PDA

View Full Version : Patriots can be king of all eras


mesaSteeler
06-15-2009, 10:48 PM
(The PatsiCheats are totally delusional. - mesa)

Patriots can be king of all eras
By Rick Gosselin / Dallas Morning News | Sunday, June 14, 2009 | http://www.bostonherald.com | NFL Coverage
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/football/other_nfl/view.bg?articleid=1178886&format=text

Thirty-one teams are seeking an NFL championship in 2009. A 32nd team is seeking history.

With three Lombardi Trophies in the 2000s, the Patriots [team stats] have staked a claim as the NFL’s team of the decade. A fourth Super Bowl and 12 more regular-season victories in 2009 would allow the Patriots to stake their claim as the team for all decades.

The Pats joined the 1972 Miami Dolphins [team stats] as the only teams in NFL history to play a perfect regular season, posting a 16-0 mark in 2007. The Patriots also matched the feat of the 1990s Cowboys by winning three Super Bowls in a span of four years (2001-04).

Another Super Bowl in 2009 would allow the Patriots to match the 1970s Steelers and 1980s 49ers with four titles in a decade. A 12-victory regular season would give the Pats 114 wins in the decade, breaking the NFL mark of 113 set by the San Francisco 49ers in the 1990s.

The Patriots are loaded, again, and the return of a healthy Tom Brady [stats] makes them the team to beat in 2009. So we’ll place Bill Belichick’s crew atop our annual offseason rankings.

Only three teams finished in the NFL’s top 10 in offense and defense last season, and you can find them in the top three slots of these power rankings:
1. Patriots - With Brady on the field, the Patriots have won 23 of their last 25 games. The Patriots also have the game’s most prolific tandem of wideouts in Pro Bowlers Randy Moss and Wes Welker.

2. NY Giants - The Giants finished ninth in the league in run defense and sixth in sacks last year without their best lineman, Osi Umenyiora. Now he’s back. If they can replace WR Plaxico Burress with rookies Hakeem Nicks and Ramses Barden, they should be the team to beat in the NFC.

3. Philadelphia - The Eagles have finally decided to see how good Donovan McNabb could be with legitimate weapons on the flank, using premium draft choices on speedy WRs DeSean Jackson in ’08 and Jeremy Maclin in ’09.

4. Pittsburgh - The Steelers captured a record sixth Lombardi Trophy last season, but an inability to block led to the season-long pummeling of QB Ben Roethlisberger and RB Willie Parker. Pittsburgh has some young blockers who need to develop quickly.

5. San Diego - The Chargers were another team that overachieved last season, overcoming a 4-8 start to win the AFC West, despite the season-long absence of Shawne Merriman. LaDainian Tomlinson is starting to show signs of age, but QB Philip Rivers is maturing.

6. Atlanta - Matt Ryan won 11 games last season on his way to NFL Offensive Rookie of the Year honors. Ryan could be even more effective this year with TE Tony Gonzalez.

7. Baltimore - The Ravens lost Pro Bowl linebacker Bart Scott and safety Jim Leonhard in free agency from the NFL’s No. 2-ranked defense. But the biggest loss may be defensive coordinator Rex Ryan.

8. Tennessee - How much faith do you have in Kerry Collins? He’s been rewarded with a contract extension, all but writing off the onetime face of the franchise, Vince Young.

9. Indianapolis - The Colts have won 101 games this decade, one fewer than the Patriots, and need 13 to break San Francisco’s mark. Peyton Manning is back, but head coach Tony Dungy is not. That’s a huge hit.

10. Arizona - Are the Cardinals for real after participating in their first Super Bowl? Well, they have Kurt Warner and if they can keep him healthy, they can contend again.

11. Carolina - The age of QB Jake Delhomme (34) and the unsettled contract situation of DE Julius Peppers casts a shadow over what is an otherwise talented team..

12. Houston - The Texans have been around since 2002 but have not managed a winning season. This should be their breakthrough year.

13. Chicago - What a difference a quarterback makes. By acquiring Pro Bowler Jay Cutler from the Broncos, the Bears have the best quarterbacking in the NFC North for the first time since the Jim McMahon era in the 1980s. But the Bears need to regroup on defense.

14. New Orleans - The Saints have the best offense in the NFL. But great offense, plus no defense equals a noncontender.

15. Miami - The Dolphins’ creative offense and the pass rush of Joey Porter and Jason Taylor will keep the defending the AFC East champs competitive.

16. Green Bay - The Packers figured to struggle in 2008 without Brett Favre. Aaron Rodgers played better than expected, but the defense collapsed

17. Dallas - Terrell Owens’ departure could and probably should trigger a philosophical shift on offense to the running game. In Marion Barber, Felix Jones and Tashard Choice, Dallas has the ability to be a top-5 rushing attack.

18. Minnesota - The Vikings are left with the worst quarterbacking in the division. (Favre anyone?) But Minnesota has the best defense and best RB in Adrian Peterson.

19. Washington - The Redskins tried to draft Mark Sanchez in April. Having failed, the Redskins turned the job back over to Jason Campbell with a lack-of-confidence vote.

20. Jacksonville - The Jaguars finally found a lead receiver for QB David Garrard in Torry Holt. Unfortunately, at 33, Holt’s best years are behind him.

21. Cincinnati - The Bengals lost an NFL-high 84 games by starters because of injury in 2008, including 12 by QB Carson Palmer. Little wonder they won only four games.

22. Buffalo - Another T.O. era begins, this time in Buffalo, where crueler weather conditions - windier, wetter, colder - will probably mean more dropped passes by the King of the Drops.

23. NY Jets - The Jets went the old-quarterback route in 2008 with Favre. They are going with rookie Sanchez this season. Rex Ryan’s real problem though is overhauling a defense that allowed a division-high 356 points last season.

24. San Francisco - The 49ers take four quarterbacks to camp: Alex Smith, Shaun Hill, Damon Huard and rookie Nate Davis. Can they win with any of them?

25. Cleveland - The Browns fired GM Phil Savage and coach Romeo Crennel but, surprisingly, kept QB Brady Quinn and WR Braylon Edwards. The headache is now Eric Mangini’s.

26. Seattle - Mike Holmgren is gone, replaced by Jim Mora and his defensive mind. Seattle could use a little more ‘D,’ after finishing 30th in the NFL.

27. Oakland - By drafting WR Darrius Heyward-Bey, S Mike Mitchell and DE Slade Norris, the Raiders will be a much faster team in 2009. The jury is still out on QB JaMarcus Russell.

28. Detroit - Anything the 0-16 Lions achieve under new coach Jim Schwartz and No. 1 overall pick Matthew Stafford will be an improvement. .

29. Tampa Bay - The faces of the Bucs defense for a decade - coordinator Monte Kiffin and linebacker Derrick Brooks - are gone. So is any hope of Tampa Bay sniffng the playoffs.

30. Denver - So much for the lifetime security in Denver that Mike Shanahan seemed to snare with those back-to-back Super Bowl victories in the late 1990s. A lack of defense cost him his job in 2008. Young Josh McDaniels gives it a go now.

31. St. Louis - Having failed with offensive gurus Mike Martz and Scott Linehan this decade, the Rams hired defensive whiz Steve Spagnuolo away from the Giants as head coach.

32. Kansas City - Scott Pioli is the new GM, Todd Haley the new coach and Matt Cassel the new quarterback. The face of the franchise and most reliable weapon, Gonzalez, was traded to Atlanta. This will be a very steep climb.

NJarhead
06-15-2009, 10:52 PM
4. Pittsburgh - The Steelers captured a record sixth Lombardi Trophy last season, but an inability to block led to the season-long pummeling of QB Ben Roethlisberger and RB Willie Parker. Pittsburgh has some young blockers who need to develop quickly.

The Patriots are loaded, again, and the return of a healthy Tom Brady [stats] makes them the team to beat in 2009. So we’ll place Bill Belichick’s crew atop our annual offseason rankings.

I only have two questions:

1). Didn't the Steelers win the Super Bowl despite all this?

2). Didn't the Patriots lose the Super Bowl for those reasons (inability to protect the QB)?

STFU.

:coffee:

Note: Obviously not directed at you Mesa.

Hammer Of The GODS
06-15-2009, 11:19 PM
It's a GD shame that Roger Gooddeal has apparently been successful at sweeping the cheating under the rug.

As far as I'm concerned NOTHING they have done or will do is legitimate as long as Bellicheat is coaching them.

He cheated and BECAUSE it was dealt with by a wet noodle of a Commish who obviously was covering for them, I believe Bellicheat could still be cheating. Remember the old adage " once a cheater always a cheater".


EFF THE CHEATING ASS PATSIES AND THEIR DOUCHEBAG COACH!

mesaSteeler
06-15-2009, 11:27 PM
"Note: Obviously not directed at you Mesa." - TheWarDen86

No worries, I knew you were referring to the moron who wrote this trash.

I'm amazed the idiot who wrote this drivel could be so stupid. I can't wait till we beat these cheating scum in the playoffs. That is assuming the Cheatriots even get to the playoffs.

jev7452
06-15-2009, 11:44 PM
everything in that article was irrelevant. they can say whatever they want about how a team looks statistically or how many wins they have, but the only thing that matters is what happens in the playoffs and just because the beauty queen will be back doesnt mean jack.. NEXT!!

lilyoder6
06-16-2009, 12:03 AM
he is just another swallower of the pats..

if they are so good like this man has said.. then why haven't they done shit since 04...

