The Pats are NOT a dynasty

[DaBills]

I'm so sick of this bs, I gotta' rant:

They are on a good run. But dynasty? Win over the decades, not 3 SB's in your 45 year history, then we'll talk. Brady fell into BB's lap, that's why they're winning. BB had Bledsoe and couldn't so ****, yet people compare him to Lombardi? WTF? Win next year and beyond when your top OC and DC are gone, then you can be mentioned in the same sentence. Maybe.

Steelers, Cowboys, 49ers = dynasties. They have the attitude that makes them be consistantly competitive to be at or near the top over decades. That's a dynasty.

I don't even want to get started on McChoke's performance. He looked like Flutie out there with those wounded ducks and clock management skills. Combined with Reid's 'Loss Snatching from the Jaws of Victory' schemes, they should both be selling cheesesteaks on the street next year. Philly should have absolutely won that game tonight.

[BADTHINGSMAN]

Philly did play good enough to win.. Only problem is the Pats played a little better.. I hate the word Dynasty also, but they can be considered a dynasty.. Pats just now how to win.. They showed they can win without there 3 starters in the secondary.. Belichek now knows he can win without Ty Law.. That right there makes me nervous, because Law could be traded away for a extra 1st rounder, if he isnt a FA this year..

Unfortunatly the Pats are a smart organazation, and even without Crennel and Wies, will be back in the playoffs next year..

[clumping platelets]

Patsies have won 3 championships in 4 yrs in the salary cap era........yes, they are a dynasty

[superbills]

I have to agree with Clump on this one, although it burns my a$$ to have to say it about the Pats. Three rings in four years with a salary-cap? You don't pull that off without having an incredible core in the front office and on the coaching staff, constantly bringing in talent to fill needs and fit into the scheme. IMO, they're a dynasty because even when they lose top-name players, (e.g. milloy) they go on without missing a beat and stay at the top of their game. We can learn a lot from watching this team...

I'm going to go throw up now

[mybills]

Steelers, Cowboys, 49ers = dynasties.

What were the scores in their S.B.'s? They didn't win all of them by only 3 points!

NE has 3 S.B.'s
all won by 3 pt's
and 2 of their coaches are gone now...what are the chances that the 3 theme will continue with Billichiks retirement?

[BAM]

Patsies have won 3 championships in 4 yrs in the salary cap era........yes, they are a dynasty

Mos definitely.

[TheGhostofJimKelly]

Gotta go with Clump on this one. The Pats are a dynasty. If the Bills were the team that just won their third SB in four years, believe me, you would be on here saying how much of a dynasty they are. Get over your biased opinion, they are the best organization in the NFL. I hate saying it, but it is true.

[ryjam282]

As much as we all hate it, they truly are. We will see how they do without the two coaches but they are a dynasty.

Congrats Pats, I hate you all, but congrats

[DaBills]

"Gotta go with Clump on this one. The Pats are a dynasty. If the Bills were the team that just won their third SB in four years, believe me, you would be on here saying how much of a dynasty they are. Get over your biased opinion, they are the best organization in the NFL. I hate saying it, but it is true."

No dynasty. 3 SB wins, nice job. That's it though. And no I wouldn't say it about the Bills had they won either. Pats are the the team to beat right now, yes. Absolutely. They can be considered one of the great teams in the league if you want to go that far.

Why does being in the salary cap era mean a team will automatically be a dynasty if they win in just a 3 year period? Criteria is consistant winning over a long time. NOT 3 in 4 years riding the arm of a solid, although unremarkable/mistake-free QB. He's an improved version of Dilfer. If NE is one based on the 'cap-era' arguement, then certainly Denver is a dynasty for winning twice.
Talk about being biased. Did everyone forget the Pats sucked for a LONG time prior?

[Devin]

"Gotta go with Clump on this one. The Pats are a dynasty. If the Bills were the team that just won their third SB in four years, believe me, you would be on here saying how much of a dynasty they are. Get over your biased opinion, they are the best organization in the NFL. I hate saying it, but it is true."

