1. You have chosen to ignore posts from emiliosCA. Show emiliosCA's posts

    THIS ISN'T A NEW DECADE

    posted at 1/13/2010 12:29 PM EST

    I've read about 10 columnists right about this "new decade...off to a bad start" - "era over" - "decade of success over" - 2010 ISN'T A NEW DECADE - THATS 2011! JUST LIKE HOW 2001 WAS THE START OF THE 21ST CENTURY, NOT 2000!

    Yeah, its just "technically" wrong, but why on earth would a beantown sports writer go for that when Patriots started off a round of championships in 2001? not 2000. Wait to judge success and look back after the next season is done!  I'm not bringing this up because we are definitely going to bounce back and eat the rest of the league - but jeese, give another shot a chance or at least hold off on the "end of days" language.  Brady is still QB right? kraft owns the pats? BB is coach? its 2010.

    Probably all started when pats were named team of the decade - BUT IT ISNT OVER YET!
     

  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from carawaydj. Show carawaydj's posts

    Re: THIS ISN'T A NEW DECADE

    posted at 1/13/2010 12:49 PM EST

    Well, OK, I guess I see what you are saying, but the numbers book I just bought my son begins with 0 and ends with 9 (0123456789).  Of course, the Gregorian calendar does not have a year 0, which would make your point technically correct.  Then again, the Gregorian calendar has been adjusted so often it doesn't matter.  I think it's widespread practice to refer to decades as beginning with year 0 of the decade.  For instance, when I turn my Sirius radio to the 80's station, it plays any music from 1980-1989.  I guess technically it should be 1981-1990?

    Long story short, I don't think you're going to get the media to count this year as the final year of the decade, regardless of whether or not you are "technically" correct.  The unofficial "mainstream" definition ended with 2009.
     

  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from btownteamsrking. Show btownteamsrking's posts

    Re: THIS ISN'T A NEW DECADE

    posted at 1/13/2010 2:20 PM EST

    2009 is the end of the decade. this was the last season of the decade.
     

  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    Re: THIS ISN'T A NEW DECADE

    posted at 1/13/2010 2:39 PM EST

    Agreed...Either way one looks at caraway's algebraic triste on the Gregorian Calender vs whether we should include Guns N' Roses second album on Satellite Radio's 80's station, In a purely NFL sense, it's a moot point considering next year becomes the 2010-2011 NFL Season, and thus-the beginning of the Next Decade (although I dug caraway's historical note).
     

  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from jonbam. Show jonbam's posts

    Re: THIS ISN'T A NEW DECADE

    posted at 1/13/2010 5:22 PM EST

    Actually, a decade is any 10 year period.  From 1987 to 1996 is a decade.  If you want to call a period of time the 'decade of the 90s' that would be from 1990 through 1999 where the first three digits of the year are identical.  Therefore, the next decade (decade of the 00s?) would be from 2000 through 2009.
     

  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdoggg. Show underdoggg's posts

    Re: THIS ISN'T A NEW DECADE

    posted at 1/13/2010 8:33 PM EST

    So, you're saying the colts still have a shot at team of the decade?
     

  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from jonbam. Show jonbam's posts

    Re: THIS ISN'T A NEW DECADE

    posted at 1/13/2010 9:31 PM EST

    ud, I do believe that if the Colts win the SB this year should be included in any discussion for team of the decade.  With their number of wins, 2 SBs wins (assuming this year's), longest winning streak in NFL history, 4-time season/1-time SB MVP QB, etc. they would be a strong candidate but I believe that the Patriots number of wins (including post-season), 3 SB wins, 4 SB appearances, 5 conference finals, 2 of the 3 longest winning streaks in NFL history (post NFL/AFL merger), unbeaten regular season, 1-time season/2-time SB MVP QB, etc. do give the Patriots the edge.

    In any case, these are by far the two best franchises of the decade with the Steelers a distant third.

     

  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from MustangGator. Show MustangGator's posts

    Re: THIS ISN'T A NEW DECADE

    posted at 1/13/2010 10:33 PM EST

    Although, Steelers did win 2 SB.
     

  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from k-maxx. Show k-maxx's posts

    Re: THIS ISN'T A NEW DECADE

    posted at 1/14/2010 5:50 PM EST

    Don't do drugs kids.  The first thing to go is your mind.





     

  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsGoinDown2012. Show PatsGoinDown2012's posts

    Re: THIS ISN'T A NEW DECADE

    posted at 1/14/2010 6:05 PM EST

    Who the pphuck cares who the team of the decade is?!?!?!?!?!?!  Only ignorant Patriots bandwagon fans.  That is all you have left to hold onto since your Superbowl run is now over.  ROFL!!!!!!!
     

  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from BigPapi61. Show BigPapi61's posts

    Re: THIS ISN'T A NEW DECADE

    posted at 1/14/2010 7:19 PM EST

    New decade or not, I'm hearing the world ends in 2012. I think the Pats need to retool in a hurry if they want to place a stamp on this abbreviated decade.