SteelersMongol
06-16-2009, 01:55 AM
I only have two questions:

1). Didn't the Steelers win the Super Bowl despite all this?

2). Didn't the Patriots lose the Super Bowl for those reasons (inability to protect the QB)?

STFU.

:coffee:

Note: Obviously not directed at you Mesa.

But but but the Patriots still has the greatest QB ever lived. :laughing:

revefsreleets
06-16-2009, 09:06 AM
I feel dirty just reading this garbage.

hindes204
06-16-2009, 09:27 AM
another year....same garbage from these idiots. We won the superbowl and people STILL see us as the underdogs. Thats fine, we do good when they doubt us

Dino 6 Rings
06-16-2009, 09:59 AM
Can anyone else feel it?

I can...HERE WE GO!

RoethlisBURGHer
06-16-2009, 12:28 PM
Um, the 1970 Pittsburgh Steelers are still the greatest dynasty of any era.

Four Super Bowls in six years...something the Patriots can't do. They also never lost a Super Bowl in the decade. Something the Patriots did do.

Also, the Dolphins won every game they played in their undefeated season, INCLUDING the Super Bowl...so the argument that their undefeated season was better is moot because in the grand scheme of things, the Patriots lost the most important game of them all.

Not to mention the cheating the Patriots did during their Super Bowl run and the fact that they haven't won a Super Bowl since then doesn't help their case....unless you are a New England Patriots pole polisher, in which that stuff is just meaningless.

Not to mention, when the Steelers win Super Bowl XLIV, and they beat the Pats in Pittsburgh to get there...I think the Steelers should truly be named the team of the decade. Three titles, no cheating.

revefsreleets
06-16-2009, 12:35 PM
"King of all eras"

The more I think about this ridiculous title, the more I just have to laugh...

silver & black
06-16-2009, 04:24 PM
Fu*k the patr*ots.

The Raiders, as bad as they are right now, are still the only team to play in the Superbowl in 4 out of the last 5 decades.

The patr*ots... the team for all eras??? FU*K THAT!

steelreserve
06-16-2009, 05:14 PM
The Pats joined the 1972 Miami Dolphins [team stats] as the only teams in NFL history to play a perfect regular season, posting a 16-0 mark in 2007. The Patriots also matched the feat of the 1990s Cowboys by winning three Super Bowls in a span of four years (2001-04).

Another Super Bowl in 2009 would allow the Patriots to match the 1970s Steelers and 1980s 49ers with four titles in a decade.

This guy has to be retarded ... explain to me again how four Super Bowls are better than six, or even five? Especially when you haven't even won your fourth one yet?

A 12-victory regular season would give the Pats 114 wins in the decade, breaking the NFL mark of 113 set by the San Francisco 49ers in the 1990s.

All I have to say to that is, wow. What a shameless attempt to use arbitrary stats for your own self-serving cause.

In the 10 years from 1984-1993, San Francisco won 130 games. THAT'S the record, and New England doesn't even have a chance to come close to it.

For those keeping score at home, even if the Patriots win 12 games this year like the asshat writer seems to think, the 49ers basically did better than them by a full unbeaten season during the same stretch of time.

revefsreleets
06-16-2009, 05:20 PM
What's more, they only played 14 game seasons up until 1977, so that record is highly dubious. We really only have one decade outside of the two previous where the playing field was level.

I'd take winning percentage over sheer wins any day....

HughC
06-16-2009, 06:25 PM
The biggest problem I have with the article is not what everybody here seems to be so singularly focused on - that the writer had the audacity to place New England first in his power rankings - but that he places the Steelers 4th, behind both the Giants and Eagles. Surprised he didn't just go ahead and put the Cowboys up there with them.

RoethlisBURGHer
06-16-2009, 06:52 PM
The biggest problem I have with the article is not what everybody here seems to be so singularly focused on - that the writer had the audacity to place New England first in his power rankings - but that he places the Steelers 4th, behind both the Giants and Eagles. Surprised he didn't just go ahead and put the Cowboys up there with them.

I didn't bother to read that far into the "article".

steelreserve
06-16-2009, 07:12 PM
The biggest problem I have with the article is not what everybody here seems to be so singularly focused on - that the writer had the audacity to place New England first in his power rankings - but that he places the Steelers 4th, behind both the Giants and Eagles. Surprised he didn't just go ahead and put the Cowboys up there with them.

Well, in all fairness, we did lose to the Giants and Eagles last year. But those were also two of our worst games, and the Giants game was just plain crap-ass bad luck.

So yeah, I guess the guy is still retarded. Confirmed.

Edman
06-16-2009, 07:38 PM
Well, in all fairness, we did lose to the Giants and Eagles last year.

But we didn't lose to the Gaytriots. In fact, the Steelers demolished them.

The list is his opinion, even if it is retarded Boston Homer logic.

I-Want-Troy's-Hair
06-16-2009, 07:52 PM
"King of all eras"

The more I think about this ridiculous title, the more I just have to laugh...

Maybe they will trademark it.... "king of all eras" yep looks like we'll be shipping more t-shirts to Africia for the kids.

NJarhead
06-16-2009, 07:58 PM
Maybe they will trademark it.... "king of all eras" yep looks like we'll be shipping more t-shirts to Africia for the kids.

:laughing:

Man, I hope so.

AllD
06-16-2009, 08:05 PM
The Patriots also have the game’s most prolific tandem of wideouts in Pro Bowlers Randy Moss and Wes Welker.

Do any of them have a SB victory? I know neither was ever SB MVP. I forgot how many SB MVP WRs the Steelers have...oh yeah, (2).


I don't even know why we are playing the next season since Brady is back. We should just give the Pats the Lombardi now so nobody gets their hair messed up. This article is complete Boston bullshit.

NJarhead
06-16-2009, 08:30 PM
The Patriots also have the game’s most prolific tandem of wideouts in Pro Bowlers Randy Moss and Wes Welker.

Do any of them have a SB victory? I know neither was ever SB MVP. I forgot how many SB MVP WRs the Steelers have...oh yeah, (2).


I don't even know why we are playing the next season since Brady is back. We should just give the Pats the Lombardi now so nobody gets their hair messed up. This article is complete Boston bullshit.

:rofl:
:applaudit: WELL SAID!
:drink:

Preacher
06-16-2009, 09:03 PM
Sigh....

Another idiot that doesn't realize the decade isn't over until 2011.

Which means there are 2 more SB's to be played in this decade, since the 2011 SB will be for the 2010 season.

mesaSteeler
06-17-2009, 12:45 AM
Sigh....

Another idiot that doesn't realize the decade isn't over until 2011.

Which means there are 2 more SB's to be played in this decade, since the 2011 SB will be for the 2010 season.

Excellent point.

X-Terminator
06-17-2009, 12:54 AM
And opposing team's fans think the Penguins get all of the crazy man love from the media? They've got nothing on the full-on orgy that the media has over the Patr*ots. :jerkit:

SteelCityMan786
06-17-2009, 11:52 AM
And opposing team's fans think the Penguins get all of the crazy man love from the media? They've got nothing on the full-on orgy that the media has over the Patr*ots. :jerkit:

Well Said. Not to mention some might say that about the Steelers as well. They just love to hate Pittsburgh teams.

Dino 6 Rings
06-17-2009, 12:15 PM
Who's the only coach to win 4 Super Bowls again?

Who's the only team to win 4 in 6 years again?

Who's the only team to win 2 Super Bowls the last 4 years?

Who's the team that choked away a 18-0 season?

Who's the team that is 6-1 in the Super Bowl? Who's the team that is 3-3?

Who's the team that has had 3 coaches since 1969? Who's the team that has had 11 coaches in that same time?

Dino 6 Rings
06-17-2009, 12:16 PM
Now, I'm not a Patriots basher, but I will happily point out nonsense when it is written...and this article, is pure nonsense.

St33lersguy
06-17-2009, 04:25 PM
That list was just plain horrible. Nothing to read here folks

ARKIESTEEL
06-17-2009, 04:35 PM
The 70's Steelers didnt play as many reg season games right? be tuff to have a higher win count with less games.

AllD
06-17-2009, 06:04 PM
:rofl:
:applaudit: WELL SAID!
:drink:

Not to mention that Ryan Clark cancelled Wes Welker's check the last time we played them.:tt02:

LVSteelersfan
06-17-2009, 07:14 PM
Knob slobberer. It has all been said earlier in the thread, but even if they win this year (which I find highly doubtful despite all the media) we still have more Super Bowl wins since 2004 than the Patsies do. Sorry, I don't buy that Brady is coming back 100% from his injury. Past experience shows that players come back rusty and gunshy from this type of injury. And I just don't buy that they fixed their defense enough after losing some key players the past couple of seasons. Let them slobber all over the Patsies and Bellicheat. We will sneak up on everyone because of the lack of respect by the media.

steel striker
06-17-2009, 09:21 PM
You know it kind of pisses me off that even though we won the sb last season and, still people doubt our guys. I'm with you Dino Ben and the boys are going to bring home #7 to the burgh. God I hate the cheaters!

stillers4me
06-17-2009, 09:41 PM
Puck the Fatriots. :upyours:

RodWoodsonwasprettycool
06-17-2009, 11:01 PM
Um, the 1970 Pittsburgh Steelers are still the greatest dynasty of any era.

