PDA

View Full Version : Patriots 4TH NFL team to lose 4 SB's


broncosteven
02-06-2012, 07:59 PM
Glad it is no longer us and the Vikings AND BILLS! Having 4 SB losses stung, thank god for SB XXXII and XXXIII!

tsiguy96
02-06-2012, 08:01 PM
bills?

OBF1
02-06-2012, 08:04 PM
Failure is an option :)

broncosteven
02-06-2012, 08:15 PM
Failure is an option :)

Math is hard.

broncosteven
02-06-2012, 08:16 PM
In my defense ESPN's NFL Live got it wrong too

Agamemnon
02-07-2012, 12:47 AM
And we didn't have to cheat to get the wins...

tsiguy96
02-07-2012, 03:23 AM
In my defense ESPN's NFL Live got it wrong too

weird they would do that, when you think of 4 SB losses the first team most people would think of is buffalo.

55CrushEm
02-07-2012, 06:07 AM
weird they would do that, when you think of 4 SB losses the first team most people would think of is buffalo.

Exactly. They're the only team to lose 4 IN A ROW.

People crapped all over Denver when we lost 3 in 4 years.....then that was IMMEDIATELY followed up by 4 in 4 years by Buffalo.

Come to think of it.....that's pretty weird that the 8 seasons from 1986 through 1993......Buffalo and Denver represented the AFC 7 times in the Superbowl.....with Cincinnati going in 1988.

errand
02-07-2012, 06:16 AM
bills?

Yes they lost 4 straight, 20-19 to nyg...37-24 to skins, then back to back losses to cowboys 52-17, and 30-13.

Broncomutt
02-07-2012, 07:18 AM
I didn't realize the Pats were 4x losers.

You just brightened my day! :sunshine:

Garcia Bronco
02-07-2012, 07:43 AM
Exactly. They're the only team to lose 4 IN A ROW.

People crapped all over Denver when we lost 3 in 4 years.....then that was IMMEDIATELY followed up by 4 in 4 years by Buffalo.

Come to think of it.....that's pretty weird that the 8 seasons from 1986 through 1993......Buffalo and Denver represented the AFC 7 times in the Superbowl.....with Cincinnati going in 1988.

From 86 to 2000; Denver, Nyg, 9ers, Redskins, Cowboys, Pats, Buffalo played in every Super Bowl.

55CrushEm
02-07-2012, 07:59 AM
From 86 to 2000; Denver, Nyg, 9ers, Redskins, Cowboys, Pats, Buffalo played in every Super Bowl.

Except one. 1999 Tennessee vs. St. Louis.

Pony Boy
02-07-2012, 08:05 AM
Glad it is no longer us and the Vikings AND BILLS! Having 4 SB losses stung, thank god for SB XXXII and XXXIII!

On the "glass half full theory" you can't lose if don't get invited to play .....

Jason in LA
02-07-2012, 08:16 AM
There is fail all over the place with this Super Bowl. The Giants have the worst record for a Super Bowl team, and their 2007 team is tied for the second worst record.

BroncoMan4ever
02-07-2012, 08:28 AM
on the plus side of this stat, we have won our last appearances, the Pats have lost their last 2

Garcia Bronco
02-07-2012, 08:36 AM
Except one. 1999 Tennessee vs. St. Louis.

That game was played in 2000 on 1/30. We were the last Champion of the 1900's.

Old Dude
02-07-2012, 08:58 AM
I can't think of any other American sport where the season's runner-up is so consistently viewed as the season's biggest loser.

Not sure why. I'm guessing:

1. The first four super-bowls were viewed as referendums on the NFL and AFL as a whole.

2. From the 80s through the mid-90s, so many games were blow-outs.

3. The hype surrounding the game still portrays it as the ultimate morality play.

4. The "super-bowl standings" themselves are a strange aberration that ranks a team in terms of its winning percentage regardless of how many times it has appeared.

5. Vince Lombardi - the ultimate sore loser and gloating winner.

Borks147
02-07-2012, 09:19 AM
Are you a communist?

I can't think of any other American sport where the season's runner-up is so consistently viewed as the season's biggest loser.

Not sure why. I'm guessing:

1. The first four super-bowls were viewed as referendums on the NFL and AFL as a whole.

2. From the 80s through the mid-90s, so many games were blow-outs.

3. The hype surrounding the game still portrays it as the ultimate morality play.

4. The "super-bowl standings" themselves are a strange aberration that ranks a team in terms of its winning percentage regardless of how many times it has appeared.

5. Vince Lombardi - the ultimate sore loser and gloating winner.

Rohirrim
02-07-2012, 09:20 AM
Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.

I guess there is something to be said for showing up to the big game with a defense.

Gort
02-07-2012, 09:56 AM
weird they would do that, when you think of 4 SB losses the first team most people would think of is buffalo.

depends on your age.

i think of the Vikings first, then the Broncos.

55CrushEm
02-07-2012, 10:00 AM
That game was played in 2000 on 1/30. We were the last Champion of the 1900's.

Yes, I know. But Superbowl Champs are indicated by the SEASON year.....not the year the Superbowl is played.

We are regarded as the 1997 and 1998 Champs.....but our Superbowls were in January 1998 and 1999.

Rohirrim
02-07-2012, 10:04 AM
Yes, I know. But Superbowl Champs are indicated by the SEASON year.....not the year the Superbowl is played.

We are regarded as the 1997 and 1998 Champs.....but our Superbowls were in January 1998 and 1999.

