year, 2k=2 times k, k being short for kilo which means 1000)

2)Computers only counted the last two digits of a number, so they didn't know the difference between 2000 or 1900. This would cause various problems with dates and finances, and would cause a big mess. People were panicking and saying that when 2000 rolled around, all the computers would crash and the nuclear bombs would go off or something.

Indeed, all the doomsayers turned out to be correct; only the disaster was the New England Patriots not only winning, but always winning and becoming the dominant sports team not only of the century, but approaching all time.

Anyway, Bill was hired on January 27

https://pbs.twimg.com/ext_tw_video_...pu/img/KxbyYfUj4KbQoYNP?format=jpg&name=small

Bob can always of course be counted upon:

"he is the most capable person at this point in time to help us win next year.":confused:

And, Tom was drafted on Bill's birthday, April 16

On this date: The Patriots drafted Tom Brady 199th overall 16 years ago

Which means Bill Belichick never coached a Patriots team without Tom Brady on the roster for Week 1. It's all about the 21st century.

Breakin' it down:

AFL ERA: Lots of heroes, history and hijinks

MODERN ERA: Schaefer Stadium, Jim Plunkett, Chuck Fairbanks and competitiveness for a quarter century

BITTERSWEET ERA: Robert Kraft lustily hopped on board the tsunami of Patriots denigration prior to his purchase, clearly due to resentment of his predecessor. Kraft never did anything to dissuade or discourage or debunk the propaganda, including participating and endorsing and preserving an insulting makeover, in an effort to promote his ownership as the genesis of New England football participation, enthusiasm and success. He essentially threw gasoline on the fire that has culminated in two (so far) fake scandals and two stolen first round draft picks and national enmity toward the franchise since Tom Brady took over as the starter, and the team thus started winning titles.

He will never view his ownership in the context of an already established franchise; tainting his own legacy.

So nothing will ever make up for 1976; We want to win #7 ASAP because we hate being tied with the Squealers, and we will in fact be successful after Tom retires, building on the foundation set by Bill and Tom, and catch up with the Packers for most NFL titles.

[So we definitely want to avoid Paul Gaston/Rick Pitino or Harry Frazee type implosions:eek:]

I actually liked these observations... although I do have to say I feel like the Fairbanks years were "snakebit," Ben Dreith notwithstanding. Or forget notwithstanding... Multiple voices (some from the team) said that (1) the Raiders marched down the field unimpeded after the Ray Hamilton roughing penalty, and then, that (2) they couldn't come back from it during that whole Fairbanks era.

That sounds sort of pre-Belichick to me. To you, I can tell you're of the "Man in the High Castle" school of thought about that 1 badly called wild card game against the Raiders. I don't like counter-factuals. They assume you have no control after the specified point in the game or season. It reminds me of some "What if" scenario I saw that had Dwight Clark not making "the catch" and therefore, the Cincinnati Bengals going on to become the dynasty (or something.) The truth is, had that game been better-called -- and had the Pats won -- they could very well have lost at any point along the way because a gosh darn butterfly flapped its wings differently in India and made an elephant fart.

These guys saying they were not mentally tough enough to get back from this one crappy playoff game were exhibiting a mindset that would be alien to today's elvis-hatted warriors (I couldn't resist on the logo-based analysis... sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander). Letting one bad call carry forward into a game, or one crap season ending carry over into the next season, is not the move of a team that should be (or possibly could be) a dynasty.

By the way, the Pats weren't the worst or the biggest laughingstock, except during some very specific periods of time. I don't think anybody says that. They were just sort of similar to the Red Sox... they could get you almost there, but could never seal the deal. I see your "new owner talks down old owners" point, and I frankly never noticed that... fact is, I lived out of town and couldn't get Pats news to save my life half the time. They weren't like the JEST, they were just "always the bridesmaid, never the bride." Or 3rd place, or 4th... but very often, the bridesmaid.

