NFL Playoffs: Super Bowl LIII

[Brian in Boston]

2 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

I teach kids who have only ever known the Pats as the most dominant NFL team. So I understand the hate. 

 

It’s weird though. For me? The first Super Bowl I have clear memories of would be Super Bowl XXXI, where the Packers beat the Patriots. That was also the year I discovered the NFL Films Super Bowl Retrospective Marathon, where I saw the Pats get curb-stomped by the Bears in Super Bowl XX.

 

My point is that for my first formative years as a football fan? The Pats were the team that sometimes got to the Super Bowl and lost to the really good teams. 

 

Then they sucked for a bit, and suddenly Brady happened. A backup no one expected anything from and who had to come in to relieve a proven commodity at QB. And he lights the league on fire, beating a dominant team and winning a championship for a team that didn’t have any. 

 

People forget that Brady and the Pats winning that first one was a feel-good story. 

 

So I don’t know. Maybe I just remember all of that pre-two decade reign of terror stuff more than most, but I don’t ENTIRELY hate the Patriots like I do a team like the Yankees. 

 

This.

I grew up in Massachusetts and can attest to the fact that the Patriots were largely an afterthought on the New England sports scene for much of their existence. Whether bouncing between four different stadiums in Boston during their first ten years in operation, or playing in a bare-bones facility in the middle of nowhere for the better part of 30 years, the Pats were - as one local sports scribe once described them in his column - regarded as "50 pounds of stupid in a 5-pound bag" by most of the region's populace. And with good reason. As often as not, the on-field product simply wasn't very compelling. Over the course of its first 40 years, the franchise managed to produce winning seasons just 20 times  

The "rein of terror stuff" that Ice_Cap alludes to is a recent phenomena within the arc of the franchise's history. As of the final whistle being blown in Super Bowl LIII, 255 of the Patriots' 537 total victories as a franchise have been achieved during Bill Belichick's 19-year tenure as head coach. Meaning that nearly half (47%) of the franchise's wins have occurred in slightly less than the last third (32%) of the team's existence.

Even more noteworthy is the fact that 30 of the 37 post-season wins in Pats' history have been racked up in the 18 seasons since Tom Brady took over as the franchise's starting quarterback. That represents a full 81% of the team's playoff success coming with Belichick as head coach and Brady as QB. 

[IceCap]

1 hour ago, DG_Now said:

And I call shenanigans on the first Pats Super Bowl being a feel good story. People - like me - were pissed about the tuck rule taking the game away from the Raiders, and I definitely was rooting for the Greatest Show on Turf in those sweet new blue/gold uniforms.

See I loved that tuck rule game because  the Raiders. Then again I’m a Chargers fan. You’re a Bills fan. So I get it. 

[Red Wolf]

The Patriots were 100% a feel-good story to start with, at least nationally. I'm sure a lot of dynasties are. The Warriors' first title win with this crew was a nice story and we're all sick of them now. It's the normal way of sports. A team finally achieves the ultimate goal and then we hate them because they're not our team.

[Sport]

2 hours ago, dont care said:

Who is zac Taylor? Is being jarrod Goff’s qb coach really that impressive?

 

On it's own, no it's not that impressive. This is the Bengals rolling the dice and hoping to land the next hot up and coming hot coaching candidate before he becomes the next hot up and coming hot coaching candidate and gets swiped by another team. If he's ready to be a head coach in 2 years you might as well hire him now and take the chance that he's ready now. It's a gamble. 

[verno]

21 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

Then they'll just make a star out of someone else.  Players tend to look better when Tom Brady is throwing to them, as opposed to... oh, IDK... Chase Daniel.  Funny how that works.

Granted, Chris Hogan fits that mold. But, l believe if Gronkowski leaves, Brady loses a key big target. Edelman is actually great in crossing routes, but Gronk's size is irreplaceable! And he moves like almost no other TE at his size.

I forsee one more title for Tom. He'll play two more seasons.

[DnBronc]

1 hour ago, Red Wolf said:

The Patriots were 100% a feel-good story to start with, at least nationally. I'm sure a lot of dynasties are. The Warriors' first title win with this crew was a nice story and we're all sick of them now. It's the normal way of sports. A team finally achieves the ultimate goal and then we hate them because they're not our team.

