If I hear the word "Dynasty" tied with Pats one more time!

[tanatastic 2,062]

So a major topic from champ week fallout was "Is the patriots dynasty over?".

 

Listen NFLN, ESPN and everyone else...The dynasty was over almost a decade ago! An NFL dynasty is a group of core players that WIN multiple championships within no more than 2 years of eachother. Ill give examples of a dynasty, using each year as a list to illustrate..

 

This is a dynasty---

 

Win SB

Win SB

No sb

Win SB

 

thats 3 wins in 4 years, ill accept this.

 

 

This is NOT a dynasty!!!!----

 

Win SB

Win SB

lose

lose

lose

Win SB

 

see how 3 yrs went by with no sb win?

 

The run ended for the pats when they lost to the giants the first time. That was the Brady, viniatieri and a bunch of other bums dynasty. The new Brady, welker, gronk other white guys etc group is the new regime, and they havent won squat!

[p00h 85]

new and exciting thread is NEW AND EXCITING!!!

[tanatastic 2,062]

new and exciting thread is NEW AND EXCITING!!!

 

End of FF season on a FF forum is an exciting place, what can I say.

[tikigods 76]

The Patriots have been the most exciting dynasty I have ever witnessed....and I lived through the Cowboys and 49ers. In this age of parity, it's quite an accomplishment.

 

Sorry.

[IGotWorms 3,889]

Patriots = Dynasty

[cbfalcon 825]

Franchise eras are typically defined by coaches and quarterbacks.

 

Discounting the Matt Cassel season, The Brady and Belicek era has resulted in:

- 10 playoff appearances in 11 seasons

- 18-1

- 7 AFC Championship Games

- 5 Super Bowl appearances

- 3 Titles

 

Considering the difficulty in keeping a team together in the salary cap era vs other historical eras, I consider it the greatest dynasty in NFL history as a whole. If they manage another title along the way, then I am unsure what the argument against it would even be, short of illogical hate.

[MDC 6,608]

I think you need to win at least one legitimate non cheating Super Bowl to be considered greAt, much less a dynasty.

[cbfalcon 825]

I think you need to win at least one legitimate non cheating Super Bowl to be considered greAt, much less a dynasty.

 

I think the schtick is funny, so I will publicly agree and claim they cheated to win all their titles.

 

But on the downlow, I've read where plenty of coaches admitted they stole signals, sometimes with video, as well. Jimmy Johnson and Bill Cowher come to mind. The consensus is that every team did it. But before the spy gate season, the NFL sent out a memo telling everyone to stop it. The Patriots didnt stop right away, got caught, and we have funny schtick to this day. The Pats have went 18-1, lost 2 Super Bowls, and appeared in 4 AFC Championship games in 6 seasons since then. So it's not like they've fallen apart.

 

But yeah, I agree they are cheaters.

[MDC 6,608]

But on the downlow, I've read where plenty of coaches admitted they stole signals, sometimes with video, as well.

 

Did any of them "win" 3 titles while cheating, followed by a decade of epic choke jobs after they got caught? The Pats titles are as legit as Barry Bonds home run records.

[RoadLizard 73]

Did any of them "win" 3 titles while cheating, followed by a decade of epic choke jobs after they got caught? The Pats titles are as legit as Barry Bonds home run records.

 

Thats a little harsh but there IS some legitimacy to wondering about the whole thing. It seems like it was 20 years ago that this all happened. If we look at the data, it does tell a story. The Pats shouldnt have even been in the SB against the Rams. The famous "Tuck" call is still the worst call ever in pro sports by far. Like a player once asked - why dont QBs just stand in the pocket pump faking/tucking the whole time while looking downfield? Thay cant ever fumble then...right? Its absurd. Then once they got in the SB, even the Rams players were saying things like "they knew where I was going" or that "something seems out of place here". That Rams team steamrolled through everyone and suddenly play the Pats and cant score? A *tad* odd, wasnt it? Everyone not living in Boston thought so. So, the "dynasty" was launched surrouunded by controversy.

 

Then, the next SB, I believe was the year that they took to mugging Colts WRs in the AFC Championship game and a rule change came out of it since it was so bad. They won and thats that buit even then.... another little issue with the Pats is added to the list. But, I can let this go.

 

Then, we get to the Philly game and the Pats beat the Buzzards by a FG like they always do. IIRC, this year they played the Chargers and that was the game where Troy brown stripped the Chargers CB at the end of the game after the CB picked off Brady. It was a heads up play by Brown but it still made people think "really"? How lucky can you get? Since then they've had success and are always "there" but they've lost whatever they had going between 2001 and 2005 and it aint coming back. Coincidence? Strange? Normal? I dunno.

