the last 12 months or so, there’s been a lot of arguing over who’s
“This” or “That” of this decade, whatever we want to call this decade.
All of that went silent on Sunday.
But the idea had arisen that maybe these Patriots aren’t the team of the ’00’s.
Went back-and-forth with one of my Twitter
buddies on this earlier today, and here’s my take: Even before this
season, the Patriots had that distinction locked up. The only thing
that might have — and I say might have — changed that would’ve been the Steelers going 19-0 this year. Then, you’d have an argument.
Absent that, no one was going to match the Patriots three world
championships, with a 16-0 regular season and another Super Bowl
appearance serving as tiebreakers. The only other team that had
multiple championships this decade going into the ’09 season was
Pittsburgh, and an undefeated season likely would’ve been the one thing
that could give the Steelers the inside lane of “Team of the Decade”
Why was it ever an argument? Quite simply, because we like to argue.
I’ll take you guys back to the 1990s. Though it was clear that the
Cowboys were the cream of the crop over those 10 years, the Broncos’
late push gave Denver a chance, going into the 1999 season, to enter
the discussion. And even after that, some people loved what the Broncos
Part of it was because their accomplishments were more recent. The
Steelers and 49ers capped the ’70s and ’80’s with titles, the fourth
for each team, making the debate moot. Conversely, because the Cowboys
won their last title in the sixth season of the ’90s, and the Patriots
in the fifth season of the decade that just expired, and each finished
said decade with a relative thud, memory was clouded.
But with time, the Cowboys became very clearly known as the team of the
’90s. And it shouldn’t be any different when The Oughts are remembered.
That said, how about this question for you guys (I’ll tally it up later): Who’s second?