Patriots 4TH NFL team to lose 4 SB's

[broncosteven]

Glad it is no longer us and the Vikings AND BILLS! Having 4 SB losses stung, thank god for SB XXXII and XXXIII!

[tsiguy96]

bills?

[CBF1]

Failure is an option

[broncosteven]

Originally Posted by CBF1

Failure is an option

Math is hard.

[broncosteven]

In my defense ESPN's NFL Live got it wrong too

[Agamemnon]

And we didn't have to cheat to get the wins...

[tsiguy96]

Originally Posted by broncosteven

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]

Originally Posted by tsiguy96

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]

Originally Posted by tsiguy96

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]

I didn't realize the Pats were 4x losers.

You just brightened my day!

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by 55CrushEm

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]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

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]

Originally Posted by broncosteven

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]

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]

on the plus side of this stat, we have won our last appearances, the Pats have lost their last 2

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by 55CrushEm

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]

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]

Are you a communist?

Originally Posted by Old Dude

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]

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]

Originally Posted by tsiguy96

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]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

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]

Originally Posted by 55CrushEm

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.

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by 55CrushEm

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]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

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]

Originally Posted by 55CrushEm

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.

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