Is 2007 the best sports year in New England ever?

[flippin269]

I was watching the Red Sox earlier tonight, and the question popped through my mind, and here's why:

New England Revolution: Won their first title this year (US Open Cup), and are in the playoffs again. They also qualified for Superliga for their first time.

Boston Red Sox: Win the pennant, and are going to the World Series for the 2nd time in four years. (Which also means the Yankees aren't there)

New England Patriots: 7-0, and are clearly the best team in the NFL IMO.

Boston Celtics: Had the best offseason this year in the NBA, which makes them a playoff contender for the first time in years (Ray Allen, Kevin Garnett, etc.)

[Mattymags811]

I was watching the Red Sox earlier tonight, and the question popped through my mind, and here's why:

New England Revolution: Won their first title this year (US Open Cup), and are in the playoffs again. They also qualified for Superliga for their first time.

Boston Red Sox: Win the pennant, and are going to the World Series for the 2nd time in four years. (Which also means the Yankees aren't there)

New England Patriots: 7-0, and are clearly the best team in the NFL IMO.

Boston Celtics: Had the best offseason this year in the NBA, which makes them a playoff contender for the first time in years (Ray Allen, Kevin Garnett, etc.)

Don't forget Boston College Football.

[flippin269]

Don't forget Boston College Football.

Oh man, those guys are wrecking shop as well. They're 2 or 3 in the BCS, right?

[Fasista_Madrista]

The sports gods are blessing this city....lol :D

[cdmphy]

And the Bruins only marginally suck....which is an improvement over last year. ;)

Did anyone see Twellerman at the game last night? Cool that they panned on him.

[Chowda]

Don't forget Boston College Football.

If most of New England didn't despise BC in every other sport, I'd agree with you.

And it's tough to top 2004. The Sox and Pats weren't supposed to do what they did those seasons. This time around, their respective back offices set them up extremely well.

[revsrock]

If most of New England didn't despise BC in every other sport, I'd agree with you.

And it's tough to top 2004. The Sox and Pats weren't supposed to do what they did those seasons. This time around, their respective back offices set them up extremely well.

I disagree with point # 2. The Pats were predicted by almost everyone to win the Super Bowl that year. The Sox also were picked by many to win that yr also. Other than coming back from being down 3-0 they were suppose to win.

[jrevs]

New England Revolution: Won their first title this year (US Open Cup), and are in the playoffs again. They also qualified for Superliga for their first time.

I'm not taking anything away from my beloved Revs, but isn't it everyone's first time qualifying for SuperLiga? Because, unless I'm very much mistaken, it was only on an invitational basis for this first time. Otherwise, the Revs would have qualified.

But yes, it is a great year for Boston sports, I agree. I heard someone talking about it on the radio the other day and they were saying that they felt bad for the Bruins.

The Sox, Revs, Pats, and C's all have the potential to win their respective championships this year. I sure hope they do. Even if they don't, well, we'll still like them anyway.

[flippin269]

I disagree with point # 2. The Pats were predicted by almost everyone to win the Super Bowl that year. The Sox also were picked by many to win that yr also. Other than coming back from being down 3-0 they were suppose to win.

My arguement to that would be that this year's Red Sox and Patriots could beat the Red Sox and Patriots of 2004. Same with Boston College, Boston Celtics, and Revolution.

[ProfZodiac]

I would argue 1986. Red Sox coming back from one strike away against the Angels to win in extra innings and eventually take the ALCS, the Patriots going on a rather improbable run to make the Superbowl, and the last of the Celtics' truly glorious years. The confluence of the three, coming at a time when most Boston sports teams were shit, trumps this. The Pats are good every year, the Sox are good every year, the Revs are at least decent every year. Three bad teams all having a great year trumps four good teams having a great year.

[Chowda]

My arguement to that would be that this year's Red Sox and Patriots could beat the Red Sox and Patriots of 2004. Same with Boston College, Boston Celtics, and Revolution.

