Second fiddles The Patriots will never be the Red Sox. Good thing BY SAM PFEIFLE

This past Sunday, the Patriots won their 18th straight game, tying a record. This coming Sunday, they invite the Dolphins to Foxboro to serve as sacrificial lambs for the record-setting 19th straight victory.

Is it me, or does nobody care?

I’m trying to imagine what would be happening if the Red Sox were on the verge of winning their 27th straight game (the 1916 Giants currently hold the record with 26 consecutive victories). Wouldn’t the city of Boston be in collective hysteria? Wouldn’t the cover of every daily in New England carry a giant color photo of the celebrating team tying the record, with an accompanying story about their chances for setting the record outright complete with pitching matchups and postulation about how the weather might affect things?

This past Monday, the Portland Press Herald awarded the giant color photo on the cover to Emily LeVan of Wiscasset, who "recorded the fastest time ever for a woman in a Maine marathon," at 2:39:54, in Sunday’s Maine Marathon. That’s pretty impressive, certainly, and I’m all for the local angle, but is her accomplishment really equivalent to our local team tying the record for most consecutive wins by a professional football team?

Maybe it is — you make the call.

The Patriots did get a two-by-three-inch color photo in the upper-left-hand corner of the cover. That’s not bad, certainly. Inside, the paper let the AP handle the game coverage, but it was the "top" story, if not the biggest. I guess they made a big deal out of it, but maybe not the wicked-big deal I was hoping for.

Really, think about what they’ve accomplished. I was against all the dynasty talk earlier this year, but if the Patriots do indeed set the record for most consecutive wins at 19, 20, 21 — who knows how many — and then win this year’s Super Bowl, won’t we have to consider whether they might be the best football team of the Super Bowl era? Three Super Bowls in four years, combined with the longest winning streak, at least gets them into the conversation, regardless of the "in the age of the salary cap" talk.

The only real competition would be the Steelers of 1975 through 1980, who won two Super Bowls, took two years off, then won another two; and the Cowboys of 1993 through 1996, who won two Super Bowls, took a year off, then won a third. I don’t believe you can make a case for the 49ers, who won five Super Bowls between 1982 and 1995, as their back-to-back Super Bowls in 1989-1990 were separated from any other Super Bowl win by at least three years. Of the other teams who won back-to-back Super Bowls — the Packers of 1967-1968, the Dolphins of 1973-1974, and the Broncos of 1998-1999 — both the Dolphins and Broncos can try to get into the argument, as they’re both currently tied with the Patriots for longest win streak, but should the Patriots break the record, it would seem they’d be eliminated by virtue of not even having a third Super Bowl victory.

So, assuming the Patriots break the record and go on to win this year’s Super Bowl — big assumptions, granted — we’re left with the Patriots, Steelers, and Cowboys as contenders for best team ever by virtue of length and strength. The Steelers have two factors much in their favor: a fourth Super Bowl in close proximity and at least eight straight years of high-quality play. The Patriots not only didn’t make the playoffs in 2002-3, but were just 5-11 in 2000-1, the year before they won their first Super Bowl. In contrast, the Steelers were in the Super Bowl in 1972-3 (losing to Miami) and won the wild card in 1973-4 before starting their Super Bowl victories. And they did make the playoffs in their two "off" years. Dallas was a wild card in 1991-2, won their division in their "off" year, and won their division again in 1996-7 before falling off, so can claim six straight years of high-quality play. The Patriots simply can’t match those longevity arguments without two or three years following this one in which they make the playoffs.

Maybe the Steelers and Cowboys didn’t burn quite as brightly, though. The Steelers didn’t manage three out of four as the Cowboys did (and we’re presupposing the Pats will). Plus, their longest streak of victories was just 11, which the Patriots have already dwarfed. Further, you must consider that the Steelers had three fewer teams than the Patriots to compete against for their dominance of their conference. The Cowboys had just one fewer team with which to contend, but never won more than 13 games in any one season, nor as many as 10 consecutively.

The Patriots’ 14 wins in 2003 is something that’s only been done 15 times in NFL history, and if they beat Miami this week they will hold the record for consecutive victories outright at 19 straight games. Should they extend the streak past 20, that stat alone starts to hold a great deal of weight. How better to judge a team’s dominance in the league than by whether or not they can be beaten? And the Patriots are proving that they can’t be beaten, possibly for a stretch of 14 or 15 months. That’s dominance.

Should the Patriots win the Super Bowl this year, their three out of four, with the addition of the streak, puts them easily ahead of Dallas, leaving only the Steelers with which to contend. Would the Patriots be their equals? Their betters? I’ve got to admit that the Steelers’ eight straight years in the playoffs, coupled with six straight division titles, give them a leg up. The fact that the Patriots were 5-11 prior to their Super Bowl run is troublesome, as is the fact that they didn’t make the playoffs in their "off" year.

So, maybe the Patriots can’t quite overtake the Steelers. That doesn’t mean we should be ignoring them in favor of the Red Sox. I’m guessing you noticed the playoffs started?

Sam Pfeifle can be reached at spfeifle@phx.com