AHEM

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d8074c956/Top-Ten-Records-Never-Be-Broken-Otto-Graham-s-10-Straight-Title-Games

:thumbsup::wink02:

Yes I am Bias as hell with this one. But without the Browns dynasty during this era, the Seelers wouldn't have those 4 Super Bowls ;).

revefsreleets
06-18-2009, 09:59 AM
That's nice and all, but the NFL was a COMPLETELY different game back then. In the mid-50's, there were only 12 teams in the entire league. To appear in the title game was to win the Eastern conference, which was about as difficult as winning your division in the 70's and 80's (There were 6 teams in the Eastern Conference in the 50's, 5 teams in the old AFC Central during the Steelers Super Bowl runs).

The Browns Championships back in the Eisenhower administration simply don't carry the same weight as those in the modern era.

NJarhead
06-18-2009, 03:38 PM
Not to mention that Ryan Clark cancelled Wes Welker's check the last time we played them.:tt02:

That wasn't Wes Welker. That was ....... BATMAN! :chuckle:

CargoJon
06-19-2009, 01:49 PM
This guy needs to get Belicheats short hairs out of his teeth.

The damn Patriots haven't even won a Super Bowl in 5 years, how can they be team of this decade, or any decade for that matter.

Frankly, the Steelers are 2 God-awful Neil O'Donnell passes away from being 7-0 in the Super Bowl.

HughC
06-20-2009, 01:33 AM
This guy needs to get Belicheats short hairs out of his teeth.

The damn Patriots haven't even won a Super Bowl in 5 years, how can they be team of this decade, or any decade for that matter.

Frankly, the Steelers are 2 God-awful Neil O'Donnell passes away from being 7-0 in the Super Bowl.
Did you really have to bring up his name?


Just to put some perspective in to this debate, the guy is not talking about the best franchise of all time; he's talking about the best team of the decade. In other words, the first four Super Bowl wins don't count in this discussion, just like Green Bay's wins in the 60's or the Cowboys in the 90's don't. In other words, for the case of this discussion 6-1 is irrelevant. And please don't bring up woulda' coulda' shoulda' arguments because then every fan of every other team will be entitled to do the same thing.

Reality is that the Patriots have three Super Bowl wins this decade and the Steelers have two. This team needs to win another Lombardi this year - period. If not, then they have three to our two, regardless of the results of the last half of the decade.

I don't want to hear any excuses about 'they cheated' - sorry, it just sounds too much like what a Seahawk fan would say; just win another championship and let the results speak for themselves.

fansince'76
06-20-2009, 05:11 AM
Just to put some perspective in to this debate, the guy is not talking about the best franchise of all time....

Uh, yeah, he is, and he's practically already handing them this coming season's Lombardi to boot:

With three Lombardi Trophies in the 2000s, the Patriots [team stats] have staked a claim as the NFL’s team of the decade. A fourth Super Bowl and 12 more regular-season victories in 2009 would allow the Patriots to stake their claim as the team for all decades.

The Patriots are loaded, again, and the return of a healthy Tom Brady makes them the team to beat in 2009. So we’ll place Bill Belichick’s crew atop our annual offseason rankings.

I don't see how one doesn't get "best team ever" out of that. It's as clear as day. Don't know about you, but I've gotten really tired of seeing that team get sucked off by the sports media at large on an annual basis when they have won NOTHING for almost 5 years now.

....just win another championship and let the results speak for themselves.

Yeah, right. We win another championship (like this past season) or if any other team wins it, for that matter, it'll be pretty much a given that Tommy Terrific and his merry band of metrosexuals will be picked as the "team to beat" once again in 2010. It's so predictable you could set your watch by it.

silver & black
06-20-2009, 08:22 AM
Uh, yeah, he is, and he's practically already handing them this coming season's Lombardi to boot:



I don't see how one doesn't get "best team ever" out of that. It's as clear as day. Don't know about you, but I've gotten really tired of seeing that team get sucked off by the sports media at large on an annual basis when they have won NOTHING for almost 5 years now.



Yeah, right. We win another championship (like this past season) or if any other team wins it, for that matter, it'll be pretty much a given that Tommy Terrific and his merry band of metrosexuals will be picked as the "team to beat" once again in 2010. It's so predictable you could set your watch by it.


It's hard to believe how much the patsies get blown by virtually every media outlet.

This one here just blows me away:
A fourth Super Bowl and 12 more regular-season victories in 2009 would allow the Patriots to stake their claim as the team for all decades.

All decades??? How the f**k do you figure that!? The steelers owned the 70's. The 49ers owned the 80's. The cowboys owned the 90's. The Raiders have as many Superbowl wins as the patr*ts, plus... they are the only team to play in the Superbowl in 4 out of the last 5 decades. The patr*ts did nothing during those decades but suck ass! Everything about this article and the patr*ots is a f**king joke!

The Patriot
06-20-2009, 10:35 AM
It's hard to believe how much the patsies get blown by virtually every media outlet.

This one here just blows me away:


All decades??? How the f**k do you figure that!? The steelers owned the 70's. The 49ers owned the 80's. The cowboys owned the 90's. The Raiders have as many Superbowl wins as the patr*ts, plus... they are the only team to play in the Superbowl in 4 out of the last 5 decades. The patr*ts did nothing during those decades but suck ass! Everything about this article and the patr*ots is a f**king joke!

Yes, you've mentioned that twice already. It's very impressive. :wink02:

Godfather
06-20-2009, 10:49 AM
I'm dunmer for having read that drivel.

The Pats* can call me when they win 4 in 6 years.

silver & black
06-20-2009, 10:57 AM
Yes, you've mentioned that twice already. It's very impressive. :wink02:

It is... isn't it?

Too bad there is NOTHING impressive about your cheating ass team.

MACH1
06-20-2009, 12:02 PM
See cheating does pay off.

HughC
06-20-2009, 09:22 PM
Uh, yeah, he is, and he's practically already handing them this coming season's Lombardi to boot:
. . . . .
I don't see how one doesn't get "best team ever" out of that. It's as clear as day. Don't know about you, but I've gotten really tired of seeing that team get sucked off by the sports media at large on an annual basis when they have won NOTHING for almost 5 years now.
. . . . .
Yeah, right. We win another championship (like this past season) or if any other team wins it, for that matter, it'll be pretty much a given that Tommy Terrific and his merry band of metrosexuals will be picked as the "team to beat" once again in 2010. It's so predictable you could set your watch by it.
I can certainly see where you get that point of view; but respectfully, I disagree with your assessment of the article. Let's look again at exactly what the columnist wrote:

With three Lombardi Trophies in the 2000s, the Patriots have staked a claim as the NFL’s team of the decade.
He's not crowning them; he's saying with three SB's they're in the discussion for team of the decade.


A fourth Super Bowl and 12 more regular-season victories in 2009 would allow the Patriots to stake their claim as the team for all decades.
Now he's saying that if they win the SB this year then (a) they would be team of the decade, and (b) they're in the discussion of which 'team of the decade' is the best 'team of the decade.' Again, not crowning them; the columnist is saying if they win, then the discussion starts.


The Pats joined the 1972 Miami Dolphins as the only teams in NFL history to play a perfect regular season, posting a 16-0 mark in 2007. The Patriots also matched the feat of the 1990s Cowboys by winning three Super Bowls in a span of four years (2001-04).
Shame on the writer for not pointing out that the Pats failed to seal the deal in regards to the unbeaten season when comparing them to the Dolphins. And shame on mentioning three in four without mentioning four in six.


Another Super Bowl in 2009 would allow the Patriots to match the 1970s Steelers and 1980s 49ers with four titles in a decade.
Nothing untruthful there.


A 12-victory regular season would give the Pats 114 wins in the decade, breaking the NFL mark of 113 set by the San Francisco 49ers in the 1990s.
I'll take this one with a grain of salt. On one hand there are now 16 games in a regular season - again, something the writer should have mentioned if he was going to use this stat. On the other hand the combination of free agency and a salary cap does make it far more difficult to win consistently now in comparison to back then, so I'd say it's a wash.

And BTW, this whole discussion - and how fans tend to look at dynasties - is by the decade. Yes, the 49ers did have an incredible ten year run but generally speaking football fans compare 'team of the 70's' vs 'team of the 80's' vs 'team of the 90's', etc - which is what this writer is doing. What the 49ers did from the middle of one decade to the middle of another decade is splitting hairs and irrelevant.


The Patriots are loaded, again, and the return of a healthy Tom Brady makes them the team to beat in 2009. So we’ll place Bill Belichick’s crew atop our annual offseason rankings.
A rather overly simplistic analysis, but it is only June. So he ranks them first, big whoop. Seems to me from past experience that better things happen when all is said and done when the team is not the preseason favorite.

Besides, if I can only have one to choose from, isn't a post-season championship a whole lot more gratifying than a preseason number one ranking?


Bottom line that I got out if this is the writer says that if the Pats win the Super Bowl, then they are the team of the decade and they enter the discussion of who is the best "best team of the decade"? They're not going to win that title, but a fourth Super Bowl championship would earn them entrance to the discussion along with the Steelers, Cowboys and 49ers. But unless or until that happens, they're still on the second tier.

The Patriot
06-20-2009, 09:30 PM
It is... isn't it?

Too bad there is NOTHING impressive about your cheating ass team.

http://zip.4chan.org/sp/src/1245547802604.jpg

silver & black
06-20-2009, 09:45 PM
http://zip.4chan.org/sp/src/1245547802604.jpg

What a let down. I thought you would have more than a worn out picture as a come back. :coffee:

fansince'76
06-20-2009, 09:58 PM
I can certainly see where you get that point of view; but respectfully, I disagree with your assessment of the article. Let's look again at exactly what the columnist wrote....

