Are the 2000's Pats a dynasty? (1 Viewer)

[sihaokills]

My buddy and I are having a argument about this... Want to know what the Sharks think

 

[Sweet Love]

Long time Jets fan, and while it kills me to write this, they are a dynasty. Given the limitations of the cap, I say no question (although the cap did not kill them as much as other teams due to smart management).

 

[Jercules]

The funny thing is, their most talented teams have been the post-Superbowl teams. They started winning with old rosters full of 'chess pieces' that had chips on their shoulders--one of the rare instances in which a team truly didn't have believers beyond themselves. Winning allows for organizational stability and attracts free agents, and these two things have allowed them to accumulate talent over the more recent years (you honestly think Belichick is dealing Seymour for a future #1 if he's unsure he'll be the guy making that pick?)

2007 was the best of both worlds: The old guard still there to lead the way (Harrison, Bruschi, Vrabel, etc.), supplemented with some extraordinary talent (Moss, Welker, an elite Brady--people forget he wasn't always a great QB). The 2007 team was the best team they've ever had.

Now the entire roster is littered with high draft picks, but they've lost the character that made them so great. Willie McGinest even said it in an interview: "They got rid of too many of the old guys at once" (I'm paraphrasing).

In the end, IMO, if you call the 90's Cowboys a 'dynasty,' you certainly have to call the Patriots that as well. If you're a person that counts championships alone, fine, they won 3 in 4 years. If you have a broader view of it, the argument only gets stronger: They haven't dropped off yet. The championships are well into the past now, but they have yet to have that miserable, 'funeral' season that spurs a coaching change, roster overhaul, etc. As the previous post mentioned, to accomplish all this in the salary cap era is astounding.

Another interesting question: If the Pats win another few SB's in the coming years, will that be regarded as a 2nd dynasty or just one big one?

 

[sihaokills]

The funny thing is, their most talented teams have been the post-Superbowl teams. They started winning with old rosters full of 'chess pieces' that had chips on their shoulders--one of the rare instances in which a team truly didn't have believers beyond themselves. Winning allows for organizational stability and attracts free agents, and these two things have allowed them to accumulate talent over the more recent years (you honestly think Belichick is dealing Seymour for a future #1 if he's unsure he'll be the guy making that pick?)2007 was the best of both worlds: The old guard still there to lead the way (Harrison, Bruschi, Vrabel, etc.), supplemented with some extraordinary talent (Moss, Welker, an elite Brady--people forget he wasn't always a great QB). The 2007 team was the best team they've ever had.Now the entire roster is littered with high draft picks, but they've lost the character that made them so great. Willie McGinest even said it in an interview: "They got rid of too many of the old guys at once" (I'm paraphrasing). In the end, IMO, if you call the 90's Cowboys a 'dynasty,' you certainly have to call the Patriots that as well. If you're a person that counts championships alone, fine, they won 3 in 4 years. If you have a broader view of it, the argument only gets stronger: They haven't dropped off yet. The championships are well into the past now, but they have yet to have that miserable, 'funeral' season that spurs a coaching change, roster overhaul, etc. As the previous post mentioned, to accomplish all this in the salary cap era is astounding.Another interesting question: If the Pats win another few SB's in the coming years, will that be regarded as a 2nd dynasty or just one big one?

I think it will be one big one

 

[Casting Couch]

The funny thing is, their most talented teams have been the post-Superbowl teams. They started winning with old rosters full of 'chess pieces' that had chips on their shoulders--one of the rare instances in which a team truly didn't have believers beyond themselves. Winning allows for organizational stability and attracts free agents, and these two things have allowed them to accumulate talent over the more recent years (you honestly think Belichick is dealing Seymour for a future #1 if he's unsure he'll be the guy making that pick?)2007 was the best of both worlds: The old guard still there to lead the way (Harrison, Bruschi, Vrabel, etc.), supplemented with some extraordinary talent (Moss, Welker, an elite Brady--people forget he wasn't always a great QB). The 2007 team was the best team they've ever had.Now the entire roster is littered with high draft picks, but they've lost the character that made them so great. Willie McGinest even said it in an interview: "They got rid of too many of the old guys at once" (I'm paraphrasing). In the end, IMO, if you call the 90's Cowboys a 'dynasty,' you certainly have to call the Patriots that as well. If you're a person that counts championships alone, fine, they won 3 in 4 years. If you have a broader view of it, the argument only gets stronger: They haven't dropped off yet. The championships are well into the past now, but they have yet to have that miserable, 'funeral' season that spurs a coaching change, roster overhaul, etc. As the previous post mentioned, to accomplish all this in the salary cap era is astounding.

excellent.

