Patriots can be king of all eras

[silver & black]

[QUOTE=trauben;619448]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![/QUOTE]

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

[T&B fan]

[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 ?? if if if if if if if .. if only I could pick the lottery # I would have it made .. if

[The_WARDen]

Originally Posted by trauben

LOL ................ I know, but sometimes you get sick of the 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!

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 what any tool from NE thinks.

[trauben]

Originally Posted by silver & black

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!

[Dino 6 Rings]

Originally Posted by trauben

True that............. that's about the only thing I'll drink with a raiders fan on!

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

[trauben]

Originally Posted by Dino 6 Rings

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

Yeah............. imagine that! I like that duo.

[HughC]

Originally Posted by silver & black

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]

Originally Posted by HughC

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]

Originally Posted by silver & black

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]

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.