 

When you compare the Pats "dynasty" to other dynasty teams it does stand out that NE never steamrolled anyone like the Cowboys 90's teams or the 80's 49ers teams. Those dynaties had NO question marks or strange calls or spygates or any other BS. They just blew their opponents away. No question about it. I think thats the difference. The Pats eeeeked by and just about every game was shrouded in some "huh" moments and head scratching. Thats not the case with the Skins, Cowboys, 49ers, Broncos, ot any other stromg teams from past eras.

 

Not tomention that BB comes across as a stuck up, miserable, jerk. And a very sore loser. That doesnt help.

[cbfalcon 825]

Thats a little harsh but there IS some legitimacy to wondering about the whole thing. It seems like it was 20 years ago that this all happened. If we look at the data, it does tell a story. The Pats shouldnt have even been in the SB against the Rams. The famous "Tuck" call is still the worst call ever in pro sports by far. Like a player once asked - why dont QBs just stand in the pocket pump faking/tucking the whole time while looking downfield? Thay cant ever fumble then...right? Its absurd. Then once they got in the SB, even the Rams players were saying things like "they knew where I was going" or that "something seems out of place here". That Rams team steamrolled through everyone and suddenly play the Pats and cant score? A *tad* odd, wasnt it? Everyone not living in Boston thought so. So, the "dynasty" was launched surrouunded by controversy.

 

Then, the next SB, I believe was the year that they took to mugging Colts WRs in the AFC Championship game and a rule change came out of it since it was so bad. They won and thats that buit even then.... another little issue with the Pats is added to the list. But, I can let this go.

 

Then, we get to the Philly game and the Pats beat the Buzzards by a FG like they always do. IIRC, this year they played the Chargers and that was the game where Troy brown stripped the Chargers CB at the end of the game after the CB picked off Brady. It was a heads up play by Brown but it still made people think "really"? How lucky can you get? Since then they've had success and are always "there" but they've lost whatever they had going between 2001 and 2005 and it aint coming back. Coincidence? Strange? Normal? I dunno.

 

When you compare the Pats "dynasty" to other dynasty teams it does stand out that NE never steamrolled anyone like the Cowboys 90's teams or the 80's 49ers teams. Those dynaties had NO question marks or strange calls or spygates or any other BS. They just blew their opponents away. No question about it. I think thats the difference. The Pats eeeeked by and just about every game was shrouded in some "huh" moments and head scratching. Thats not the case with the Skins, Cowboys, 49ers, Broncos, ot any other stromg teams from past eras.

 

Not tomention that BB comes across as a stuck up, miserable, jerk. And a very sore loser. That doesnt help.

 

You can counter a lot of that by pointing out that the perfect season was undone by Assante Samuel just dropping a ball that he catches 99/100 times, and the Eli escape to David Tyree which was the single luckiest flukiest play in the history of the NFL. That season, there was no eeking by. There was no videotaping. There were no question marks. It would have more than cleared up any doubts.

 

I'm not a giant Patriot fan. I am a Randy Moss homer so I was a fan of that short era, but I hated them pre Moss and have only grudgingly respected them post Moss. But if you are going to cite questionable plays in those other title runs to discredit them, then you need to acknowledge the single luckiest moment in sports history that went against them.

[RoadLizard 73]

You can counter a lot of that by pointing out that the perfect season was undone by Assante Samuel just dropping a ball that he catches 99/100 times, and the Eli escape to David Tyree which was the single luckiest flukiest play in the history of the NFL. That season, there was no eeking by. There was no videotaping. There were no question marks. It would have more than cleared up any doubts.

 

I'm not a giant Patriot fan. I am a Randy Moss homer so I was a fan of that short era, but I hated them pre Moss and have only grudgingly respected them post Moss. But if you are going to cite questionable plays in those other title runs to discredit them, then you need to acknowledge the single luckiest moment in sports history that went against them.

 

Oh I agree with you to some extent. Maybe its just a case of what goes around, comes around and payback is a biatch. There are always other plays that we can refer too during games. In the case of the Tyree catch, you could argue that the Giants D shutting the Pats down caused the game to even be that close in the first place so the Tyree catch shouldnt have mattered. Or something like that.

 

I think with the Pats, there are more "yeah buts" than any other so called dynasty. Thats all.

[Joey Gladstone 33]

They are like the Atlanta Braves in the 90's now.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

Did any of them "win" 3 titles while cheating, followed by a decade of epic choke jobs after they got caught? The Pats titles are as legit as Barry Bonds home run records.

 

[cbfalcon 825]

Oh I agree with you to some extent. Maybe its just a case of what goes around, comes around and payback is a biatch. There are always other plays that we can refer too during games. In the case of the Tyree catch, you could argue that the Giants D shutting the Pats down caused the game to even be that close in the first place so the Tyree catch shouldnt have mattered. Or something like that.