 

[Boston]

The funny thing is, their most talented teams have been the post-Superbowl teams. They started winning with old rosters full of 'chess pieces' that had chips on their shoulders--one of the rare instances in which a team truly didn't have believers beyond themselves. Winning allows for organizational stability and attracts free agents, and these two things have allowed them to accumulate talent over the more recent years (you honestly think Belichick is dealing Seymour for a future #1 if he's unsure he'll be the guy making that pick?)2007 was the best of both worlds: The old guard still there to lead the way (Harrison, Bruschi, Vrabel, etc.), supplemented with some extraordinary talent (Moss, Welker, an elite Brady--people forget he wasn't always a great QB). The 2007 team was the best team they've ever had.Now the entire roster is littered with high draft picks, but they've lost the character that made them so great. Willie McGinest even said it in an interview: "They got rid of too many of the old guys at once" (I'm paraphrasing). In the end, IMO, if you call the 90's Cowboys a 'dynasty,' you certainly have to call the Patriots that as well. If you're a person that counts championships alone, fine, they won 3 in 4 years. If you have a broader view of it, the argument only gets stronger: They haven't dropped off yet. The championships are well into the past now, but they have yet to have that miserable, 'funeral' season that spurs a coaching change, roster overhaul, etc. As the previous post mentioned, to accomplish all this in the salary cap era is astounding.Another interesting question: If the Pats win another few SB's in the coming years, will that be regarded as a 2nd dynasty or just one big one?

Defensively the Patriot Super Bowl teams were far more talented than what they have rolled out the last four years or so...at LB it's not even remotely close as Willie, Vrabel and Bruschi were all in their prime and Phifer and Colvin and even Ted Johnson cold play...Seymour, Rodney and Ty Law were all playing at very high levels and they also had quality players like Ted Washington, Asante Samuel and Bobby Hamilton who contributed during this run...overall I have felt that many have underestimated the Pats talent from that era and have overestimated their talent of late...maybe it's because it was more meat and potatoes back than and more flash now but in many ways the Pats have morphed into the the Indy teams they used to beat...strong offensively, nothing special defensively, built more for the regular season than the playoffs...while the Pats are still among the elite I don't think they will win another title until they upgrade their D (especially their pass-rush)...

 

[steelcityman]

thats a decade, and they had a run of 4 years with 3 belts, so no. They've been good almost every year of the 2000s, but not dynasty good.

 

[Jercules]

The funny thing is, their most talented teams have been the post-Superbowl teams. They started winning with old rosters full of 'chess pieces' that had chips on their shoulders--one of the rare instances in which a team truly didn't have believers beyond themselves. Winning allows for organizational stability and attracts free agents, and these two things have allowed them to accumulate talent over the more recent years (you honestly think Belichick is dealing Seymour for a future #1 if he's unsure he'll be the guy making that pick?)2007 was the best of both worlds: The old guard still there to lead the way (Harrison, Bruschi, Vrabel, etc.), supplemented with some extraordinary talent (Moss, Welker, an elite Brady--people forget he wasn't always a great QB). The 2007 team was the best team they've ever had.Now the entire roster is littered with high draft picks, but they've lost the character that made them so great. Willie McGinest even said it in an interview: "They got rid of too many of the old guys at once" (I'm paraphrasing). In the end, IMO, if you call the 90's Cowboys a 'dynasty,' you certainly have to call the Patriots that as well. If you're a person that counts championships alone, fine, they won 3 in 4 years. If you have a broader view of it, the argument only gets stronger: They haven't dropped off yet. The championships are well into the past now, but they have yet to have that miserable, 'funeral' season that spurs a coaching change, roster overhaul, etc. As the previous post mentioned, to accomplish all this in the salary cap era is astounding.Another interesting question: If the Pats win another few SB's in the coming years, will that be regarded as a 2nd dynasty or just one big one?