Excellent points. I can see now why you read the article the way you did as well. :drink:

The Patriot
06-20-2009, 10:04 PM
What a let down. I thought you would have more than a worn out picture as a come back. :coffee:

http://zip.4chan.org/sp/src/1245549795701.jpg

silver & black
06-20-2009, 11:09 PM
http://zip.4chan.org/sp/src/1245549795701.jpg

still waiting. :coffee:

Kittyfish
06-21-2009, 10:01 AM
I freely admit I am not as knowledgeable about football as 99% of you here, but I like to think of myself as fairly representative of "everyman" or "Joe Shmoe" who knows a little about what's going on but not up on all the background and the stats and such. Of course, liking to think that doesn't make it so. After all, I like to think I'm young and pretty and cute too. :laughing: Anyway, the following is my take on the Pats before and after Spygate.

Here is something I just wrote to someone in PM - my opinion only but I wouldn't be surprised if I wasn't the only one:

Originally Posted by Kittyfish
Can we agree that the Patriots are cheating MFs and I am even more sick of hearing about godliness of Brady than I am about the godliness of Favre?

Absolutely and I agree wholeheartedly!

Good - if you hadn't, we couldn't be friends.

You know, it didn't used to be that way. Not that I enjoyed losing to the Pats, but I just figured they had our number - no matter what team you support and how good they may be, there are going to be one or two teams you just struggle against, regardless. I figured the Pats and the Jags and sometimes the Ravens were just our nemesis and there wasn't much I could do about it. Teams tend to go in cycles of being good and being not-so-good, and I assumed that the Pats were on the upswing at this point in time. I gave credit to Brady and the Pats for being the better team (after I got over the sting of losing to them yet again). But after that cheating business came out, just the sight of Brady or Bellichick physically turns my stomach. I mean, literally makes me sick. I still don't see how they were punished (beyond paying $500,000, which, let's face it, probably wasn't that much of a hardship) and it really grinds my gizzard that they squeaked out all those SB wins cheating all the while. I'm mad as hell on behalf of the opposing teams who lost to them because of Vinatieri's foot. It's not like TB had these fabulous blow-out SB victories. And the talking heads NEVER seem to acknowledge any of it and continue to proclaim TB as the best evah evah evah w/o ever admitting he might have had an edge. They still pick the Pats to win the SB every single year, when they lost 42 and hadn't been before that since, what, 2004? I'm simply sick to death of hearing about GD TB.

The_WARDen
06-22-2009, 09:06 AM
This guy has to be retarded ... explain to me again how four Super Bowls are better than six, or even five? Especially when you haven't even won your fourth one yet?



All I have to say to that is, wow. What a shameless attempt to use arbitrary stats for your own self-serving cause.

In the 10 years from 1984-1993, San Francisco won 130 games. THAT'S the record, and New England doesn't even have a chance to come close to it.

For those keeping score at home, even if the Patriots win 12 games this year like the asshat writer seems to think, the 49ers basically did better than them by a full unbeaten season during the same stretch of time.

Not to mention that the 49ers 18-1 season was better than the Cheatriots 18-1 season because it ended with a championship and not a choke job.

The_WARDen
06-22-2009, 09:13 AM
It's hard to believe how much the patsies get blown by virtually every media outlet.

This one here just blows me away:


All decades??? How the f**k do you figure that!? The steelers owned the 70's. The 49ers owned the 80's. The cowboys owned the 90's. The Raiders have as many Superbowl wins as the patr*ts, plus... they are the only team to play in the Superbowl in 4 out of the last 5 decades. The patr*ts did nothing during those decades but suck ass! Everything about this article and the patr*ots is a f**king joke!

Hey now! The Cheatriots have been in a SB in each of the last 3 decades. Everyone remembers that stellar performance against Da Bears in '86 right? What was it again? Oh yeah 45-10.

steelreserve
06-22-2009, 04:49 PM
Not to mention that the 49ers 18-1 season was better than the Cheatriots 18-1 season because it ended with a championship and not a choke job.

That goes without saying. Same for the '85 Bears, and the '72 Dolphins while we're at it. Basically, it seems like all the pole polishers have already forgotten that the Patriots did NOT finish undefeated, and are already back to squawking "OMG, perfect regular season!" as if that's the pinnacle of achievement.

No. They may have had the fourth-best season of all-time, but certainly no better. It could even be argued that, despite the regular season, it ranks 44th on the list of "best seasons of all time" -- behind each of the teams that actually WON a championship.

AllD
06-22-2009, 06:01 PM
That goes without saying. Same for the '85 Bears, and the '72 Dolphins while we're at it. Basically, it seems like all the pole polishers have already forgotten that the Patriots did NOT finish undefeated, and are already back to squawking "OMG, perfect regular season!" as if that's the pinnacle of achievement.

No. They may have had the fourth-best season of all-time, but certainly no better. It could even be argued that, despite the regular season, it ranks 44th on the list of "best seasons of all time" -- behind each of the teams that actually WON a championship.

I don't remember how many games the Giants lost in 2007, but their "overall season" was much better than the Pats that year. The only people that care about how many regular season games you won are fantasy players. And their credibility is worth something only in fantasyland.

Another question can also be answered here. What is a better record in Super bowls? 5-0 49ers or 6-1 Steelers? It's all about winning the Super Bowl as long as you have won more than you have lost.

HughC
06-22-2009, 10:46 PM
Did anybody other than fansince'76 actually read the article? Or did everyone else just read the title of this thread and jump to conclusions? If you still need an explanation, read comment #49. :doh:

silver & black
06-23-2009, 06:25 AM
Did anybody other than fansince'76 actually read the article? Or did everyone else just read the title of this thread and jump to conclusions? If you still need an explanation, read comment #49. :doh:

Yeah, I read it... did you? In #49 you say he is saying that they are in the mix for team of the "decade". He clearly says that the patr*ts could/should be, with however many more wins and what have you, the team for "ALL decades"... not just this decade.

To that, I say...... Bullsh*t!

The Patriot
06-23-2009, 11:14 AM
Yeah, I read it... did you? In #49 you say he is saying that they are in the mix for team of the "decade". He clearly says that the patr*ts could/should be, with however many more wins and what have you, the team for "ALL decades"... not just this decade.

To that, I say...... Bullsh*t!

Because, clearly, the Oakland Raiders forever hold that title.

revefsreleets
06-23-2009, 11:58 AM
Green Bay Packers have a legit claim over the Pats, as do the Browns (The guy said "ALL decades, right?). The 9ers and Steelers are also more deserving in their respective era's. So, yeah, um, this article is way out of whack.

The Pats win it all this year and next, and they deserve to be mentioned ALONG WITH the Steelers and the Niners, but nobody will trump what the Packers did in the 60's. I mean, come on, they won the title in '61, '62, '65, '66 and then they won the Super Bowl in '67 and '68.

All without cheating even just once.

The Patriot
06-23-2009, 12:10 PM
Do you guys enjoy being angry or something? I mean, if a sportswriter posts something unrealistic about the Patriots, you'll find it and brood over it.

revefsreleets
06-23-2009, 12:15 PM
Cheating makes me angry.

Sorry...

The Patriot
06-23-2009, 12:58 PM
Cheating makes me angry.

Sorry...

Hey, after winning two super bowls, if the only smack you can give the Patriots is their sideline videotape scandal, then I'm perfectly fine with that.

X-Terminator
06-23-2009, 01:14 PM
It's not just the cheating that makes me angry. It's the fact that they haven't won a damn thing in 5 years and are responsible for 2 of the biggest choke jobs in NFL history in that span, and yet the media still sucks them off and annoints them "the team to beat" and write ridiculous articles like this calling them "the team of all decades" that makes me angry.

The Patriot
06-23-2009, 01:18 PM
It's not just the cheating that makes me angry. It's the fact that they haven't won a damn thing in 5 years and are responsible for 2 of the biggest choke jobs in NFL history in that span, and yet the media still sucks them off and annoints them "the team to beat" and write ridiculous articles like this calling them "the team of all decades" that makes me angry.

Well, normally, for most people, winning the super bowl supplies a slight elevation of mood, regardless of what the media thinks.

fansince'76
06-23-2009, 01:20 PM
Well, normally, for most people, winning the super bowl supplies a slight elevation of mood, regardless of what the media thinks.

You haven't read the main forum lately, have you? :toofunny:

X-Terminator
06-23-2009, 01:23 PM
Well, normally, for most people, winning the super bowl supplies a slight elevation of mood, regardless of what the media thinks.

Yeah well, when the "experts" stop handing the Lombardi to the Pats* and Marsha before a single game is played, then maybe my mood will elevate a bit.

silver & black
06-23-2009, 05:59 PM
Because, clearly, the Oakland Raiders forever hold that title.

Of course they don't. Did I say they did... or should? Why don't you tell me why the patr*ots should be considered the team for all decades. I'd love to hear the reasoning behind it. I can't for the life of me figure that one out.

I'll go so far as to say that the patr*ots have had a great run in this decade. How does that possibly make them the team for all decades?

The Patriot
06-23-2009, 11:30 PM
Of course they don't. Did I say they did... or should? Why don't you tell me why the patr*ots should be considered the team for all decades. I'd love to hear the reasoning behind it. I can't for the life of me figure that one out.

I'll go so far as to say that the patr*ots have had a great run in this decade. How does that possibly make them the team for all decades?

It doesn't. But I'm a homer, so I don't care. :tt03:

silver & black
06-24-2009, 06:46 AM
It doesn't. But I'm a homer, so I don't care. :tt03:

I understand that one. :thumbsup:

trauben
06-24-2009, 08:07 AM
Holy :poop: ................... here we go again!

