Which do you perfer we win Super Bowl 46 Or Super Bowl 52 and why

[InRodWeRust]

Wow this is really tough. Revenge for the worst loss that I've ever experienced or an amazing double 3 out of 4. 46 was another horrendous gut punch whereas 52 was the least hurtful SB loss (not counting XX because I was a little too young to be a true fan). I guess I'd go with 46.

 

[captain stone]

46 because we were truly, absolutely the better team for the second time against a team that got every break and bounce imaginable - the 2011 Giants were OUTSCORED during the regular season while we went in the game with the best weapon in the NFL playing on one leg, AND had at least three fairly easy chances to put the game away (strip sack we didn’t recover, Brady’s crazy INT attempt to Gronk, the Welker drop)...

Don't forget The Safety, and the Too Many Men penalty after we recovered a Vagiants fumble inside our 10. Those are 9 points that those maggots never EVER should've scored.

 

[captain stone]

The 2011 team didn’t deserve to be there. They really should have lost to the Ravens in the AFCCG, who I thought played better.

Re-watch the game. The Murderers did Not play better than we did, and the score should Not have actually been that close.

 

[Tony2046]

I think the most important reason in favor of SB52 is that NE would have been the only team with two different dynasties (2001-2007 and 2014-2017).

It's not two different dynasties. It's the same dynasty. Same leadership = same dynasty.

You guys are driving be crazy with this "dynasties" BS.

Ok not really but the Butler thread was locked so....

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

52. Brady would have the 3 best sb qb performances/wins of all time and he really deserved that one. Not that he didn’t deserve 46 but this was a whole nother level, friggin shame.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

It's not two different dynasties. It's the same dynasty. Same leadership = same dynasty.

You guys are driving be crazy with this "dynasties" BS.

Ok not really but the Butler thread was locked so....

Same coach and same QB does not mean same dynasty. The players and much of the coaching staff are entirely different. Brady has almost QB’d two dynasties.

 

[Bradyking12]

52. Brady would have the 3 best sb qb performances/wins of all time and he really deserved that one. Not that he didn’t deserve 46 but this was a whole nother level, friggin shame.

On top of all that 6X Super Bowl Champs to tie with sh*tsburg, and Brady himself would of had more SB wins than 30 other NFL teams while being tied with one, but I expect that to happen in SB53.

 

[Tony2046]

Same coach and same QB does not mean same dynasty. The players and much of the coaching staff are entirely different. Brady has almost QB’d two dynasties.

Dynasties end when the ruler or rulers change and not when one of their privates dies or retires.

RK, BB, and TB are still very much in control.

And they had Butler benched.

Dynasty is still intact.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Dynasties end when the ruler or rulers change and not when one of their privates dies or retires.

RK, BB, and TB are still very much in control.

And they had Butler benched.

Dynasty is still intact.

Not sure I agree with this logic. In sports, dynasties are named after teams, not based on "the ruler." Besides, there is a huge title gap between 2004-2014. How do you explain that away to detractors? If you want to argue that 2001-present is a Belichick dynasty or a Brady dynasty, I would probably agree with you. If you want to argue it's the same Patriots dynasty, I have a tough time with that, mainly because the cast of characters is vastly different. It's sounds so much more impressive (at least to me) to be able to say Brady QB'd two dynasties. But we need another title to say that.

 

[Uptown]

52. Two Dynasties.

 

[BobDigital]

46 for a few reasons. One would be so we don't have as huge of a gape in our wins. Another is to get back at the giants. Another is it would end the GOAT debate early so we didn't need to hear about Manning vs Brady for 3 more years.

It wouldn't have been 3 of 4 but it would have been a 2nd dynasty 11/14/16 3 in 6 all in the 2010s still counts as a dynasty.

 

[Tony2046]

Not sure I agree with this logic. In sports, dynasties are named after teams, not based on "the ruler." Besides, there is a huge title gap between 2004-2014. How do you explain that away to detractors? If you want to argue that 2001-present is a Belichick dynasty or a Brady dynasty, I would probably agree with you. If you want to argue it's the same Patriots dynasty, I have a tough time with that, mainly because the cast of characters are vastly different. It's sounds so much more impressive (at least to me) to be able to say Brady QB'd two dynasties. But we need another title to say that.

Sure. I don't think there's really any wrong way to look at or label an unprecedented level of success but to me it's just one dynasty which includes, so far, three eras. The fellowship of the rings, the two towering heartbreaks, and the return of the King or the birth of the GOAT(s).

Seriously though, is there a sports dynasty that isn't linked to at least one "ruler"? Noll/Bradshaw, Staubach/Landry (mini dynasty??), Auerbach/Bird, Walsh/Montana, Phil Jackson/Jordan or (Jordan/Pippen), Torre/Jeter, etc etc....

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Sure. I don't think there's really any wrong way to look at or label an unprecedented level of success but to me it's just one dynasty which includes, so far, three eras. The fellowship of the rings, the two towering heartbreaks, and the return of the King or the birth of the GOAT(s).

Seriously though, is there a sports dynasty that isn't linked to at least one "ruler"? Noll/Bradshaw, Staubach/Landry (mini dynasty??), Auerbach/Bird, Walsh/Montana, Phil Jackson/Jordan or (Jordan/Pippen), Torre/Jeter, etc etc....

You are correct there is no right answer. We are all wired differently so we view things a different way. It’s a first world debate to have.

What the pats have done is unprecedented in sports, which is why there is no consesus on one dynasty or (almost) two. None of those coaches/players you listed have sustained success across two decades like Tom and Bill. I guess for me, a dynasty should not have large gaps. I can see how others would view it differently though.

 

[maust]

Might have beens are for losers. To paraphrase Brady the next ring is the best one.

 

[mosslost]

I'm waiting for Mosslost's input and perhaps the Ray Lewis Super Bowl body count before I answer the poll but I think that before the season all I want is to get to the Super Bowl to have a chance to win but when we lose I become like Captain Stone for a week or two which is not good for anyone's blood pressure.

I voted 52. (two repeats and two 3 out of 4s)

but the only argument I have if I was going to pick 46, would be to evenly distribute the SB wins a bit more, and not have a 10 year break in the victories.

Alas we lost both so...

 

[Todd Bradley]

This thread is the definition of the term "embarrassment of riches".

 

[mosslost]

I think the most important reason in favor of SB52 is that NE would have been the only team with two different dynasties (2001-2007 and 2014-2017).

It's all one long dynasty. And the loss of 52 did not make them "lose a dynasty"... but it would have been nice to have two 3 out of 4

 

[mosslost]

Auerbach/Bird

Auerbach/Bird?

As much as I love Bird I think you mean Russell there

 

[italian pat patriot]

no doubt...52...reason ? i was there @ Min...

 

[RayClay]

Don't think we get to do that. How about the next one?