The current teams are better, which is what made the 2004 versions more significant. The Pats were considered the 3rd or 4th best team in the league heading into the playoffs. Beating the shanks from 3 down was once in a lifetime. The Celtics 2007 team was their worst ever and the 2004 Revs team made an improbably run to a shootout loss in the ECF. I still go with 2004.

Oh, and get BC the heck out of any New England sports discussion. It's not even 1/100th what teams like Tennessee or Michigan mean to their respective regions.

[Chowda]

I would argue 1986. Red Sox coming back from one strike away against the Angels to win in extra innings and eventually take the ALCS, the Patriots going on a rather improbable run to make the Superbowl, and the last of the Celtics' truly glorious years. The confluence of the three, coming at a time when most Boston sports teams were shit, trumps this. The Pats are good every year, the Sox are good every year, the Revs are at least decent every year. Three bad teams all having a great year trumps four good teams having a great year.

If by "scarred for life", then sure. 1986 was the best at giving me a destructive complex.

And weren't you an embryo in 1986?


Speaking of being too young, I get the NHL network and they've been showing all those Bruins-Habs games during the late 70's where they kept getting improbably beat in the playoffs. I had only seen highlights of those games before. It's also cool seeing players mostly saying "no" to helmets.

[revsrock]

The current teams are better, which is what made the 2004 versions more significant. The Pats were considered the 3rd or 4th best team in the league heading into the playoffs. Beating the shanks from 3 down was once in a lifetime. The Celtics 2007 team was their worst ever and the 2004 Revs team made an improbably run to a shootout loss in the ECF. I still go with 2004.

Oh, and get BC the heck out of any New England sports discussion. It's not even 1/100th what teams like Tennessee or Michigan mean to their respective regions.


The 2004 Pats are widely consider one of the Top 10 teams in the Super Bowl era. even though Pittsburgh finished 15-1, mnost if not all consider the Pats the BEST team in the NFL. Record, and stat wise the 2004 Red Sox are better than this years, and I actually think the 2004 team is a better team than this current one. The Sox Pitching staff was better in 2004, hitting was better than in 2007.

[jokeefe80]

Don't forget Boston College Football.F*** BC. They will lose to VaTech on Thursday. I friggin' hate that school and all the pompous pricks that go to it.

[jokeefe80]

And it's tough to top 2004. The Sox and Pats weren't supposed to do what they did those seasons. This time around, their respective back offices set them up extremely well.How were they not supposed to do what they did? Other than the Sox coming back from 3 down to the Yankees, everything went pretty much how people predicted it too that season. The Pats had just come off a Super Bowl, and brought in Corey Dillion. The only major player they lost from 2003 was Ted Washington, and Wilfork turned out to be a better nose tackle than even Washington was the year before. The Red Sox went out and acquired a top of the rotation ace to go along with Pedro and 17 game winner Derek Lowe. They also kept intact an offense that was historically good in 2003.

If anything the 2004 Red Sox were more of a sure thing after coming within a retarded managers decision away from making (and probably winning) the World Series, and adding one of the games top 5 starting pitchers, and a former 40 save closer.

[Chowda]

How were they not supposed to do what they did?

The Red Sox were not considered the best team in baseball throughout the 2004 season. There was a much bigger gap in payroll, The Yankees had less holes, and there was the "curse" holding them back.

The Patriots finished out a record-breaking streak, but faded back behind the Pittsburg juggernaut and Manning's best year ever. They were underestimated again which help out.

In 2007, the Sox were considered the best team in baseball for most of the season and the Pats are being talked about like they are the best team ever. Watching games are so much less stressful when your team is playing with house money. I'll be thrilled to death if those teams win, but not nearly as emotional as I was in 2004.

[jokeefe80]

The Red Sox were not considered the best team in baseball throughout the 2004 season. There was a much bigger gap in payroll, The Yankees had less holes, and there was the "curse" holding them back.