Despite being the reigning SB Champs, they're blowing us off again for the Pats???

When in the Wide Wide World of Sports are they ever going to learn??? :doh:

First they blow us off after a 15-1 season and one game of the SB to pick the *Pathetics and didn't learn after XL that following season?

Then they blew us off last year because of the hard schedule we had............ and now that we have XLIII they still haven't learned from that?

Actually........... this is a good thing. :applaudit:
I like the omen we've got going here. We don't need to have our asses kissed like Brady and company!

Here we come......... XLIV! :thumbsup:

trauben
06-24-2009, 08:12 AM
Do you guys enjoy being angry or something? I mean, if a sportswriter posts something unrealistic about the Patriots, you'll find it and brood over it.

Angry? Actually it's comical really! These guys will never learn. The biggest thing they've forgotten is that your *Asterisks* no longer can video tape your opponent's calls and get away with it.

As a fan the fact remains that you just cannot ignore............ until you used them? You owned not one single Lombardi. ZERO! Sucks for you although you'll never admit it. And now that you don't have your cheating ways anymore?? You won't own one again. Take that to the bank! Until you can prove me wrong with another Lombardi won without cheating............ you'll never win this argument/discussion with any of us blackngold faithfuls!

The_WARDen
06-24-2009, 08:34 AM
Holy :poop: ................... here we go again!

Despite being the reigning SB Champs, they're blowing us off again for the Pats???

When in the Wide Wide World of Sports are they ever going to learn??? :doh:

First they blow us off after a 15-1 season and one game of the SB to pick the *Pathetics and didn't learn after XL that following season?

Then they blew us off last year because of the hard schedule we had............ and now that we have XLIII they still haven't learned from that?

Actually........... this is a good thing. :applaudit:
I like the omen we've got going here. We don't need to have our asses kissed like Brady and company!

Here we come......... XLIV! :thumbsup:

It's all good...no one gets a trophy for the preseason #1 ranking. Let them have their fun for the time being.

The Patriot
06-24-2009, 10:29 AM
Angry? Actually it's comical really! These guys will never learn. The biggest thing they've forgotten is that your *Asterisks* no longer can video tape your opponent's calls and get away with it.

As a fan the fact remains that you just cannot ignore............ until you used them? You owned not one single Lombardi. ZERO! Sucks for you although you'll never admit it. And now that you don't have your cheating ways anymore?? You won't own one again. Take that to the bank! Until you can prove me wrong with another Lombardi won without cheating............ you'll never win this argument/discussion with any of us blackngold faithfuls!


Yes, I've heard this speech before.

trauben
06-24-2009, 10:31 AM
It's all good...no one gets a trophy for the preseason #1 ranking. Let them have their fun for the time being.
LOL ................ I know, but sometimes you get sick of the :poop: year after year after year after year after year after year after after year after year after year ................ you get the point.

But the thing I've always enjoyed best?

Is the last laugh!

http://www.fistfulofsports.com/uploaded_images/SB40-Trophy-783247.jpg
http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/ap_steelers_jub_090202_ssh.jpg

RoethlisBURGHer
06-24-2009, 12:17 PM
Let the Patriots get all the ball-washing and nut-hugging.

The Steelers seem to like it better being the underdogs. Just prove all the idiots in the media wrong.

trauben
06-24-2009, 12:21 PM
This thread isn't complete without one of these................

:sign11:

HughC
06-24-2009, 09:18 PM
Yeah, I read it... did you? In #49 you say he is saying that they are in the mix for team of the "decade". He clearly says that the patr*ts could/should be, with however many more wins and what have you, the team for "ALL decades"... not just this decade.

To that, I say...... Bullsh*t!
Reading comprehension versus jumping to conclusions; let's see what the columnist wrote:

"A fourth Super Bowl and 12 more regular-season victories in 2009 would allow the Patriots to stake their claim as the team for all decades."

Once again - I'll type slowly and avoid as many words with three or more syllables if that will help you - the writer says that if - if - that Pats win 12 games and the SB this year - then they can start talking about the Team of the 00's versus the Team of the 90's, Team of the 80's, Team of the 70's, etc., and which one is best.

"Stake their claim." That is, if - again, if - they win the SB this year, then they are allowed entrance to the debate. The writer is not crowning them; he is just saying that should they accomplish that, then they are allowed to be compared to those other teams that were also the best of their decades.


Excellent point by The_WARDen, taking my thoughts right off my keyboard:
"no one gets a trophy for the preseason #1 ranking. Let them have their fun for the time being."


Also well worth mentioning revefsreleets comment about the Packers and their team in the 60's. Unfortunately for them too many people look only at Super Bowl championships, even though their team from that era is still the defining dynasty in NFL history.

silver & black
06-24-2009, 09:41 PM
Reading comprehension versus jumping to conclusions; let's see what the columnist wrote:

"A fourth Super Bowl and 12 more regular-season victories in 2009 would allow the Patriots to stake their claim as the team for all decades."

Once again - I'll type slowly and avoid as many words with three or more syllables if that will help you - the writer says that if - if - that Pats win 12 games and the SB this year - then they can start talking about the Team of the 00's versus the Team of the 90's, Team of the 80's, Team of the 70's, etc., and which one is best.

"Stake their claim." That is, if - again, if - they win the SB this year, then they are allowed entrance to the debate. The writer is not crowning them; he is just saying that should they accomplish that, then they are allowed to be compared to those other teams that were also the best of their decades.


Excellent point by The_WARDen, taking my thoughts right off my keyboard:
"no one gets a trophy for the preseason #1 ranking. Let them have their fun for the time being."


Also well worth mentioning revefsreleets comment about the Packers and their team in the 60's. Unfortunately for them too many people look only at Super Bowl championships, even though their team from that era is still the defining dynasty in NFL history.


I 'll ask one more time... since it seems to escape you: How would ANY amount of wins in this decade or ANY amount of Superbowl wins in this decade make the patr*ots the team of all decades? Go ahead...... answer as best you can.... no matter what you say, won't hold water.

silver & black
06-24-2009, 09:46 PM
Angry? Actually it's comical really! These guys will never learn. The biggest thing they've forgotten is that your *Asterisks* no longer can video tape your opponent's calls and get away with it.

As a fan the fact remains that you just cannot ignore............ until you used them? You owned not one single Lombardi. ZERO! Sucks for you although you'll never admit it. And now that you don't have your cheating ways anymore?? You won't own one again. Take that to the bank! Until you can prove me wrong with another Lombardi won without cheating............ you'll never win this argument/discussion with any of us blackngold faithfuls!

They will never win with the Silver and Black faithful either... since the tuck joke game is where it started.

T&B fan
06-25-2009, 12:30 PM
[SIZE="7"]if[SIZE"] yes if they win and if the lions win 16 they will ( Stake their claim." ) as the best comeback of all time ?? :chuckle: if if if if if if if .. if only I could pick the lottery # I would have it made .. if :wink02:

The_WARDen
06-25-2009, 01:02 PM
LOL ................ I know, but sometimes you get sick of the :poop: year after year after year after year after year after year after after year after year after year ................ you get the point.

But the thing I've always enjoyed best?

Is the last laugh!

http://www.fistfulofsports.com/uploaded_images/SB40-Trophy-783247.jpg
http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/ap_steelers_jub_090202_ssh.jpg

there ya go! We have 6 and the Cheatriots have 3 plus we've won 2 of the last 4 so I could really give :poop::poop: what any tool from NE thinks.

trauben
06-25-2009, 01:10 PM
They will never win with the Silver and Black faithful either... since the tuck joke game is where it started.
True that............. that's about the only thing I'll drink with a raiders fan on! :wink02::drink:

Dino 6 Rings
06-25-2009, 01:14 PM
True that............. that's about the only thing I'll drink with a raiders fan on! :wink02::drink:

well that and the fact Howie Long is a pretty good SIDE KICK for TERRY BRADSHAW!:flap:

trauben
06-25-2009, 01:16 PM
well that and the fact Howie Long is a pretty good SIDE KICK for TERRY BRADSHAW!:flap:
Yeah............. imagine that! I like that duo.:thumbsup:

HughC
06-25-2009, 06:26 PM
I 'll ask one more time... since it seems to escape you: How would ANY amount of wins in this decade or ANY amount of Superbowl wins in this decade make the patr*ots the team of all decades? Go ahead...... answer as best you can.... no matter what you say, won't hold water.
And once again I'll answer you since it still seems to escape you: the writer doesn't say that they do become the team of all decades; he says that if that were to happen then they can "stake a claim", just like the Cowboys, 49ers, Steelers, and Packers - consensus teams of past decades - can also stake a claim as the best, "best team of the decade." It doesn't mean they would be the #1 "best team of the decade" (or as he puts it, "team of all decades") - it would just mean that they would be allowed to be part of the discussion.

Again: the writer is not saying they will be the "team of all decades" with a SB win this season. He just says that would allow them to be part of that debate. There is a huge difference between those two concepts, and that difference is what you seem to be failing to grasp.

If that were to happen, I am not saying that they would be the "team for all decades" either; all I have said - several times - is that if that were to happen then they could enter the debate, or "stake their claim" as the writer puts it.

