Quote:
Originally Posted by RealSNR
Dude. The point is that yes, you can absolutely bring up the bullshit calls that went both ways in that Patriots string of championships as a reason for why it is so highly mathematically unlikely to ever occur again. That's fine. Math is a reason. But what do Patriots writer and just about all Pats fans say, though?
"The least you could do is put some respect behind our accomplishments!"
"You can't do what we did because you don't have the coldness or ruthlessness of Belichick to let any and all of your best players walk away for nothing."
"What we've done is absolutely incredible! Cheating scandals aside, surely the frequency of our victories means something, right?"
So is it math or is it unbelievable accomplishment? And don't give me that, "Well, it's gotta be a mixture of both...." bullshit. If it's a mixture of both, then the Packers under Rodgers and the Colts under Manning are also dynasties, because they were constantly in the discussion for a possible Super Bowl just about every year. If it's a mixture of both, then what is the actual difference between those stretches of amazing teams and the teams the Pats would trot out on the field year after year?
I'm not saying we're going to win five or six under Mahomes, but if Pats douche says we have to shut up and suck Patriot dick because of what they did, then he needs to shut up and let events play out, because when you've got the best QB in football, a top 3 best-run organization, and the coaching infrastructure that the Chiefs do, if math is irrelevant to the success of the Patriots, then it's irrelevant to us.
|
I think it's both.... the 'unbelievable accomplishment' part is all of the SB appearances over the course of almost 20 years with the same QB/coach combination (or just the same QB). The math is the idea that over the course of those almost 20 years, they could have won a couple fewer or a couple more SBs.
The math is of course a sliding scale... sliding from those accomplishments, even if they had only won 2 SBs, is still quite the slide down to Manning's two appearances and one victory or Rodgers' one appearance.
I believe luck plays a factor that's far greater than what many fans realize or want to accept, and that's at least part of the 'actual difference between those stretches of amazing teams' (and if the Colts had a decent defense at the time)... and dynasties are created or denied on the basis of luck to some extent (or even a large extent). The threshold is of course championships, and luck played a part in their 6, but it also played a part in the fact they don't have 8.
Whether Mahomes' career will be better or worse isn't completely tied to the number of championships he wins... he could end up with 12 appearances and 5 victories, or go 5 for 5, and some will say that's just as great or greater depending on the shit ton of other factors.... the Pats guy is saying the same things we may be saying in 15 or 20 years when there's the next "Chiefs dynasty" in the making, except of course with the shit load of sub context that's been included.