 

I think with the Pats, there are more "yeah buts" than any other so called dynasty. Thats all.

 

And the Patriots D slowed down the Raiders, Rams, Panthers, and Iggles enough to keep those games close enough for a good break to matter.

[Reality 2,992]

You can counter a lot of that by pointing out that the perfect season was undone by Assante Samuel just dropping a ball that he catches 99/100 times

 

He couldn't catch it 1 out of 1 time so yea..... Odds probably aren't great for 99 out of 99, he's a cornerback and not a receiver for a reason.

[tanatastic 2,062]

The Pats were a dynasty, im not denying that. But im saying the dynasty ended years ago. I wont discount 3 iffy sbs won by fgs and shrouded in controversy but...ok well I guess I will. Its def not 55-10 ill tell ya that much!

[jaxjag 43]

Just be thankful you don't have to listen to announcers fawn over Brett Favre anymore!

[cbfalcon 825]

The Pats were a dynasty, im not denying that. But im saying the dynasty ended years ago. I wont discount 3 iffy sbs won by fgs and shrouded in controversy but...ok well I guess I will. Its def not 55-10 ill tell ya that much!

 

If they never win another title, then history will agree with you.

 

If they do win another title with Brady, then history will include all of this as a part of the dynasty. That's just how it works.

[murf74 461]

If you include going to superbowl and losing as part of a dynasty.

 

The Buffalo Bills would be a solid dynasty

 

Pats cannot all the sudden tie any future wins to past superbowl wins to include same dynasty, thats just silly. Way too much time has passed. They have like one player from previous superbowl win.

[MDC 6,608]

The 1980-2008 Philles dynasty was awesome.

[Dan 62]

If they never win another title, then history will agree with you.

 

If they do win another title with Brady, then history will include all of this as a part of the dynasty. That's just how it works.

 

But they won't, so it's rather moot. Laud the regular season performance; that's fine. But the Patriots are a virtual lock for 10-14 wins every year REGARDLESS of how good they are, because their division is terrible. TERRIBLE. And then they face tough competition at some point in the playoffs, and they look as mortal as most of us realize them to be. Tom Brady was awarded the "clutch" moniker somewhere, somehow, and the appraisal has stuck, but I can only refer to the Carolina Super Bowl for true definition of the acclaim. Other than that, he's been a frontrunner, and decent in pressure situations, with a propensity to fail to make the plays necessary to pull it out at the end.

 

It's these factors, too, that bring RoadLizard's commentary to light and really give it fair run.

[IGotWorms 3,889]

The Pats were a dynasty, im not denying that. But im saying the dynasty ended years ago.

 

I'd agree that it probably ended this year, but they did make the Superbowl last year. I suppose you could argue that it ended in '08 though, and I might accept that.

[Dan 62]

I'd agree that it probably ended this year, but they did make the Superbowl last year. I suppose you could argue that it ended in '08 though, and I might accept that.

 

So you believe that Buffalo was a dynasty?

[IGotWorms 3,889]

So you believe that Buffalo was a dynasty?

 

Buffalo didn't win 3 Superbowls in the same era. If they had, they definitely would have been a dynasty.

[murf74 461]

Buffalo didn't win 3 Superbowls in the same era. If they had, they definitely would have been a dynasty.

 

OK so by your own definition, Brady and the pats have not extended their dynasty past their last superbowl win many years ago.

 

BTW how many current players were on the last winning superbowl team?

[IGotWorms 3,889]

OK so by your own definition, Brady and the pats have not extended their dynasty past their last superbowl win many years ago.

 

BTW how many current players were on the last winning superbowl team?

 

Brady & Belichick are still there. They define the era.

 

Like I said earlier, I think you could argue '08 was the end of the era. They went 16-0 for God's sake. But when they couldn't finish in the Superbowl, perhaps that was it.

 

Then again, if they had won last year, few people would say the dynasty had ended. So that's why I pick this year.

[murf74 461]

Brady & Belichick are still there. They define the era.

 

Like I said earlier, I think you could argue '08 was the end of the era. They went 16-0 for God's sake. But when they couldn't finish in the Superbowl, perhaps that was it.

 

Then again, if they had won last year, few people would say the dynasty had ended. So that's why I pick this year.

 

Well you can't base a dynasty based on IF they won...they didn't

 

Neither did the Bills

 

If, Steelers had beaten the Packers they would have been a dynasty with 3 in 6yrs...one with the same nucleus of players at that. Ben, Troy, Hines, Keisel, Hampton, A. Smith, Harrison, Ike, probably missing some.

 

But they didnt win.