No dynasty. 3 SB wins, nice job. That's it though. And no I wouldn't say it about the Bills had they won either. Pats are the the team to beat right now, yes. Absolutely. They can be considered one of the great teams in the league if you want to go that far.

Why does being in the salary cap era mean a team will automatically be a dynasty if they win in just a 3 year period? Criteria is consistant winning over a long time. NOT 3 in 4 years riding the arm of a solid, although unremarkable/mistake-free QB. He's an improved version of Dilfer.

Talk about being biased. Did everyone forget the Pats sucked for a LONG time prior? If Grogan or Plunkett is the best anyone can remember about NE history, that's a joke.

Bitter?

Look I hate the pats as much as the next Bills fan, probably even more so since my father is from Maine and thats the team hes followed all his life.

But facts are facts. 3 super bowls in 4 years, an amazing team with flawless precision. And whats worse is there management is better then the team, they will be good for quite some time.

Regardless of what they did in the 80's ( a super bowl appearance) or the 90's (a superbowl appearance) or from 2000 on (3 super bowl appearances) its 2005 and every year from 2000 they have been a contender. Brady is one of the top 3 QB's in football hardly a "improved version of Dilfer".

If this were any team (being any team winning 3 in the last 4) they would get the same title.

As Bills fans we look for excuses why they are good its sort of our job, blame it on Brady, blame it on the coordinators, blame it on them getting rid of Bledsoe, blame it on Bilichek being an F'N genius. Either way you cut it they are what they are. A dynasty.

And I hate them for it.

[TheGhostofJimKelly]

"Gotta go with Clump on this one. The Pats are a dynasty. If the Bills were the team that just won their third SB in four years, believe me, you would be on here saying how much of a dynasty they are. Get over your biased opinion, they are the best organization in the NFL. I hate saying it, but it is true."

No dynasty. 3 SB wins, nice job. That's it though. And no I wouldn't say it about the Bills had they won either. Pats are the the team to beat right now, yes. Absolutely. They can be considered one of the great teams in the league if you want to go that far.

Why does being in the salary cap era mean a team will automatically be a dynasty if they win in just a 3 year period? Criteria is consistant winning over a long time. NOT 3 in 4 years riding the arm of a solid, although unremarkable/mistake-free QB. He's an improved version of Dilfer. If NE is one based on the 'cap-era' arguement, then certainly Denver is a dynasty for winning twice.
Talk about being biased. Did everyone forget the Pats sucked for a LONG time prior?

It doesn't matter what they did prior, the 49ers were a joke in the 70s. This team is a dynasty and it doesn't look like they are getting any worse. How many do they need to win before they are a dynasty? They are one, get over it.

[DaBillzAhDaShiznit]

We are not saying the Pats as a franchise are a dynasty....only the Pats of the early 21st century....as soon as other teams in this era start winning 3 of 4 regularly over the next 25 years, we can redefine the word dynasty....but for now, the current Pats team (the core is the same as it was 4 yrs ago) is a dynasty...........

Even more reason to hate them with a passion....just as I hated the Niners and Cowboys......

[DaBills]

"We are not saying the Pats as a franchise are a dynasty"

But I think most people are using the word dynasty in that context. What other menaing can there be though? A dynasty has to refer to the franchise as awhole based on their collective success over the years.


_____________

"It doesn't matter what they did prior, the 49ers were a joke in the 70s. This team is a dynasty and it doesn't look like they are getting any worse. How many do they need to win before they are a dynasty? They are one, get over it."


And the Pats were a joke in 60's, 70's, 80's, and up to the mid-90's. I don't have to get over it because they aren't one.

[TheGhostofJimKelly]

Well you obviously have your ideas set in stone, I will join the millions of other people who say this team here is a dynasty. The Patriots aren't a dynasty, this team is.

[Philagape]

If this Pats team isn't a dynasty, then no one is.

The Packers' run in the 60s lasted six years, and they were either losing or mediocre for a long time after that, until Favre arrived.

The Steelers' SB run also lasted 6 years and they didn't get back until once in the mid-90s.

The 49ers are a pathetic waste of grass right now.

The Patriots are the team of the decade, just like the Packers, Steelers, 49ers and Cowboys before them.