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 <b>only 3</b> 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 <b>3</b> theme will continue with Billichiks retirement? :funny:

[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 :clap:

[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.

[DaBills]

I know they are the dominant team of the current decade considering the 'salary cap era', but Denver wins two during the salary cap era and nobody says anything about them. And players have always come and gone. Plunkett leaves NE and wins with the Raiders, go figure. Favre sucks in Atlanta and goes to GB. The rest is history. Steve Young from Tampa, etc. I don't see the FA argument as being a negative.

Phil - I'm not counting just SB appearances though. I'm talking the whole picture. Those teams that have won it all at some point and are also consistantly there in the hunt come playoff time. There are just certain teams that you know will be there. If you won some SB's, and you win your division year in and year out, you're doing something right as a franchise. GB's one of those teams for starters. Pitt's another.

I just can't separate the team from the franchise in the dynasty equation.

[caimenking]

Dude your reasoning is flawed. In fact you don't even offer up an argument, its just simply I rant with out any evidence. If th epats aren't a dynasty then there never has been one according to your logic.

[DaBills]

Dude your reasoning is flawed. In fact you don't even offer up an argument, its just simply I rant with out any evidence. If th epats aren't a dynasty then there never has been one according to your logic.


dude, you're misunderstanding my point. it's not 'my' logic that offers up the popular opinion heard here "well, they won 3 SB in 4 years, so they're a dynasty. Especially in the era of the salary cap.' That's weak if this is all the criteria a team needs to be considered a dynasty: to win in the salary cap era.

I already said who I would consider a dynasty franchise: Cowboys, Steelers, 49er's, Green Bay. Based on my 'logic', a dynasty wins more than the last 3 of 4 SBs, cap or no cap. Nobody has offered up a rational based on my criteria, as to what the Pats have done beside win these three of four, to make them a dynasty.


'Team of the new milenium' fine.

:funny:

[The_Philster]

dude, you're misunderstanding my point. it's not 'my' logic that offers up the popular opinion heard here &quot;well, they won 3 SB in 4 years, so they're a dynasty. Especially in the era of the salary cap.' That's weak if this is all the criteria a team needs to be considered a dynasty: to win in the salary cap era.

I already said who I would consider a dynasty franchise: Cowboys, Steelers, 49er's, Green Bay. Based on my 'logic', a dynasty wins more than the last 3 of 4 SBs, cap or no cap. Nobody has offered up a rational based on my criteria, as to what the Pats have done beside win these three of four, to make them a dynasty.


'Team of the new milenium' fine.

:funny:

You said these teams that are dynasties are consistently in the playoff hunt

Cowboys?...not hardly
Steelers?...ditto
Packers?...ditto
49ers?...last few years have proven that wrong

[Philagape]

dude, you're misunderstanding my point. it's not 'my' logic that offers up the popular opinion heard here "well, they won 3 SB in 4 years, so they're a dynasty. Especially in the era of the salary cap.' That's weak if this is all the criteria a team needs to be considered a dynasty: to win in the salary cap era.

No, to win three Super Bowls.


I already said who I would consider a dynasty franchise: Cowboys, Steelers, 49er's, Green Bay. Based on my 'logic', a dynasty wins more than the last 3 of 4 SBs, cap or no cap. Nobody has offered up a rational based on my criteria, as to what the Pats have done beside win these three of four, to make them a dynasty.

The Cowboys, Steelers, 49ers and Packers have all put up some pretty putrid seasons in the past few decades as well.
The Packers were mediocre between Lombardi and Favre.
The Steelers are on and off.
The Cowboys won 3 SBs partially because they got high draft picks because they sucked.
The 49ers suck now.

And it's not like the Pats have always sucked either ... this was their fifth Super Bowl overall, same as Pittsburgh and SF, and more than Green Bay.

No team wins all the time.

[BillyT92679]

No, to win three Super Bowls.