The Patriots finished out a record-breaking streak, but faded back behind the Pittsburg juggernaut and Manning's best year ever. They were underestimated again which help out.

In 2007, the Sox were considered the best team in baseball for most of the season and the Pats are being talked about like they are the best team ever. Watching games are so much less stressful when your team is playing with house money. I'll be thrilled to death if those teams win, but not nearly as emotional as I was in 2004.In a technical sense, I guess you are right. But before the starts of their respective 2004 seasons, the Red Sox and Patriots were among the favorites to win their respective leagues. I'm looking at a Sports Illustrated baseball preview from 2004 right now with Kerry Wood on the cover. The Red Sox were picked by as many of the analysts in this as the Yankees and Cubs were. Then this is the 2004 NFL preview for SI:
http://www.sgclark.com/images/blog/brady_si.jpg
sorry it isn't bigger, but it's all i could find. Going into that season, they were prohibitive favorites.

Whether either team lost their "mojo" during the season, is splitting hairs. They were favorites going into the season, and had two of the best records in their respective sports. I would hardly say that they pulled out something that they weren't expected to do. The payroll argument is also a farse, because in that season the Red Sox were by far the 2nd highest payrolled team.

[rkupp]

If most of New England didn't despise BC in every other sport, I'd agree with you.
I must have missed that poll. :rolleyes:

Let's face it, when it comes to college sports, BC is OUR team, whether one has BC ties or not. Flutie wasn't just a BC legend, he's a NE legend. And when BC wins Big East titles and ACC titles and Hockey NCAA championships, etc., they are New England's team.

I've had BC basketball season tickets for 20+ years and have no other ties to BC at all. I go because its the only high-level game in town. And when BC's involved in something big, the whole area takes pride in that (rightly or wrongly). So it IS a big deal that they are #2 in the nation.

So, if anyone wants to root for BC to lose on Thursday, that's their right. But to me, that's just as nauseating as the snotty Weston kids who root for the Yankees.

[jokeefe80]

I must have missed that poll. :rolleyes:

Let's face it, when it comes to college sports, BC is OUR team, whether one has BC ties or not. Flutie wasn't just a BC legend, he's a NE legend. And when BC wins Big East titles and ACC titles and Hockey NCAA championships, etc., they are New England's team.

I've had BC basketball season tickets for 20+ years and have no other ties to BC at all. I go because its the only high-level game in town. And when BC's involved in something big, the whole area takes pride in that (rightly or wrongly). So it IS a big deal that they are #2 in the nation.

So, if anyone wants to root for BC to lose on Thursday, that's their right. But to me, that's just as nauseating as the snotty Weston kids who root for the Yankees.Sorry to burst your BC bubble, but they are the most polarizing college in Massachusetts. For the most part (the flutie miracle aside) people who don't have ties to BC, hate BC. Sometimes people like winners, so they will root for the local team over another, but that is only circumstantial. Most of New England couldn't give a shit whether BC wins anything, and a portion of those people despise BC. BC has the only D-I football program in the state, and one of only two in the region. If they can't garner the respect of New England without any competition, then that just goes to show you how little people actually care about BC. If UMass had a D-I football program, even if they were terrible, they would be more supported than BC is now. You are one of the very few people in the state that have no ties to the college, and are a fan of it. I know more Notre Dame fans in Massachusetts than I do BC fans.

[Chowda]

I must have missed that poll. :rolleyes:

Let's face it, when it comes to college sports, BC is OUR team, whether one has BC ties or not. Flutie wasn't just a BC legend, he's a NE legend. And when BC wins Big East titles and ACC titles and Hockey NCAA championships, etc., they are New England's team.

If this were true, they would have a stadium twice it's current size that would sell out every game, even if they weren't in the top 10.

UConn at least represents Connecticut. BC, with all the colleges in Boston, doesn't even represent the city.

I'm having a hard time remembering the parades down Comm Ave to celebrate the BC hockey championships. You would figure the RI stations would have cut away from their programming to cover such an important New England event.