I'll take it a step further and play devil's advocate and take your bait with the scenario that you put forth above. If, hypothetically, they were to have any amount of wins, you're saying they are still not worthy of being compared to those other teams? How do you figure a team with four super bowl championships, five conference championships, two undefeated seasons and nine straight winning seasons in one decade does not merit at least being mentioned with the best teams from each of the previous decades? Because in the scenario you just laid out, that's what they will have accomplished.

Once again, it's not a discussion about who has the best franchise over the last forty years, or the best franchise from the beginning of the NFL. The writer is comparing various "best teams of the decades." He's not saying that they are as of now. And he is not saying that if they win another SB that they are the best of "all decades." All he's saying is that if they win again this year, then include them in the debate.

Do I think this will happen?

No - in which case this discussion becomes a moot point.

And the debate will instead be whether the Steelers or NE was the best team of the 2000's.



Now my question to you is, exactly how much money did you lose on the Tuck Rule game? Even if that call goes the Raiders way, Oakland would have lost the next week and still end up with zero Lombardis this decade while NE would still win in '03 and '04. Bad rule but the refs did actually make the right call based on the rulebook. In fact the call has been made before and since then; and it was brought up to the competition committee and they decided to keep it as is.

silver & black
06-26-2009, 12:12 PM
And once again I'll answer you since it still seems to escape you: the writer doesn't say that they do become the team of all decades; he says that if that were to happen then they can "stake a claim", just like the Cowboys, 49ers, Steelers, and Packers - consensus teams of past decades - can also stake a claim as the best, "best team of the decade." It doesn't mean they would be the #1 "best team of the decade" (or as he puts it, "team of all decades") - it would just mean that they would be allowed to be part of the discussion.

Again: the writer is not saying they will be the "team of all decades" with a SB win this season. He just says that would allow them to be part of that debate. There is a huge difference between those two concepts, and that difference is what you seem to be failing to grasp.

If that were to happen, I am not saying that they would be the "team for all decades" either; all I have said - several times - is that if that were to happen then they could enter the debate, or "stake their claim" as the writer puts it.

I'll take it a step further and play devil's advocate and take your bait with the scenario that you put forth above. If, hypothetically, they were to have any amount of wins, you're saying they are still not worthy of being compared to those other teams? How do you figure a team with four super bowl championships, five conference championships, two undefeated seasons and nine straight winning seasons in one decade does not merit at least being mentioned with the best teams from each of the previous decades? Because in the scenario you just laid out, that's what they will have accomplished.

Once again, it's not a discussion about who has the best franchise over the last forty years, or the best franchise from the beginning of the NFL. The writer is comparing various "best teams of the decades." He's not saying that they are as of now. And he is not saying that if they win another SB that they are the best of "all decades." All he's saying is that if they win again this year, then include them in the debate.

Do I think this will happen?

No - in which case this discussion becomes a moot point.

And the debate will instead be whether the Steelers or NE was the best team of the 2000's.



Now my question to you is, exactly how much money did you lose on the Tuck Rule game? Even if that call goes the Raiders way, Oakland would have lost the next week and still end up with zero Lombardis this decade while NE would still win in '03 and '04. Bad rule but the refs did actually make the right call based on the rulebook. In fact the call has been made before and since then; and it was brought up to the competition committee and they decided to keep it as is.


I guess i don't understand how this is not glaringly obvious to you... it's as plain as it can be. I'll even bold it for you... just so you don't miss it... again.

With three Lombardi Trophies in the 2000s, the Patriots [team stats] have staked a claim as the NFL’s team of the decade. A fourth Super Bowl and 12 more regular-season victories in 2009 would allow the Patriots to stake their claim as the team for all decades.

Let me see if I can make it so you can see it.

allow the Patriots to stake their claim as the team for all decades.
How the hell does that qualify as the team for ALL decades?

Go ahead...... refute that.

Tuck rule is over and done with. The entire world knows the Raiders were hosed... even the patr*ts and their fans. We may not have won the Superbowl that year, but the fact remains that we were cheated out of the opportunity. I would almost put money on the patr*ts not winning another Superbowl for many years to come.They are a one decade wonder... compliments of great cammera work.

HughC
06-26-2009, 04:22 PM
I guess i don't understand how this is not glaringly obvious to you... it's as plain as it can be. I'll even bold it for you... just so you don't miss it... again.
[/B]

Let me see if I can make it so you can see it.

allow the Patriots to stake their claim as the team for all decades.
How the hell does that qualify as the team for ALL decades?

Go ahead...... refute that.

Tuck rule is over and done with. The entire world knows the Raiders were hosed... even the patr*ts and their fans. We may not have won the Superbowl that year, but the fact remains that we were cheated out of the opportunity. I would almost put money on the patr*ts not winning another Superbowl for many years to come.They are a one decade wonder... compliments of great cammera work.

I interpet "allow them to stake their claim" to mean that they could claim to be the best - no different than those other teams could also "stake their claim" to be the best. In my opinion that is what is what the writer said.

Your opinion is that the writer is saying that they would be the best if they win, period, end of story. To me, if the writer was saying that they would be the best at that point, he would not have used the words "stake their claim" since more than one person or group can stake their claim to something.

Regardless of how much you bold, or how large a font size you use, in my opinion you are misinterpeting what was written. You're taking portions of a sentence and taking them out of context.

You yourself gave the scenario of 'no matter how many games they win', and I pointed out what their accomplishments would be that would allow them to be considered "team of all decades." I already refuted your position in the last comment, I'm not going to repeat myself; reread it if you want an explanation.

And again, the tuck rule is a bad rule but it was the right call since that's what's on the books. Besides, the Raiders still had plenty of opportunity to win that game and they didn't.

beSteelmyheart
06-26-2009, 05:51 PM
I think what silver & black is most annoyed by is the " all decades" portion of the sentence & that keeps getting missed...I'm annoyed by it as well.
The Patsies just don't have the winning history that spans decades where other more deserving teams do.
If the article wanted to argue for team of the decade (singular) ok, I could see the point, not that I would agree with that, either, but for the decades (plural)???
No way.

silver & black
06-26-2009, 07:14 PM
I interpet "allow them to stake their claim" to mean that they could claim to be the best - no different than those other teams could also "stake their claim" to be the best. In my opinion that is what is what the writer said.

Your opinion is that the writer is saying that they would be the best if they win, period, end of story. To me, if the writer was saying that they would be the best at that point, he would not have used the words "stake their claim" since more than one person or group can stake their claim to something.

Regardless of how much you bold, or how large a font size you use, in my opinion you are misinterpeting what was written. You're taking portions of a sentence and taking them out of context.

You yourself gave the scenario of 'no matter how many games they win', and I pointed out what their accomplishments would be that would allow them to be considered "team of all decades." I already refuted your position in the last comment, I'm not going to repeat myself; reread it if you want an explanation.

And again, the tuck rule is a bad rule but it was the right call since that's what's on the books. Besides, the Raiders still had plenty of opportunity to win that game and they didn't.

What part of ALL DECADES escapes you? I would agree that the patr*ts may be able to take the title as the team of the dacde for the 2000's... although the decade isn't over yet. How could the patr*ts EVER be considered the team of ALL DECADES!!!??? Face it... they sucked for most of their existence. You can twist this anyway you wish... but it just won't wash.

Yeah, the Raiders had opportunites to win the game, no doubt, but... if the FUMBLE was left as called, the GAME WAS OVER... and you lose! Correct call my ass... pulling some obscure, bullsh*t rule out of the book that had NEVER been used before, was the league's way of making sure their darling Patriots had a shot of winning... after 9/11. After all, why would they want the NFL's bad boy bullies to win, when America needed the Patriots at such a crucial time in Amercan history? The whole damn thing smells like sh*t.........still. Not to mention that the video taping was going on during that game. They should be known as the Cheaters for all decades.

SteelCityKing
06-26-2009, 07:37 PM
What part of ALL DECADES escapes you? I would agree that the patr*ts may be able to take the title as the team of the dacde for the 2000's... although the decade isn't over yet. How could the patr*ts EVER be considered the team of ALL DECADES!!!??? Face it... they sucked for most of their existence. You can twist this anyway you wish... but it just won't wash.

Yeah, the Raiders had opportunites to win the game, no doubt, but... if the FUMBLE was left as called, the GAME WAS OVER... and you lose! Correct call my ass... pulling some obscure, bullsh*t rule out of the book that had NEVER been used before, was the league's way of making sure their darling Patriots had a shot of winning... after 9/11. After all, why would they want the NFL's bad boy bullies to win, when America needed the Patriots at such a crucial time in Amercan history? The whole damn thing smells like sh*t.........still. Not to mention that the video taping was going on during that game. They should be known as the Cheaters for all decades.

by "NFL bad boy bullies" are you referring to the Oakland Raiders? cause to me, they are about as soft as a mouse fart through silk my friend.

just on a side note, how many Raiders have a rule named after them due to how tough they play the game? i don't know of any. but i know one Steeler who does.

as for your tuck rule debate, cry about it for as long as you want. only Raiders fans care about that anymore. the Raiders do indeed have a nice rich history and they are a beloved franchise by many crazy people who like to dress like Kiss and the Legion of Doom, but as of late, you can't lump them into any catergory except for the "Teams From California Who Suck" catergory. which includes franchises like, the LA Clippers, the Golden State Warriors, the Sacramento Kings, the LA Kings, the LA Sparks, the LA Galaxy, the San Francisco 49ers, and of course the Raiders.

i'm not siding with the Raiders or the Patriots on this point. personally, i think the Patriots are living proof that cheaters never win and even if the Raiders cheated, they couldn't beat the crap out of a diaper. so, forgive me for interjecting my two cents, but aren't we just comparing apples and sucky football teams here?