Well, like the commercial says, if you ain't the lead dog, the scenery never changes :D I am sure the JEST, Dolphins, and Jills are feelin' that by now.

However, I think that we can agree that in Patriots history, the losing end of a bed-soiling appears to be "10." (Also the number of points we scored vs San Diego.)
 

PatsFanInVa

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
2020 Weekly NFL Picks Winner
And also... how come that show Hamilton isn't about Sugar Bear Hamilton? They could both mention Sam Adams...
 

Actual Pats Fan

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
(1) the Raiders marched down the field unimpeded after the Ray Hamilton roughing penalty
I just watched the extremely rare video of segments from the original broadcast, which I got from our sent-from-heaven fellow Pats fan in Ireland.

It contains nothing from the ludicrous offensive (in both respects) attempted drive by the Pats in the closing minutes, but it does show the Hamilton play. He tipped the ball. Stabler did a flop that would make modern pro soccer players blush. Raider linemen solemnly went over to pick him up like he was Darryl Stingley.

Anyway, the defense did keep playing and working out there. They never gave up. Dreith called multiple unsportsmanlike penalties against Prentice McCray (Cappelletti was practically apoplectic in the radio booth) to move the ball to the 1-yard line, but we stuffed Pete Banaszak for a loss before Stabler bootlegged it in. The Patriots sideline was seething and Fairbanks tried to keep them under control. The absurdity of what was happening was incomprehensible to them and any objective viewer.

As with any athlete, especially after time has passed, you need to take what they say with a grain of salt. Great example is the many crucial details which are misremembered on both sides from this historic game


So Haynes may have thought that McCray deserved the flag (please) or something; another fact is that like Plunkett, Mike is also a Raider and has an affectionate following among their stupid fans. And even immediately after the game, Mike was always diplomatic. He's just a classy guy who takes the high road.
they couldn't come back from it during that whole Fairbanks era
They couldn't. There's a fine line between winning and coming up just short (see two Giants SB losses). But losing one of your key guys for life from a cheap shot is thankfully rare.
That sounds sort of pre-Belichick to me. To you, I can tell you're of the "Man in the High Castle" school of thought about that 1 badly called wild card game against the Raiders. I don't like counter-factuals. They assume you have no control after the specified point in the game or season. It reminds me of some "What if" scenario I saw that had Dwight Clark not making "the catch" and therefore, the Cincinnati Bengals going on to become the dynasty (or something.)
I never said the Patriots would have won anything else after 1976.

Pretending they always sucked or were anywhere near a "laughingstock" is "counter-factual"...it's the diatribe that the media CONTINUES to propagate because it's a catchy story though totally fake.

Leaving Eason/Berry out of it, the only pre-Brady Super Bowl should have been 1976. The two subsequent games were a mere formality, and everybody at the time knew it. That's just the way it was then, that year.
The truth is, had that game been better-called -- and had the Pats won -- they could very well have lost at any point along the way because a gosh darn butterfly flapped its wings differently in India and made an elephant fart.
The truth is, had any one of those calls and non calls not occurred, the Patriots would have won the Super Bowl in Pasadena in January. The odds of the team plane crashing or Grogan and Hannah both breaking their legs slipping in the shower are unrealistic.
These guys saying they were not mentally tough enough to get back from this one crappy playoff game were exhibiting a mindset that would be alien to today's elvis-hatted warriors (I couldn't resist on the logo-based analysis... sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander). Letting one bad call carry forward into a game, or one crap season ending carry over into the next season, is not the move of a team that should be (or possibly could be) a dynasty.
You are trying to paint the Patriots as the Raiders (Immaculate Reception, Tuck Rule etc.)

Anyone (including players) saying they were not mentally tough enough is deluded. From 1977-1980, the Patriots made huge plays and won several huge games every season. They were not GOOD enough to win anything. The psychological impact of what happened in '76 is real, and the leadership, courage and heroic play by people like Julius Adams and Steve Grogan over the next decade indicates that they were MORE mentally tough than anybody else in football.
By the way, the Pats weren't the worst or the biggest laughingstock, except during some very specific periods of time. I don't think anybody says that.
EVERYBODY says that.