Defensively the Patriot Super Bowl teams were far more talented than what they have rolled out the last four years or so...at LB it's not even remotely close as Willie, Vrabel and Bruschi were all in their prime and Phifer and Colvin and even Ted Johnson cold play...Seymour, Rodney and Ty Law were all playing at very high levels and they also had quality players like Ted Washington, Asante Samuel and Bobby Hamilton who contributed during this run...overall I have felt that many have underestimated the Pats talent from that era and have overestimated their talent of late...maybe it's because it was more meat and potatoes back than and more flash now but in many ways the Pats have morphed into the the Indy teams they used to beat...strong offensively, nothing special defensively, built more for the regular season than the playoffs...while the Pats are still among the elite I don't think they will win another title until they upgrade their D (especially their pass-rush)...

In Lawrence Taylor's autobiography he talks about how as he got older, his skills did not diminish so much as his ability to be consistently great. He could still dominate, just not all the time, and so he started to pick his spots. I'm willing to bet it was similar for those veteran Patriots like Pleasant, Phifer, Otis Smith, Washington, etc. Give the one true star of the New England Patriots, Bill Belichick, credit for recognizing this and putting these guys in the right situations to 'pick their spots.' The Pats never steamrolled anyone in those years, but they always managed to make a play when they needed it.

 

[Jercules]

thats a decade, and they had a run of 4 years with 3 belts, so no. They've been good almost every year of the 2000s, but not dynasty good.

So far the only 'nay' is some guy from Pittsburgh. Fair enough.

 

[The Comedian]

Obviously.

 

[Boston]

The funny thing is, their most talented teams have been the post-Superbowl teams. They started winning with old rosters full of 'chess pieces' that had chips on their shoulders--one of the rare instances in which a team truly didn't have believers beyond themselves. Winning allows for organizational stability and attracts free agents, and these two things have allowed them to accumulate talent over the more recent years (you honestly think Belichick is dealing Seymour for a future #1 if he's unsure he'll be the guy making that pick?)2007 was the best of both worlds: The old guard still there to lead the way (Harrison, Bruschi, Vrabel, etc.), supplemented with some extraordinary talent (Moss, Welker, an elite Brady--people forget he wasn't always a great QB). The 2007 team was the best team they've ever had.Now the entire roster is littered with high draft picks, but they've lost the character that made them so great. Willie McGinest even said it in an interview: "They got rid of too many of the old guys at once" (I'm paraphrasing). In the end, IMO, if you call the 90's Cowboys a 'dynasty,' you certainly have to call the Patriots that as well. If you're a person that counts championships alone, fine, they won 3 in 4 years. If you have a broader view of it, the argument only gets stronger: They haven't dropped off yet. The championships are well into the past now, but they have yet to have that miserable, 'funeral' season that spurs a coaching change, roster overhaul, etc. As the previous post mentioned, to accomplish all this in the salary cap era is astounding.Another interesting question: If the Pats win another few SB's in the coming years, will that be regarded as a 2nd dynasty or just one big one?

Defensively the Patriot Super Bowl teams were far more talented than what they have rolled out the last four years or so...at LB it's not even remotely close as Willie, Vrabel and Bruschi were all in their prime and Phifer and Colvin and even Ted Johnson cold play...Seymour, Rodney and Ty Law were all playing at very high levels and they also had quality players like Ted Washington, Asante Samuel and Bobby Hamilton who contributed during this run...overall I have felt that many have underestimated the Pats talent from that era and have overestimated their talent of late...maybe it's because it was more meat and potatoes back than and more flash now but in many ways the Pats have morphed into the the Indy teams they used to beat...strong offensively, nothing special defensively, built more for the regular season than the playoffs...while the Pats are still among the elite I don't think they will win another title until they upgrade their D (especially their pass-rush)...

In Lawrence Taylor's autobiography he talks about how as he got older, his skills did not diminish so much as his ability to be consistently great. He could still dominate, just not all the time, and so he started to pick his spots. I'm willing to bet it was similar for those veteran Patriots like Pleasant, Phifer, Otis Smith, Washington, etc. Give the one true star of the New England Patriots, Bill Belichick, credit for recognizing this and putting these guys in the right situations to 'pick their spots.' The Pats never steamrolled anyone in those years, but they always managed to make a play when they needed it.

The question is talent and I will take the talent they had on D in the back-to-back years over what they have had the last four years or so...Harrison and Law are bordeline Hall-of-Famers and had not started to decline yet...their LB unit in those years was excellent and all those guys were in their prime...Seymour was a force...the had other solid players in Wilson, Samuel, Washington, Poole, Hamilton (etc)...their D has not been near that level lately which is why they haven't won a title even though their O has been putting up some crazy stats/points...

 

[sihaokills]

Thanks guys