AllD
06-26-2009, 08:03 PM
At least we aren't talking about Kurt Warner who threw a 100 yd. pick six and fumbled on his last offensive play in SB XLIII. Just think if BB had those stats.

HughC
06-26-2009, 09:40 PM
What part of ALL DECADES escapes you? I would agree that the patr*ts may be able to take the title as the team of the dacde for the 2000's... although the decade isn't over yet. How could the patr*ts EVER be considered the team of ALL DECADES!!!??? Face it... they sucked for most of their existence. You can twist this anyway you wish... but it just won't wash.

Yeah, the Raiders had opportunites to win the game, no doubt, but... if the FUMBLE was left as called, the GAME WAS OVER... and you lose! Correct call my ass... pulling some obscure, bullsh*t rule out of the book that had NEVER been used before, was the league's way of making sure their darling Patriots had a shot of winning... after 9/11. After all, why would they want the NFL's bad boy bullies to win, when America needed the Patriots at such a crucial time in Amercan history? The whole damn thing smells like sh*t.........still. Not to mention that the video taping was going on during that game. They should be known as the Cheaters for all decades.
Have you ever heard a one-sentence soundbite on the television or radio and come away with one sense of what was being said - and then when you listen to the entire interview have a completely different sense of what the person being interviewed was saying?

To me that is what is going on here. You are pulling two words - "all decades" - out as your soundbite. If all I saw was that, then I would agree with you. But when I go back and read the entire paragraph, I come away with a completely different sense of what the writer is saying.

This column has nothing to do with how bad the Patriots were earlier in their existence - because the writer is not saying "best franchise of all time." The writer is taking a look at the various "best teams of the decade" - which you acknowledge they would be one of if they were to win the Super Bowl next season. That is step one; which would be the first line of the second paragraph in the article: "With three Lombardi Trophies in the 2000s, the Patriots have staked a claim as the NFL’s team of the decade."

Now on to the paragraph's second line: "a fourth Super Bowl and 12 more regular-season victories in 2009 would allow the Patriots to stake their claim as the team for all decades" that includes the infamous words "all decades." The fact that the writer talks about a team of the decade and then in the very next line talks about team of "all decades" tells me he is comparing the various best "team of the decades." Throughout the article the writer talks about what various teams did in a decade. Nowhere does he talk about accomplishments of any franchise over their entire history. That is why I believe that while you are correct - that the Patriots are not one of the best franchises in NFL history - that has nothing to do with this article. So remove that train of thought, because that has nothing to do with what this column is about.

So how could the Patriots "ever be considered the team for all decades?" Well you yourself just said they would be team of the decade for the 2000's. Next step would be to compare each team of the decade with every other team of the decade. Well, there you go right there; that's how they would be considered for "team of all decades." If they were to win again this year then they have four Super Bowls in one decade. That doesn't mean that they are the number one "team for all decades"; it just means that they are entitled to consideration (i.e., "stake a claim") for the team of all decades.

Here's another way to look at it. If a team with a history of losing such as the Saints or Cardinals were to win four or more Super Bowls next decade, then they would probably be considered "team of the decade", right? And since they won that many championships they would then be in consideration for the best "team of decade" team, or "team of all decades" if you will. In other words "best franchise of all time" and "team of all decades" are two entirely different things. "Team of all decades" looks only at that ten year stretch and not the entire history of the franchise.

I will say the choice of wording by the writer is rather questionable. He could have used another phrase to avoid the ambiguity which would have resulted in a clearer definition of the point he was attempting to make. Then again, perhaps he and his editor chose an equivocal wording in order to stir up debate and create more web hits to the column.

- - - - - - - - - -

Edit:

If the games were fixed due to 9/11, wouldn't the Jets or Giants have won that Super Bowl?

So now you're going to say the games in 2001 were fixed because of 9/11? Let me ask you this: if that's what you really believe, then why do you even watch any football at all? Do you also believe the Raiders' losing records are because the NFL doesn't like Al Davis? If the NFL is fixing games, wouldn't they have teams from big markets like the Jets and Bears making more Super Bowl appearances? Wouldn't they have teams that have trouble selling tickets like the Lions in the playoffs the next year in order to spur interest - and profits? Wouldn't they have teams like the Steelers with loyal fan bases that have no trouble selling out missing the playoffs, so another city can get excited about making the playoffs?

silver & black
06-27-2009, 08:17 AM
by "NFL bad boy bullies" are you referring to the Oakland Raiders? cause to me, they are about as soft as a mouse fart through silk my friend.
just on a side note, how many Raiders have a rule named after them due to how tough they play the game? i don't know of any. but i know one Steeler who does.

as for your tuck rule debate, cry about it for as long as you want. only Raiders fans care about that anymore. the Raiders do indeed have a nice rich history and they are a beloved franchise by many crazy people who like to dress like Kiss and the Legion of Doom, but as of late, you can't lump them into any catergory except for the "Teams From California Who Suck" catergory. which includes franchises like, the LA Clippers, the Golden State Warriors, the Sacramento Kings, the LA Kings, the LA Sparks, the LA Galaxy, the San Francisco 49ers, and of course the Raiders.

i'm not siding with the Raiders or the Patriots on this point. personally, i think the Patriots are living proof that cheaters never win and even if the Raiders cheated, they couldn't beat the crap out of a diaper. so, forgive me for interjecting my two cents, but aren't we just comparing apples and sucky football teams here?

You'll get no argument from me on that...... at this point in time. However, if you are old enough to have watched football from the 70's through the early 80's... the Raiders were a feared team to face on the field. I can't think of any team other than the Steelers that actually welcomed playing the Raiders.

I know the Raiders are soft, and they have lost their identity as of late... but that wasn't always the case. Some of the older fans on this forum can attest to what I'm telling you.

As for the rest of your comments about the Raiders...... you're welcome to your opinion... that's what forums are for.

silver & black
06-27-2009, 08:50 AM
Have you ever heard a one-sentence soundbite on the television or radio and come away with one sense of what was being said - and then when you listen to the entire interview have a completely different sense of what the person being interviewed was saying?

To me that is what is going on here. You are pulling two words - "all decades" - out as your soundbite. If all I saw was that, then I would agree with you. But when I go back and read the entire paragraph, I come away with a completely different sense of what the writer is saying.

This column has nothing to do with how bad the Patriots were earlier in their existence - because the writer is not saying "best franchise of all time." The writer is taking a look at the various "best teams of the decade" - which you acknowledge they would be one of if they were to win the Super Bowl next season. That is step one; which would be the first line of the second paragraph in the article: "With three Lombardi Trophies in the 2000s, the Patriots have staked a claim as the NFL’s team of the decade."

Now on to the paragraph's second line: "a fourth Super Bowl and 12 more regular-season victories in 2009 would allow the Patriots to stake their claim as the team for all decades" that includes the infamous words "all decades." The fact that the writer talks about a team of the decade and then in the very next line talks about team of "all decades" tells me he is comparing the various best "team of the decades." Throughout the article the writer talks about what various teams did in a decade. Nowhere does he talk about accomplishments of any franchise over their entire history. That is why I believe that while you are correct - that the Patriots are not one of the best franchises in NFL history - that has nothing to do with this article. So remove that train of thought, because that has nothing to do with what this column is about.

So how could the Patriots "ever be considered the team for all decades?" Well you yourself just said they would be team of the decade for the 2000's. Next step would be to compare each team of the decade with every other team of the decade. Well, there you go right there; that's how they would be considered for "team of all decades." If they were to win again this year then they have four Super Bowls in one decade. That doesn't mean that they are the number one "team for all decades"; it just means that they are entitled to consideration (i.e., "stake a claim") for the team of all decades.

Here's another way to look at it. If a team with a history of losing such as the Saints or Cardinals were to win four or more Super Bowls next decade, then they would probably be considered "team of the decade", right? And since they won that many championships they would then be in consideration for the best "team of decade" team, or "team of all decades" if you will. In other words "best franchise of all time" and "team of all decades" are two entirely different things. "Team of all decades" looks only at that ten year stretch and not the entire history of the franchise.

I will say the choice of wording by the writer is rather questionable. He could have used another phrase to avoid the ambiguity which would have resulted in a clearer definition of the point he was attempting to make. Then again, perhaps he and his editor chose an equivocal wording in order to stir up debate and create more web hits to the column.

- - - - - - - - - -

Edit:

If the games were fixed due to 9/11, wouldn't the Jets or Giants have won that Super Bowl?

So now you're going to say the games in 2001 were fixed because of 9/11? Let me ask you this: if that's what you really believe, then why do you even watch any football at all? Do you also believe the Raiders' losing records are because the NFL doesn't like Al Davis? If the NFL is fixing games, wouldn't they have teams from big markets like the Jets and Bears making more Super Bowl appearances? Wouldn't they have teams that have trouble selling tickets like the Lions in the playoffs the next year in order to spur interest - and profits? Wouldn't they have teams like the Steelers with loyal fan bases that have no trouble selling out missing the playoffs, so another city can get excited about making the playoffs?


I can buy what your saying in if the writer meant it the way you laid it out. Like you said, if that's how it was meant, he did a poor job of getting that across.

I'll tell you this... I have never been one to buy into the conspiracy crap, BUT... I'm seriously starting to have some doubts. The officiating in the NFL is just horrendous. I'm not going to single out any team or game. Across the board, it just sucks.