Have you ever read anything printed in the media on the subject of the Patriots prior to 1994?

Duplicitous Bob Kraft has had the gall to criticize the media on several occasions, while they are the ones who have endlessly trumpeted the myth that he alone not only originated winning and fandom in New England, but that the Patriots were always a shambles on the field for 33 years.

The only shambles for the Patriots was when Sullivan's financial house of cards finally collapsed in 1989.
 

PatsFanInVa

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
2020 Weekly NFL Picks Winner
@Actual Pats Fan, a few things...

1) You're all over the map about mental toughness. You say the Pats were mentally tough enough, then you say they weren't GOOD enough, then you say they WOULD HAVE BEEN good enough, except for the psychological impact... which is what mental toughness means. While you're at it -- and this seems to be a national-scale issue -- you decided they were the MOST mentally tough team!!!! Well of course they were. But they were prevented from further progress for 4 years because of one game.

Now I know why BB says every year this is THIS YEAR'S team, nobody cares what happened in [previous year here.]

2) You keep insisting that "they" have a narrative of the Pats as doormats pre Brady/Belichick. That was true in certain years, but you're presenting that as an all-encompassing narrative. I havent lived in the Boston area in adulthood, so this might be the diff b/w local and "other" media... the national media in the mid-late 70s said 2 things... (a) these ain't your father's Patriots, and (b) They are underachievers... which they were. They were perennially mentioned as the team that would win the SB and they perenially failed to win a playoff game (if they got to the playoffs.) Still, 8-8 teams dont go to the playoffs all the time. Hell, when it's us, 11-5 teams don't go to the playoffs. Not the same thing as "laughingstock." (By the way, we'd hear the sportscasters talk about what a terrible break that was back in the 70s, if we didn't go to the playoffs even w/a decent record... Cassel's year, there was very little chatter about how rare it was to not make it w/11 wins.)

3) Some of your post is just weird. I said basically that letting a negative outlier carry forward and influence everything after it is not the move of a SB caliber team... you responded with...

"You are trying to paint the Patriots as the Raiders (Immaculate Reception, Tuck Rule etc.)"

WTF? I'll make you a deal: I'll just talk about what you actually post, rather than what you're "trying to" post, you do the same for me. I not only didn't say that, I don't even understand how you got there.

4) I understand that the following is rhetorical:
"Have you ever read anything printed in the media on the subject of the Patriots prior to 1994?"

But I think we differ in what we remember rather than what we've read.

I have a crystal-clear memory of reading SI season previews after the 76 cindarella turnaround season, with everybody picking the Pats to go all the way, possibly 2 or 3 years running.... just for example. It's really hard to pull those up online, I only get come-ons for safe file converters etc. But if you were to buy the pre-season issue of SI every year, you sure wouldn't hear how terrible the Pats were.... they were the sexy pick that never panned out.

Same's true of the Bengals by the way (in popular memory, the Bungles...) Somehow Joe Montana was playing them in the SB, but at the same time they're supposed to be the worst. Team. Evah. Everybody except the powerhouses (us first among them now) has ups and downs. People pick up the true down year monickers (Bungles, Patsies, Deadskins,) and it seems like the "respectable" losing teams from those years get tarred with the same brush. These broad reputation narratives are just not databases; they are vague feelings. The Saints fans always had to wear paper bags over their heads. (They did way too often but not always.) Tampa Bay was always the team with the perfect defeated season... until they won something.

I dont think the Krafts built a scaffolding of defamation around the pre-Kraft team, re-branding a good team as losers, so that he could contrast them against the Elvis teams which became winners. I just don't buy that there was a grand conspiracy to talk down the old teams.