[Reality 2,992]

The "Dynasty" ended with the last 'ship. You can't skip a decade or more, if any ever again, between SB's. This stuff isn't all that difficult.

 

Dynasties are only measured in Championships, not appearances.

[The Football Guru 219]

Perhaps I am in the minority and a bit of an extremist when it comes to definitions, but I hate how the networks have changed the definition of a dynasty in order to "tag" teams. I'm OK with phrases such "Team X was the dominant team of the decade" but true dynasties don't take a year off. Synonyms of "dynasty" are words like "reign", "rule", "empire" and "era" - words that don't exactly allow for breaks in between wearing the crown. Reigns, for example, don't end just because a ruler has a challenger to his throne; he either succeeds or his rule is over. As far as I'm concerned, there hasn't been a true dynasty in the Super Bowl era and that's fine by me. The standard by which the dynasty tag is used in sports should be exceedingly high, not one that is used because something almost happened.

[cbfalcon 825]

Perhaps I am in the minority and a bit of an extremist when it comes to definitions, but I hate how the networks have changed the definition of a dynasty in order to "tag" teams. I'm OK with phrases such "Team X was the dominant team of the decade" but true dynasties don't take a year off. Synonyms of "dynasty" are words like "reign", "rule", "empire" and "era" - words that don't exactly allow for breaks in between wearing the crown. Reigns, for example, don't end just because a ruler has a challenger to his throne; he either succeeds or his rule is over. As far as I'm concerned, there hasn't been a true dynasty in the Super Bowl era and that's fine by me. The standard by which the dynasty tag is used in sports should be exceedingly high, not one that is used because something almost happened.

 

So you think the standard is so high that it has never and will never be used. That's just a ton of fun.

[Dan 62]

So you think the standard is so high that it has never and will never be used. That's just a ton of fun.

 

Actually, he made his point. You missed it. The Green Bay Packers were a dynasty. The Cleveland Browns were a dynasty.

 

Read it again. He clearly says "in the Super Bowl Era."

[cbfalcon 825]

Actually, he made his point. You missed it. The Green Bay Packers were a dynasty. The Cleveland Browns were a dynasty.

 

Read it again. He clearly says "in the Super Bowl Era."

 

Wow. You hate the Patriots so much that it causes you to be a jerk. Impressive.

 

But that's ok. I'm probably like that about something also.

[TD Ryan2 316]

hey, tantastic - you know why the Patriots are still a Dynasty?

because the week leading up to a SuperBowl that they are not even in, The Patriots are still the top story on the first page of all these low rent, low trafficked message boards.... multiple threads, multiple fanbases, all anyone cares about is the Patriots.

 

[Dan 62]

Wow. You hate the Patriots so much that it causes you to be a jerk. Impressive.

 

But that's ok. I'm probably like that about something also.

 

What on earth are you on about? Reading comprehension 101. Then it might be fun to have a conversation with you.

[cbfalcon 825]

What on earth are you on about? Reading comprehension 101. Then it might be fun to have a conversation with you.

 

There ya go again.

 

It's ok man. I'm not a big Patriots fan. I'll say they aren't a dynasty and have no hope of ever winning again. Cool? Lets be friends again.

[Dan 62]

There ya go again.

 

It's ok man. I'm not a big Patriots fan. I'll say they aren't a dynasty and have no hope of ever winning again. Cool? Lets be friends again.

 

o.O

 

This is me totally nonplussed.

[cmh6476 893]

On 1/22/2013 at 1:07 PM, tanatastic said:

So a major topic from champ week fallout was "Is the patriots dynasty over?".

 

Listen NFLN, ESPN and everyone else...The dynasty was over almost a decade ago! An NFL dynasty is a group of core players that WIN multiple championships within no more than 2 years of eachother. Ill give examples of a dynasty, using each year as a list to illustrate..

 

This is a dynasty---

 

Win SB

Win SB

No sb

Win SB

 

thats 3 wins in 4 years, ill accept this.

 

 

This is NOT a dynasty!!!!----

 

Win SB

Win SB

lose

lose

lose

Win SB

 

see how 3 yrs went by with no sb win?

 

The run ended for the pats when they lost to the giants the first time. That was the Brady, viniatieri and a bunch of other bums dynasty. The new Brady, welker, gronk other white guys etc group is the new regime, and they havent won squat!

How about 3 out of 5?

[Maximum Overkill 1,203]

3 hours ago, cmh6476 said:

How about 3 out of 5?

Definitely a dynasty IMO. And as long as Mahomes is in the league, there's more to come. 

[polecatt 466]

3 hours ago, Maximum Overkill said:

Definitely a dynasty IMO. And as long as Mahomes is in the league, there's more to come. 

That's basically what I said, the Chiefs have Patrick Mahomes and the other 31 teams don't.