 

That may be because a lot of people may have saw them as a one-hit wonder. I was one of those. I saw the 01 Pats as football's version of the 69 Mets, and didn't think we would see them back for a long time. Boy, was I wrong.

[oldschoolvikings]

Any chance someone from Boston will be eating horse poop at this year's victory parade?  Philadelphia set the bar pretty high.

[Red Wolf]

21 minutes ago, DnBronc said:

 

That may be because a lot of people may have saw them as a one-hit wonder. I was one of those. I saw the 01 Pats as football's version of the 69 Mets, and didn't think we would see them back for a long time. Boy, was I wrong.

I think it was as simple as being a team that had never won it all, from an area that had had a huge title drought, and doing it with their backup QB as heavy underdogs against the Rams who had had a similar story just a few years prior. As far as one-hit wonder, sure. Any team with sustained success at the top will be hated. The Patriots used to not matter and now they're one of the most loathsome teams in sports. The Warriors used to not matter and they're just as easy to hate now. If one team is winning, that means 30 or so other teams aren't and that leads to resentment.

[Quillz]

6 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

So I don’t know. Maybe I just remember all of that pre-two decade reign of terror stuff more than most, but I don’t ENTIRELY hate the Patriots like I do a team like the Yankees. 

You explained why: because prior to 2001, the Patriots were nothing. It's not like the Yanks where they had decades of consistent success.

 

I would almost compare the Patriots to the Bulls: nothing, ruled the league for a while, then reverted to nothing. Granted, I can't predict the future, but I would bet good money once Brady and Belichick are gone, the Patriots probably won't win four straight conference titles.

[Unocal]

Success breeds contempt.

 

Now, if the SEA/ATL SB's went differently and Brady got #4 against the Rams, I think it might be a bit different.

[Lights Out]

19 hours ago, Still MIGHTY said:

If the Patriots weren't from Boston/New England, we wouldn't hate them this much. We'd dislike them, but probably just in the same way someone could dislike the San Antonio Spurs. You combine the Boston of it all plus the success of the Red Sox/Celtics/Bruins, and you get the level of disdain the rest of America has for the New England Patriots.

IDK. It's not just the Boston factor. Kraft, Belichick, Brady, Gronk, Edelman - they'd all be obnoxious and unbearable in any city.

 

The Patriots overall might get less hate in a different market with less spoiled fans, but they'd still be hated - not just mildly disliked.

[Lights Out]

14 hours ago, SabresRule7361 said:

Success breeds contempt.

The Packers and Spurs say otherwise. The narrative that people hate the Patriots because they're successful is crap. It's because everyone from the owner to the fans is unlikeable, and the success only fuels that.

 

As for all the talk about how sad the pre-dynasty era was for the Patriots - even back in that era, they still went to two Super Bowls. There are some teams that have never even played in one.

[Red Wolf]

1 minute ago, Lights Out said:

The Packers and Spurs say otherwise. The narrative that people hate the Patriots because they're successful is crap. It's because everyone from the owner to the fans is unlikeable, and the success only fuels that.

People hate the Spurs. The Packers are probably the most hated team in the NFC North. If the Packers went on a run like the Pats have they’d be just as hated if not more so. “I’m so tired of Aaron Rodgers! He’s always in the Super Bowl and his stupid handsome face is in every commercial. Why does God hate me?”

[IceCap]

53 minutes ago, Lights Out said:

IDK. It's not just the Boston factor. Kraft, Belichick, Brady, Gronk, Edelman - they'd all be obnoxious and unbearable in any city.

 

The Patriots overall might get less hate in a different market with less spoiled fans, but they'd still be hated - not just mildly disliked.

 

51 minutes ago, Lights Out said:

The Packers and Spurs say otherwise. The narrative that people hate the Patriots because they're successful is crap. It's because everyone from the owner to the fans is unlikeable, and the success only fuels that.

 

As for all the talk about how sad the pre-dynasty era was for the Patriots - even back in that era, they still went to two Super Bowls. There are some teams that have never even played in one.

Yeah but you’re also a NE contrarian who can’t stand his own local teams so

It’s like hockey fans in southern Ontario who are obnoxious in their insistence on rooting for the Canucks or Pens. 

 

As for the Packers and Spurs? You’re wrong on two counts.

 

First, the Packers never had a dynasty in the modern era. Favre and Co. won a Super Bowl in 1996, lost the Super Bowl in 1997, and never made it back. Rodgers and Co. won a Super Bowl in 2010 and never made it back. Those aren’t dynasties.