They just were what they were... ultimately unable to win the big ones for whatever reason. Somehow we came back from the Elipocalypse and returned to winning Super Bowls. Part of the present era is that we don't expect "we wuz robbed" to have any currency, especially since everybody claims that we rob everybody else.

And it's an article of faith that a game won or lost last year was won or lost by last year's team.

Eh, I have enjoyed the walk down memory lane, all disagreements aside.
 

PatsFanInVa

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
2020 Weekly NFL Picks Winner
By the way, here's an article on the Berry Pats from the Chicago press... with the focus on their real reputation:

Losers, by way of underachieving. Not because they're the absolute worst - because they find ways to lose. Not quite the apotheosis of losing like the Vikings and Bills (get to the highest level then lose). But as I said, more like the old red sox... regularly get a chance, usually good-ish but not great... and w/stinker years too. The "underachiever" tag was basically what I remember... they just couldnt live up to their potential.

THANKS TO BERRY, PATRIOTS HAVE NOTHING TO APOLOGIZE FOR
 

Patsfanin Philly

Pro Bowl Player
Pats by the two most recent decades:
2000-2009 ---112 regular season victories 14-4 in playoffs
2010-2019*---113 regular season victories and 16-6 in playoffs
(* one year left to add to this)
Pretty f'n dominant....We are witnessing something they will talk about generations from now like the Yankees Murderers Row or 60's Celtics or Wooden's UCLA teams....
 

PatsFanInVa

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
2020 Weekly NFL Picks Winner
Pats by the two most recent decades:
2000-2009 ---112 regular season victories 14-4 in playoffs
2010-2019*---113 regular season victories and 16-6 in playoffs
(* one year left to add to this)
Pretty f'n dominant....We are witnessing something they will talk about generations from now like the Yankees Murderers Row or 60's Celtics or Wooden's UCLA teams....

I honestly think that with the way the game has to change, this is going to be looked at as the final achievement of tackle football, producing the Patriots dynasty. Something like the present game will survive, in some form. But between the near-impossibility of matching or topping this run, and the changes to the game, the present Pats are going to be seen as the team that "figured out" "that version of the game." Something like that. We're awesome, yay.
 

Actual Pats Fan

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
1) You're all over the map about mental toughness.
mis·in·ter·pre·ta·tion
/ˈˌmisinˌtərprəˈtāSHən/
noun

the action of interpreting something wrongly.
then you say they WOULD HAVE BEEN good enough, except for the psychological impact...
what?
But they were prevented from further progress for 4 years because of one game.
I.
never.
said.
that.
You keep insisting that "they" have a narrative of the Pats as doormats pre Brady/Belichick.
Yes. They=the entire media, and Kraft too. Just try looking up any article on the subject from the last thirty years
you're presenting that as an all-encompassing narrative
Well put...it is
"laughingstock."
Google "laughingstock" and "patriots" and watch your computer explode
Cassel's year, there was very little chatter about how rare it was to not make it w/11 wins.
what?
I said basically that letting a negative outlier carry forward and influence everything after it is not the move of a SB caliber team
Exactly. And the Raiders are indeed not a SB caliber team.
I not only didn't say that, I don't even understand how you got there.
"I said basically that letting a negative outlier carry forward and influence everything after it is not the move of a SB caliber team" about the Patriots
Same's true of the Bengals by the way (in popular memory, the Bungles...) Somehow Joe Montana was playing them in the SB, but at the same time they're supposed to be the worst. Team. Evah. Everybody except the powerhouses (us first among them now) has ups and downs. People pick up the true down year monickers (Bungles, Patsies, Deadskins,) and it seems like the "respectable" losing teams from those years get tarred with the same brush. These broad reputation narratives are just not databases; they are vague feelings. The Saints fans always had to wear paper bags over their heads. (They did way too often but not always.) Tampa Bay was always the team with the perfect defeated season... until they won something.
Good point! You got that one right.
I dont think the Krafts built a scaffolding of defamation around the pre-Kraft team, re-branding a good team as losers, so that he could contrast them against the Elvis teams which became winners.
Yes they did, with lots of support from local and national media and opponents which continues unabated today.