And that Broncos team would have kicked the **** out of either of the two pretenders that played last Sunday. ;D

Garcia Bronco
02-07-2012, 10:05 AM
Yes, I know. But Superbowl Champs are indicated by the SEASON year.....not the year the Superbowl is played.

We are regarded as the 1997 and 1998 Champs.....but our Superbowls were in January 1998 and 1999.

That doesn't matter for the purposes of my post. The game was played on the date it was played.

55CrushEm
02-07-2012, 10:09 AM
That doesn't matter for the purposes of my post. The game was played on the date it was played.

Not a big deal.....but you're still wrong.

If....when you say "86 to 2000"....you're referring to SEASON year....then you'd have to count the 1999 Tennessee vs. St. Louis Superbowl.

If....you're referring to year the Superbowl was played....you'd STILL have to count the Tenn vs. St. Louis Superbowl....as that was played in Jan 2000.

Whatever.

Garcia Bronco
02-07-2012, 10:17 AM
Not a big deal.....but you're still wrong.

If....when you say "86 to 2000"....you're referring to SEASON year....then you'd have to count the 1999 Tennessee vs. St. Louis Superbowl.

If....you're referring to year the Superbowl was played....you'd STILL have to count the Tenn vs. St. Louis Superbowl....as that was played in Jan 2000.

Whatever.

I was refering to the years, but that for telling ME what I meant. LOL

"to 2000" means up until 2000. Had I wanted to included 2000 I would have said 2001.

bronco militia
02-07-2012, 10:18 AM
http://tebowplanks.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/404211_10100221482424402_16108946_43316369_1924905 571_n.jpg

Garcia Bronco
02-07-2012, 10:20 AM
depends on your age.

i think of the Vikings first, then the Broncos.

This

That One Guy
02-07-2012, 10:20 AM
If someone says "Pick a number from 1 to 10", you can pick 10. If someone says they were in high school from 9th to 12th grade, it includes 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th.

The word you might've used more appropriately was "until" rather than "to" as "to" is usually inclusive.

:)

EDIT: As I was typing this, you decided to make "to" and "until" equal and they're not, in my book, but you at least beat me to it.

55CrushEm
02-07-2012, 10:21 AM
I was refering to the years, but that for telling ME what I meant. LOL

"to 2000" means up until 2000. Had I wanted to included 2000 I would have said 2001.

Uhhhhhh......ok.

From "XXXX to YYYY" usually INCLUDES BOTH XXXX and YYYY.....but whatever.

Hardly worth an argument. You implied one thing.....I infer another.

55CrushEm
02-07-2012, 10:21 AM
If someone says "Pick a number from 1 to 10", you can pick 10. If someone says they were in high school from 9th to 12th grade, it includes 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th.

The word you might've used more appropriately was "until" rather than "to" as "to" is usually inclusive.

:)

EDIT: As I was typing this, you decided to make "to" and "until" equal and they're not, in my book, but you at least beat me to it.

Thank you.

jonny1
02-07-2012, 11:01 AM
http://tebowplanks.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/404211_10100221482424402_16108946_43316369_1924905 571_n.jpg

Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious!

loborugger
02-07-2012, 01:09 PM
I can't think of any other American sport where the season's runner-up is so consistently viewed as the season's biggest loser.

Not sure why. I'm guessing:

1. The first four super-bowls were viewed as referendums on the NFL and AFL as a whole.

2. From the 80s through the mid-90s, so many games were blow-outs.

3. The hype surrounding the game still portrays it as the ultimate morality play.

4. The "super-bowl standings" themselves are a strange aberration that ranks a team in terms of its winning percentage regardless of how many times it has appeared.

5. Vince Lombardi - the ultimate sore loser and gloating winner.

Nice list. I think a point you are missing - and maybe the most important one - is this. Until Denver won vs GB, the 4 lose SB teams were 0-12. Den, Buf, and Min hadnt won a game. Throw out the Buf/NYG game, and they werent all that competitive in those games, either.

Now, Den has 2, NE has 3, both teams winning back to back and NE actually pulling down 3 in four years, and I think some of the stigma is gone. In fact, I know it is, because this is the first I have heard of this number. Where the stigma still there, we woulda heard about this for 2 weeks leading up to the game.

BroncoBeavis
02-07-2012, 01:19 PM
I can't think of any other American sport where the season's runner-up is so consistently viewed as the season's biggest loser.

Not sure why. I'm guessing:

1. The first four super-bowls were viewed as referendums on the NFL and AFL as a whole.

2. From the 80s through the mid-90s, so many games were blow-outs.

3. The hype surrounding the game still portrays it as the ultimate morality play.

4. The "super-bowl standings" themselves are a strange aberration that ranks a team in terms of its winning percentage regardless of how many times it has appeared.

5. Vince Lombardi - the ultimate sore loser and gloating winner.

As General Patton put it:

Men, this stuff that some sources sling around about America wanting out of this war, not wanting to fight, is a crock of bull****. Americans love to fight, traditionally. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle. You are here today for three reasons. First, because you are here to defend your homes and your loved ones. Second, you are here for your own self respect, because you would not want to be anywhere else. Third, you are here because you are real men and all real men like to fight.
Americans love a winner. Americans will not tolerate a loser. Americans despise cowards. Americans play to win all of the time. I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost nor will ever lose a war; for the very idea of losing is hateful to an American.

Also, I think the 0-4 stigma was more about the 0'fer involved. Once you've won the trophy, the 4 losses are no longer a big deal, in the big picture.

Blart
02-07-2012, 01:26 PM
You have to lose 4 Super Bowls to be the greatest team in history.