So it’s disengeous to compare how the wider football fandom reacted to the Packers compared to the Patriots. If Favre and Co. had won six Super Bowl Championships and almost always played for the NFC Championship from 1996-2016? You’re damn right people would have loathed them. 

 

As for the Spurs? I hate to break it to you, but plenty of people hated them during their run on top. Be it them playing a very boring brand of basketball or just denying LeBron James a title people feel he “should” have won? There were plenty of people who were sick of the Spurs. 

 

[oldschoolvikings]

Wait... The Packers aren't universally hated?

 

 

Suddenly I feel lonely .

[DnBronc]

2 hours ago, Lights Out said:

IDK. It's not just the Boston factor. Kraft, Belichick, Brady, Gronk, Edelman - they'd all be obnoxious and unbearable in any city.

 

If this Patriot roster would have been in any other city the last 18 years minus Belichick and Kraft, they wouldn't have any titles.

[jmoe12]

30 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

Wait... The Packers aren't universally hated?

 

 

Suddenly I feel lonely .

I'm right there with you. I would rather watch a decade of New England championships than one title for Green Bay

[Sport]

19 minutes ago, DnBronc said:

 

If this Patriot roster would have been in any other city the last 18 years minus Belichick and Kraft, they wouldn't have any titles.

 

We need to remember that the 03 and 04 Patriots were some stacked rosters (and they added Corey Dillon for 2004). They went 14-2 both years and had a stretch through there when they won 21 straight games. I think those teams would've won the Super Bowl anywhere.

 

The last 3 championships are rosters only Belichick could win a super bowl with. 

 

 

[beachperroAZ]

23 hours ago, AstroBull21 said:

I looked at NFL history recently and saw that the 49ers of the 80s and 90s  had double digit wins from 1981-1998 (minus the players strike season of 1982).  White they didnt go to the Super Bowl as often as the Patriots they made the playoffs 16 seasons out of 18 seasons.  I'd say thats pretty dominant and we're just in the era that the Patriots are doing something similar.

 

I dont know if its the media or the market or what, but the 2001-present Patriots arent that far off from the 1981-1998 Niners.

I also noticed that the 80's 49ers were not hated like this Patriots dynasty.  

[Brian in Boston]

2 hours ago, Lights Out said:

As for all the talk about how sad the pre-dynasty era was for the Patriots - even back in that era, they still went to two Super Bowls. There are some teams that have never even played in one.

I'll grant you that the Patriots' participation in Super Bowl XX qualifies as having taken place in a completely different era of the franchise's history. However, for all intents and purposes, I feel that the second of the two Super Bowls you cite should be lumped in with the Kraft/Belichick/Brady era in Foxborough.

 

Whereas the Pats' trip to Super Bowl XX came during the Sullivan family's ownership of the franchise, by the time Super Bowl XXXI took place, the team had been sold three times: by the Sullivans to Victor Kiam in 1988; by Kiam to James Ortwein in 1992; and by Orthwein to Robert Kraft in 1994. 

It was in Bob Kraft's third season as owner of the Patriots that the team made its way to Super Bowl XXXI. Which was just four seasons prior to Kraft hiring Bill Belichick as the Patriots' head coach. In fact, Belichick was the Assistant Head Coach of Bill Parcells' Super Bowl XXXI Pats squad. Dante Scarnecchia, who served as the Defensive Assistant and Linebackers Coach for Parcells in 1996, became Belichick's Assistant Head Coach and Offensive Line Coach in 2000. Charlie Weis went from being the Patriots' Wide Receivers Coach under Parcells in 1996, to serving as Belichick's Offensive Coordinator and Running Backs Coach in 2000.

As for players, there were over a dozen who played on both the 1996 and 2000 Patriots teams: Bruce Armstrong, Drew Bledsoe, Troy Brown, Tedy Bruschi, Chad Eaton, Terry Glenn, Ted Johnson, Max Lane, Ty Law, Willie McGinest, Lawyer Milloy, Chris Slade, Otis Smith, Larry Whigham, and Adam Vinatieri.

Further, four players started for the Pats in the franchise's Super Bowl XXXI loss, as well as the Super Bowl XXXVI victory that marked the start of the Belichick/Brady era: Ty Law, Lawyer Milloy, Otis Smith, and Adam Vinatieri.