Do you seriously think that Adams, Francis, Fairbanks, Tatupu and Stingley should not be inducted prior to anyone not named Tom Brady?
I just don't buy that there was a grand conspiracy to talk down the old teams.
No, not a conscious one. They do it without thinking.

Any thought would enlighten them.
and w/stinker years too.
1981. The one, single losing season in a stretch of 13 years.

THANKS TO BERRY, PATRIOTS HAVE NOTHING TO APOLOGIZE FOR

Thanks for the article.

BTW the Bears absolutely stunk in the twenty prior seasons
 

TheBostonStraggler

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract
Also by the way...

Bill is the one who's overrated. Just not Bill Belichick.

Apologies as I didn't read it all and if my understanding "Bill is the one who's overrated" to be Bill "Tuna" is incorrect. With that said, if it is The Tuna we are talking about as being "overrated? No, Parcells is not really overrated (hyped a bit too much? maybe). While just about anyone is overrated when compared to BB, when Parcells HC'd a team they would always become competitive for a season or two. That is a very rare thing to be able to do. There are very few HC's you can say that about past and certainly present. And there are numerous teams who would kill to make their team competitive for just one season J-E-T-S, jets! jets! jets!)
I think the closest he came to abject failure was his stint with the Cowboys. But even that, if memory serves me, he took over team coming off a dismal season and got them in the playoffs that first year. I think it was mediocrity from there and then into his rightful place as retired. I suspect he just didn't have the drive anymore to put in the time to be a top HC.

And if "Bill's the one who is overrated" was not regarding Parcells? Ummm, well don't I look silly :)
 

DarrylS

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
2019 Weekly Picks Winner
This intelligent thread hurts my brain, not enough vitriol and reaction for this viewer... but refreshing.

Where are all the personal attacks and condescending commentary??
 

Actual Pats Fan

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
Apologies as I didn't read it all and if my understanding "Bill is the one who's overrated" to be Bill "Tuna" is incorrect. With that said, if it is The Tuna we are talking about as being "overrated? No, Parcells is not really overrated (hyped a bit too much? maybe). While just about anyone is overrated when compared to BB, when Parcells HC'd a team they would always become competitive for a season or two. That is a very rare thing to be able to do. There are very few HC's you can say that about past and certainly present. And there are numerous teams who would kill to make their team competitive for just one season J-E-T-S, jets! jets! jets!)
I think the closest he came to abject failure was his stint with the Cowboys. But even that, if memory serves me, he took over team coming off a dismal season and got them in the playoffs that first year. I think it was mediocrity from there and then into his rightful place as retired. I suspect he just didn't have the drive anymore to put in the time to be a top HC.

And if "Bill's the one who is overrated" was not regarding Parcells? Ummm, well don't I look silly :)
Parcells deserves credit and, after many years, I did come to appreciate him and his contributions.

The bluster was obviously a huge turn-off, but despite how he left he is what he is and gave the Patriots all he had.
 

XLIX

Pro Bowl Player
To put things in perspective....

If my math is correct - which is a huge if because I am wicked sick right now - calling the Patriots the team of the millennium at this point would be like calling them the team of the decade with about 13 minutes left in the second quarter of their first game of a new decade.

In other words, it’s a sure thing!! :D:D
 

tasmlab

Starting QB, won 20 SBs, number is retired
PatsFans.com Supporter
2020 Weekly NFL Picks Winner
To put things in perspective....

If my math is correct - which is a huge if because I am wicked sick right now - calling the Patriots the team of the millennium at this point would be like calling them the team of the decade with about 13 minutes left in the second quarter of their first game of a new decade.

In other words, it’s a sure thing!! :D:D

Defining the millennium as the next 1,000 years i.e., circa AD 2000-2999? I'd still feel pretty good putting Brady up there as a good bet, even if they are playing Atomic Space Football come 2519 or so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top