TerryTate
☠️ Banned ☠️
I'll admit, if New England wins this super bowl, I'll consider them a dynasty.
If not, there is no dynasty. 2 titles in 4 years (one of which they didnt make the playoffs) does not equal dynasty in my mind.
But here is the issue I am angry about. Everyone is always saying "The New England Patriots know how to win when it counts....in the playoffs. They are undefeated in the playoffs...blah blah blah."
It doesnt seem fair to me that they treat this "Brady-Belichek undefeated in the playoffs BS the way they do". I think not making the playoffs in 2002-2003 is a lot worse than making the playoffs, but the way the media is treating it, that is not so. Apparently it is more impressive to take a year off to preserve that undefeated mark
I dont know the exact records, but lets break it down with guesses for the sake of argument
2001-2002 PAts go 4-0 in the playoffs, win super bowl
2002-2003 Pats dont make playoffs
2003-2004 Pats go 3-0 in the playoffs, win super bowl
2004-2005 PAts go 3-0 in the playoffs, win super bowl
they go 10-0 with 3 playoff appearances and miss out one year and 3 rings
Lets play pretend now and say that the pats made it to the first round of the playoffs in the 2002-2003 season, then you have this...
2001-2002 PAts go 4-0 in the playoffs, win super bowl
2002-2003 Pats go 0-1 in playoffs, out in first round
2003-2004 Pats go 3-0 in the playoffs, win super bowl
2004-2005 PAts go 3-0 in the playoffs, win super bowl
they go 10-1 with 4 playoff appearances (out of a possible 4) and 3 rings
But like I said, ESPN finds it more impressive that they could just eliminate that year where the pats decided not to show up so they can have a sparkling 10-0 or whatever figure it's at now.
Anyone see where I'm going with this? I wasnt sure how to put it down in a thread, I tried to explain my argument the best I can.
If not, there is no dynasty. 2 titles in 4 years (one of which they didnt make the playoffs) does not equal dynasty in my mind.
But here is the issue I am angry about. Everyone is always saying "The New England Patriots know how to win when it counts....in the playoffs. They are undefeated in the playoffs...blah blah blah."
It doesnt seem fair to me that they treat this "Brady-Belichek undefeated in the playoffs BS the way they do". I think not making the playoffs in 2002-2003 is a lot worse than making the playoffs, but the way the media is treating it, that is not so. Apparently it is more impressive to take a year off to preserve that undefeated mark
I dont know the exact records, but lets break it down with guesses for the sake of argument
2001-2002 PAts go 4-0 in the playoffs, win super bowl
2002-2003 Pats dont make playoffs
2003-2004 Pats go 3-0 in the playoffs, win super bowl
2004-2005 PAts go 3-0 in the playoffs, win super bowl
they go 10-0 with 3 playoff appearances and miss out one year and 3 rings
Lets play pretend now and say that the pats made it to the first round of the playoffs in the 2002-2003 season, then you have this...
2001-2002 PAts go 4-0 in the playoffs, win super bowl
2002-2003 Pats go 0-1 in playoffs, out in first round
2003-2004 Pats go 3-0 in the playoffs, win super bowl
2004-2005 PAts go 3-0 in the playoffs, win super bowl
they go 10-1 with 4 playoff appearances (out of a possible 4) and 3 rings
But like I said, ESPN finds it more impressive that they could just eliminate that year where the pats decided not to show up so they can have a sparkling 10-0 or whatever figure it's at now.
Anyone see where I'm going with this? I wasnt sure how to put it down in a thread, I tried to explain my argument the best I can.