At Last, Some Reason…

Tom E. Curran shows a little sanity when talking Patriots and putting the “team of the decade” comparisons with the Colts in perspective. He notes that some of his colleagues are letting their facts get a little fuzzy when it comes to this topic.

You may recall the other day when Ron Borges, twisting the numbers to suit his agenda, stated the following:

The Colts have won more regular-season games this decade than the Patriots, won more consecutive games this decade than the Patriots, made the playoffs more often this decade than the Patriots (9-8), reached the playoffs more consecutive years than the Patriots (eight straight) and if they win Sunday will trail them by only one Super Bowl victory this decade.

Borges, was of course spouting the Polian company line, which doesn’t include playoffs in win totals or winning streaks.

Curran acknowledges that Borges is his friend, but does correct him nonetheless.

From 2000 through 2009, the New England Patriots went 126-52. They won three Super Bowls, four conference titles and made it to the AFC Championship five times.

They became the first team in history to go unbeaten over a 16-game regular season and became the first to win 18 in a row in a single season. Only once since 2000 did they finish under .500. And that was 2000.

They won three Super Bowls, four conference titles and made it to the AFC Championship five times. They didn’t go one-and-done in the playoffs until 2009. They finished tied for first place in the AFC East every season from 2001 through 2009. They had one winning streak of 21 games that went from 2003 through those playoffs and into 2004. They had another winning streak of 18 games (2007). They set the record for most consecutive postseason games won (10).

He then compared that to the Colts:

From 2000 through 2009, the Indianapolis Colts went 124-52 (with one game remaining). They won one Super Bowl, two conference titles and made it to the AFC Championship three times.

They set the record for consecutive regular-season games won with 22 in the 2008 and 2009 seasons (a playoff loss in the first-round of the 2008 playoffs prevented them from being able to break New England’s overall record). In their nine postseason appearances, they were one-and-done five times.

He also looks at the money spent by the two teams – another frequent accusation by Borges. It is very close between the two clubs.

——————

Check the coverage of last night’s Celtics win over the Nets at CelticsLinks.com.

  • Tony

    Anyone who thinks 2 Super Bowl appearances/2 (presumed) wins trumps 4 Super Bowl appearacnes/3 wins; or that 22 consecutive regular season wins trumps 21 consecutive actual wins (including post-season); or that 6 plsyoff one-and-done’s trumps 1 playoff one-and-done (in a good way); or that 6 division titles trumps 7 division titles; or that zero undefeated regular seasons trumps 1 undefeated regular season….well, that person is just an agenda-driven hack.

    Oh right, that person was Ron Borges; the words agenda-driven hack were invented to describe people like him.

    Keep shoveling dirt on the Pats’ and Belichick’s grave mediots. Keep doing it….it will be all the sweeter when they prove you wrong (hopefully) in a year or two.

    Oh and by the way, what happens if the Colts do the unthinkable and lose on Sunday?

    Does 1 Super Bowl win still trump 3 for the decade?

  • Scott

    To me the regrettable thing about columns like Borges’s is that’s a pretty great team over there. I know for me their recent success, and that of the Steelers last year, only makes me respect and appreciate them even more. They have both been great rivals of the Pats during New England’s greatest decade, and all the credit to them for sustaining their success. Yet by the time Borges is finished stirring the pot, what should be a healthy, well-earned respect gets turned into this spitting provincialism that makes many of us look like bitter fools. We’re so intent on the Pats getting their due yet so quick to look down on a similarly excellent organization because it won ‘only’ one (or two) SB. We’re not talking about some fly-by-night operation like the Jets, with its brief spells of sort-of-prosperity, which gets trumpeted like the first sliced bread; we’re talking about teams and organizations that are continually at the top of the league. We can’t respect and appreciate that?

    • Tony

      I’m not looking down on the Colts. I do respect them as an organization and what they’ve accomplished. The only thing I don’t respect about them is Polian’s crybaby act with the Competition Committee, over which he has an enormous amount of influence, after the 2003 AFC title game loss.

      But the bottom line is that the facts, when really analyzed deeply, do not support Borges’ argument that the Colts have had a better decade than the Pats; and we all know that the only reason Borges wrote that article was because of his anti-Belichick personal crusade that has been going on ever since the Pats hired him.

      Please…this has nothing to do with provincialism. This has to do with calling out an agenda-driven media hack for his hackery.

    • ben

      I wish Curran had popped a line in about how meaningless the “team of the decade” debates are.

  • Scott

    Tony, just wanted to be clear, I wasn’t directing that at you, at all; I completely got what you were saying, and agree. I was directing my comment towards those who embrace the tiresome ‘Jetah Sux’ fan model.

    • Tony

      Got it and, unfortunately for the Sox, Jetah doesn’t suck either.

  • Dick

    Why does anyone read anything that Borges writes about the Patriots? It is always a pack of lies that suit his agenda. Oh and there’s that plagiarism thing too.

  • http://fast-trash-removal.com Peter

    I always thought writers were suppose to make both sides of the argument – as always Borges has some ridiculous bias against the Pats probably because Bill won’t give him any useful quotes.

    • Tony

      I think it dates back to two things: Belichick refused to let Borges bully him at press conferences during his first season the way Pete Carroll allowed him to during his three years in Foxboro–he simply refused to answer his more obnoxious questions and just moved on to the next questioner; and Belichick got rid of Bledsoe, who was Borges’ main “insider source” of information about what was going on within the organization.

      I can’t prove either theory, of course, but that’s the scuttlebutt I’ve always heard.

  • http://www.sportsjuke.com Sportsjuke

    This is like Lakers/Celtics. I still think Tom Brady has done more with less. Peyton has always had receivers and running backs. Tom Brady only recently has receivers, yet won all of his bowls with a bunch of guys that have fallen off the face of the earth. Branch, Givens, Patten….They did nothing when the left the Pats!

  • Alex

    I’ve actually reached the point where this sort of thing doesn’t even bother me anymore. I haven’t read a Borgess/Felger/Massarotti/etc. article in years. And it’s not that I think they’re biased or have some kind of agenda against the local teams either. I just think that they’re going to work the angle that best antagonizes their readership regardless of what their actual opinion may or may not be.

  • Chris

    There is a visceral beauty in watching media hacks attack each other. You know that what you’re really seeing on display is the pent-up anger they feel at the miserable decline of their industry. They try to take it out on readers, viewers, and listeners. But when that fails, they go after each other. It’s all good to see.

  • Classless

    “In their nine postseason appearances, they(Colts) were one-and-done five times.”

    That’s all you need to read. Such underachieving by the Colts.

%d bloggers like this: