Random Thought: SB XLII and XLVI or SB XLIX?

[silverandgold]

We all remember how the Giants twice defeated the supposed superior team, the Patriots, in the Super Bowl. In those years people thought that the pats will stick up to just 3 wins after brady retires and that despite being dominant in the contemporary era, they keep getting butt-kicked by the lower seeded Giants. Then SB XLIX came by and the pats finally got their 4th win, preventing our Seahawks from getting our 2nd win. But I wonder if things were different back in an alternative universe regarding those two NY vs NE SB's, if the pats won both of those and then they went to XLIX but lose to our Seahawks, would we take that possible outcome for granted or it was satisfying that the seemingly juggernaut pats lost two SB's to the giants while dealing with our lost attempt to get another title home in a SB after those two?


inb4 "we should of run" posts come in.

 

[hawxfreak]

It would have been sweeter because everybody would have expected the most SB winning team in the modern are to stomp us.
Maybe it's just me but I want Superb Owls :kool-aid:

 

[NINEster]

Never even worth debating these sorta things because everything changes dramatically with wins/losses. Dave Dameshek's "N if L" is a bit out there, but a lot more realistic than claiming history would have been identical.

If Scott Norwood makes that field goal, the whole course of 1990s football (and Bills legacy) is changed forever.

The average fan seems to think "oh, they would lose the next 3....to the Skins and then Cowboys twice".

SMH.