The Cowboys, Steelers, 49ers and Packers have all put up some pretty putrid seasons in the past few decades as well.
The Packers were mediocre between Lombardi and Favre.
The Steelers are on and off.
The Cowboys won 3 SBs partially because they got high draft picks because they sucked.
The 49ers suck now.

And it's not like the Pats have always sucked either ... this was their fifth Super Bowl overall, same as Pittsburgh and SF, and more than Green Bay.

No team wins all the time.
Great post.
The Bills became an AFC dynasty simply because they stunk for so many years. and Bill Polian was a master at the draft, getting the best players both at the top and deep in the draft.

[DaBills]

Bills fans defending the Pats. Whodda thunk it.

Teams don't win all the time. No team is a perrenial favorite. Yes, SF sucks. Already acknowledged that. Again, OVER TIME, those teams I considered the dynasty franchises, HAVE won it enough that they their accummulated history gives them credit to draw on in the lean years. And those great ones will inevitably be back in the race.

And of course the balance of power has shifted from the NFC east last decade to the AFC east. Who said Pitt, Dallas and SF would always win every year? That's going to happen. But Pittsburgh always seems to be there toward the end of the year to at least be a factor.

I'll take a dynasty with history like GB over the team of the millenium (NE) any day.

And the Pats got hammered by the Bears in that SB. They were a joke. Like the Bengals to the 49ers.

[Dozerdog]

I just guess DaBills' has a different definition of Dynasty than the rest of us.

[DaBills]

I just guess DaBills' has a different definition of Dynasty than the rest of us.


Dynasty. It's either a really bad Joan Collins show

or:

A family or group that maintains power for several generations: a political dynasty controlling the state.


'several' generations



:peace:

[The Natrix]

Each season is a football generation.

[DaBills]

Each season is a football generation.

Lol. Nice spin.


:peace:

[Philagape]

I think the Pats have lots to fall back on now. They have just as many SB titles as the Packers.

[DaBills]

Yep. Now they have my permission to suck for a few years, come back in 2015 and win two more straight SBs. Then I'll finally say they're a dynasty.

;-p

[tampabay25690]

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.

Dont want to admit it either but they are a dynasty

[Dozerdog]

Dynasty. It's either a really bad Joan Collins show

or:

A family or group that maintains power for several generations: a political dynasty controlling the state.


'several' generations



:peace:
Then by your definition, only the Dallas Cowboys, Oakland Raiders, San Francisco, and (maybe) the Steelers count.

[jmb1099]

They are as much a dynasty as anyone else is. I can't stand it, but you can't take away what they have earned.

[DaBills]

Then by your definition, only the Dallas Cowboys, Oakland Raiders, San Francisco, and (maybe) the Steelers count.

Yes. You now understand grasshopper. You don't just throw around the word 'dynasty' and give that label to every team that wins a few championships without first considering their total team history. Otherwise, the meaning of the D word becomes watered down. (I'll take Steelers over 49ers first though.)




And don't forget the Celtics and the Yankees. ;-p

[TedMock]

I think there's a misunderstanding of what people are considering a dynasty. It we're talking about decades, the Yankess, Canadiens, etc. These are the greatest franchises in sports. But that's not what people are using in their consideration. Is this NE TEAM a dynasty? Brady and boys can't play for decades at a time. For what the media, fans, etc. are considering a dynasty....yes the NE Patriots of the 21st century most certainly are. The Packers of the 60's, the Steelers of the 70's, the 49ers of the 80's, the Cowboys of the 90's, and Now the Patriots. Dynasties in sports are created 1 decade at a time. The reason is that the shelf life of the ingredients is no more than a decade. In sports we consider the team, not the franchise. Who's the most dominant team of their era? While I certainly see what DaBills argument is, there's a fundamental difference in his definition versus that of others'. I'm not saying it's wrong, but it's not the way the mainstream is looking at it.

[Philagape]

Since the literal definition of a dynasty is political, when it's applied to sports, I think we can make up any definition we want.