As far as the Raiders go, yes, I believe that the league does have a vendetta against Al Davis. Even if it is a righteous vendetta... and I won't disagree entirely that it isn't, it should have no bearing on the outcome of games... the players and fans have nothing to do with what Al Davis does... why should they pay for it? Unfortunately, I can no longer turn a blind eye to what I see happen to the Raiders on a fairly consistent basis.

Some of the most obscure rullings are pulled out of the book against the Raiders... but only when there is the threat that the Raiders might win the game... always at a crucial time in the game. I know that holding goes on in almost every play... but the Raiders' opponents do it blatantly, play after play... and it is rarely called. On the other hand, all a Raider has to do is open his hand and there are yellow flags everywhere. There are just way too many funny, fishy, wacky calls and non-calls against the Raiders to completely dismiss the "vendetta theory" anymore.
I honestly do believe that the Raiders will never get a fair shake from the league (officials) untill Al Davis no longer owns the team.

As a fan of the Raiders for almost 42 years, there is nothing to do but wait it out... and remember that what I see on the field today, isn't the Raiders. I don't know what they are, or who they are, but...... they sure as hell aren't the Raiders. The Raiders wouldn't give a damn about the officials... they never did. They just took the penalties and kicked your ass inspite of them. I hope they come back before my time is up...... I sure would like to see them again.

SteelCityKing
06-27-2009, 06:03 PM
You'll get no argument from me on that...... at this point in time. However, if you are old enough to have watched football from the 70's through the early 80's... the Raiders were a feared team to face on the field. I can't think of any team other than the Steelers that actually welcomed playing the Raiders.

I know the Raiders are soft, and they have lost their identity as of late... but that wasn't always the case. Some of the older fans on this forum can attest to what I'm telling you.

As for the rest of your comments about the Raiders...... you're welcome to your opinion... that's what forums are for.

i will give you this, the Raiders are beating the Steelers in the head-to-head matches over as long as those franchises have been around. AND, the Raiders beat the Steelers the year after we won the Super Bowl. but they also only won one more game that year. not to mention to beat down against the Buccaneers in the Super Bowl.

so, it's a lopsided opinion of the Raiders on my part. but the truth is, i have about 5 or 6 friends in my inner circle of football fans and they are Raiders fans til' death. i give them nothing but respect for loving their team, not losing faith, and most of all, not hopping on the bandwagon like most Patriot fans. i had a woman in Pittsburgh tell me she loved the Patriots over the Steelers and i asked, "why?" she said, "because Tom Brady is hot!" i gagged. all i am saying is, you are loyal to your team and i respect that...just aslong as December 6th comes and goes with the Steelers as the victors. haha!

i've been calling the Raiders the "Sleeper Team of 09" all summer long. i hope they pull it off...and by "it" i mean "a winning record." haha! kidding.

The Patriot
06-27-2009, 06:51 PM
This is soooo uninteresting. :popcorn:

SteelCityKing
06-27-2009, 08:00 PM
This is soooo uninteresting. :popcorn:

it was clearly interesting enough for you to tell us how UN-interesting it is. but thanks for the zero feedback and stupid comment. greatly appreciated. =)

so, are you a Patriots fan or are you a really big fan of "The Patriot" with Mel Gibson?

The Patriot
06-27-2009, 08:53 PM
it was clearly interesting enough for you to tell us how UN-interesting it is. but thanks for the zero feedback and stupid comment. greatly appreciated. =)

so, are you a Patriots fan or are you a really big fan of "The Patriot" with Mel Gibson?

Oh, please don't make me choose!

revefsreleets
06-28-2009, 03:45 PM
Well, there's no chance that any football fan with any true knowledge of the game is EVER going to place the Cheatriots in the same rarefied air as the 60's Packers, the 70's Steelers, or the 80's 49ers, so it's probably time to move on down the line here...

Ishkabibble
07-01-2009, 10:18 PM
Enough already with the "Boston Homerism" allegations. Goselin's been in Dallas forever and is the best football writer in America.
I favor neither team but Steeler fans need to move on with the cheating thing, especially since Jimmy Johnson and Shanahan claim they've done the same. If it comes down to the Patriots gaining an "unfair advantage," mass steroid abuse among some Offensive Lines in the 70's and 80's needs to be considered as well.

Preacher
07-02-2009, 05:11 AM
Enough already with the "Boston Homerism" allegations. Goselin's been in Dallas forever and is the best football writer in America.
I favor neither team but Steeler fans need to move on with the cheating thing, especially since Jimmy Johnson and Shanahan claim they've done the same. If it comes down to the Patriots gaining an "unfair advantage," mass steroid abuse among some Offensive Lines in the 70's and 80's needs to be considered as well.

If Jimmy Johnson claim he did the same thing, then I discredit the Cowboy's wins in teh 90's. . . unless it was NOT YET ILLEGAL.

See, that's the difference when it comes to steroids. 1. It is allegations. 2. IT WAS LEGAL. 3. It was so widely AND LEGALLY used, that no team gained an advantage from it.

stlrtruck
07-02-2009, 08:59 AM
See, that's the difference when it comes to steroids. 1. It is allegations. 2. IT WAS LEGAL. 3. It was so widely AND LEGALLY used, that no team gained an advantage from it.

And it's not our fault that the Steelers, allegedly, used them better than the other teams in the leagues :stirthepot:

stlrtruck
07-02-2009, 09:00 AM
Enough already with the "Boston Homerism" allegations. Goselin's been in Dallas forever and is the best football writer in America.

Regardless of location, it doesn't mean he doesn't kneel down every season and knob slob Brady like the rest of the nation's sports writers.

And I"ll take your, "Best football writer in America" comment as tongue-in-cheek!

revefsreleets
07-02-2009, 10:25 AM
Again.

60's Pack >>> 00"s Pats
70's Steelers>>00's Pats
80's Niners>00's Pats

So, at best, the Pats could be #4 on the all-time "kings" list, and since there is only one king, this article is garbage.

The Patriot
07-02-2009, 01:16 PM
Again.

60's Pack >>> 00"s Pats
70's Steelers>>00's Pats
80's Niners>00's Pats

So, at best, the Pats could be #4 on the all-time "kings" list, and since there is only one king, this article is garbage.

How many of you were even around for the 70s steelers?

revefsreleets
07-02-2009, 01:31 PM
How many of you were even around for the 70s steelers?

I was.

That's irrelevant, though. Do I need to be 300 years old to know that George Washington was a great President?

SteelCurtain7
07-05-2009, 02:55 PM
I was too.

And the Dalai Lama sucks. He's not God...he's just an old dude in the Himalayas.

silver & black
07-05-2009, 08:01 PM
How many of you were even around for the 70s steelers?

:wave:

MACH1
07-05-2009, 08:38 PM
How many of you were even around for the 70s steelers?

I was!

The Patriot
07-05-2009, 10:09 PM
I was too.

And the Dalai Lama sucks. He's not God...he's just an old dude in the Himalayas.

God's a fan too. Didn't you see the Oakland game?

SteelCityMan786
07-05-2009, 10:35 PM
I only have two questions:

1). Didn't the Steelers win the Super Bowl despite all this?

2). Didn't the Patriots lose the Super Bowl for those reasons (inability to protect the QB)?

STFU.

:coffee:

Note: Obviously not directed at you Mesa.

That's all the needs to be said. :thumbsup:

fansince'76
07-05-2009, 11:01 PM
And the Dalai Lama sucks. He's not God...he's just an old dude in the Himalayas.

:toofunny: :toofunny: :toofunny:

silver & black
07-06-2009, 06:41 AM
God's a fan too. Didn't you see the Oakland game?

:thmbdown: :banging: ...... sometimes, I wish I hadn't seen it. :shake01:

revefsreleets
07-06-2009, 10:17 AM
God's a fan?

Did you see the Super Bowl against the Giants? If THAT wasn't karma coming back to bite a team, I don't know what is or was or ever will be.

The Patriot
07-06-2009, 11:27 AM
God's a fan?

Did you see the Super Bowl against the Giants? If THAT wasn't karma coming back to bite a team, I don't know what is or was or ever will be.

God has a prayer obligation to fulfill.

revefsreleets
07-06-2009, 11:44 AM
I think he just said "Enough is enough...I let most atrocities go, but this one HAS to be put to an end!"

vasteeler
07-06-2009, 11:50 AM
How many of you were even around for the 70s steelers?

i was:tt::tt02::helmet:

stlrtruck
07-06-2009, 01:23 PM
i was:tt::tt02::helmet:

Me too!! Albeit the young, just learning the rules, kid - but they were still my team. Suffered through the 80's, managed the 90's, and I stand tall today wearing my black and gold!

Psyychoward86
07-06-2009, 01:57 PM
I think he just said "Enough is enough...I let most atrocities go, but this one HAS to be put to an end!"

Amen :bowdown:

MasterOfPuppets
07-06-2009, 03:33 PM
How many of you were even around for the 70s steelers?

i was ....:wave:

MasterOfPuppets
07-06-2009, 03:34 PM
I think he just said "Enough is enough...I let most atrocities go, but this one HAS to be put to an end!"
:toofunny:

MasterOfPuppets
07-06-2009, 03:38 PM
Enough already with the "Boston Homerism" allegations. Goselin's been in Dallas forever and is the best football writer in America.
I favor neither team but Steeler fans need to move on with the cheating thing, especially since Jimmy Johnson and Shanahan claim they've done the same. If it comes down to the Patriots gaining an "unfair advantage," mass steroid abuse among some Offensive Lines in the 70's and 80's needs to be considered as well. :blah:.......:coffee: