Patriots are now a Dynasty (1 Viewer)

[HellToupee]

Really?You and your buddy Aaron Rudnicki and the rest of the IDP experts have a good laugh at some of my posts?Boy, ya that Tedy Bruschi really embarassed himself out there tonight. Is that the one you are talking about?The guys that I respect, who I ACTUALLY know for a fact know something about football, think my posts are pretty funny for all of the right reasons.If you and your buddies want to think you are better than the rest of us, keep posting your illustrious opinions like the one in this thread. That will get the masses on your side.Excellent job Collin, you are a credit to FBG Inc. You really know what you are talking about.

You're free to leave anytime you want.Here is your hat. Don't let the door hit you on your way out...Colin

I'm sure Joe would love one of his salesman telling a customer to leave his boat showroom.

 

[Colin Dowling]

Really?You and your buddy Aaron Rudnicki and the rest of the IDP experts have a good laugh at some of my posts?Boy, ya that Tedy Bruschi really embarassed himself out there tonight.  Is that the one you are talking about?The guys that I respect, who I ACTUALLY know for a fact know something about football, think my posts are pretty funny for all of the right reasons.If you and your  buddies want to think you are better than the rest of us, keep posting your illustrious opinions like the one in this thread.  That will get the masses on your side.Excellent job Collin, you are a credit to FBG Inc.  You really know what you are talking about.

You're free to leave anytime you want.Here is your hat. Don't let the door hit you on your way out...Colin

I'm sure Joe would love one of his salesman telling a customer to leave his boat showroom.

The boards are free. Colin

 

[JC-PGH-PA]

Nope. Missing the playoffs means they aren't. Sorry. Cry all you want, but "dynasties" don't miss the playoffs during their run. Period.Colin

SOoooo...If the Pats win 9 of 10 they are still not a dynasty because of that one year?Nice logic.

Better update that picture in your avatar!New England is the new City of Champions. World Series and Superbowl Champions in the same season. It does not happen very often, so if you're a sports fan in New England you better enjoy it while it lasts. BTW: 25 years from now you'll have to hear about how those guys way back then sucked and todays champions in 2030 are way better.

 

[HellToupee]

Really?You and your buddy Aaron Rudnicki and the rest of the IDP experts have a good laugh at some of my posts?Boy, ya that Tedy Bruschi really embarassed himself out there tonight. Is that the one you are talking about?The guys that I respect, who I ACTUALLY know for a fact know something about football, think my posts are pretty funny for all of the right reasons.If you and your buddies want to think you are better than the rest of us, keep posting your illustrious opinions like the one in this thread. That will get the masses on your side.Excellent job Collin, you are a credit to FBG Inc. You really know what you are talking about.

You're free to leave anytime you want.Here is your hat. Don't let the door hit you on your way out...Colin

I'm sure Joe would love one of his salesman telling a customer to leave his boat showroom.

The boards are free. Colin

well count me as one less subscriber

 

[2190]

Dude, I like the message boards. I think Joe runs a nice operation here. I dont need FBG's help in managing my Fantasy teams so I dont pay for any Content.I just happen to think he has some people on his staff that are incredibly biased and write idiotic posts and hold onto moronic opinions even after being proven wrong time and time again.Are the people that pay for Fantasy advice paying for incredibly biased homer opinions? Boy, have some respect for the job you are supposed to be doing.

 

[Colin Dowling]

Dude, I like the message boards.  I think Joe runs a nice operation here.  I dont need FBG's help in managing my Fantasy teams so I dont pay for any Content.I just happen to think he has some people on his staff that are incredibly biased and write idiotic posts and hold onto moronic opinions even after being proven wrong time and time again.Are the people that pay for Fantasy advice paying for incredibly biased homer opinions?  Boy, have some respect for the job you are supposed to be doing.

So, you don't buy content but you want to criticize the authors? I've admitted they are a great team. I'm saying they are certainly deserving the accolades hurled upon them. But that isn't good enough?

 

[2190]

Others pay for it. They post opinions on that content. I'm not then allowed to opine on what I think of that content?

 

[gman8343]

I've admitted they are a great team. I'm saying they are certainly deserving the accolades hurled upon them. But that isn't good enough?

The accolades being hurled upon them right now is "dynasty." It's on the news.

 

[Colin Dowling]

I've admitted they are a great team. I'm saying they are certainly deserving the accolades hurled upon them. But that isn't good enough?

The accolades being hurled upon them right now is "dynasty." It's on the news.

And I, of my own volition, disagree with it. Why is that a big deal?Colin

 

[beefcake]

This just in...water is wet.The sun is bright.and grass is green.

 

[2190]

I dont care whether you like the Pats or not. I am only commenting on your comment, "because they missed the playoffs 1 year during their run, they cannot be a dynasty."That is an idiotic statement and I continue to say that. If you continue to stand behind that statement, I think you lose any credibility that you may or may not have had. If you are a known staff member, you are in some way representing FBG's. I feel you embarass yourself and FBG's by holding onto and trying to justify that opinion in the face of overwhelming evidence that you are wrong.None of your other posts have really stuck out to me so I would have to leave it to the rest of the board as to how much credibility you actually had to lose.

 

[Colin Dowling]

Others pay for it. They post opinions on that content. I'm not then allowed to opine on what I think of that content?

You can say whatever you want. As I said, the Boards are free. But why your criticisms of me should carry any weight, when you are not a customer, doesn't make sense.COli

 

[roadeyes]

Colin, you have a blind hatred for the Pats (and the Sox too, no?) The thing is, those Boston teams keep putting up to shut you up. I can only imagine the ridiculous gloating we'll hear from you if one of those teams fails to win a championship.Man, lose with some grace.

You aren't paying attention. I'm calling them "the best team in at least a decade" and you tell me to lose with grace? Come on. I'm not prepared to call them a "dynasty", which is semantics, but that makes me biased?LOlColin

You are severly biased. I'm sure there are many past threads to prove this inarguable point. The problem you face is that the Pats and Sox just keep winning. Kind of puts a damper on all your vitriol.

 

[Colin Dowling]

Colin, you have a blind hatred for the Pats (and the Sox too, no?)  The thing is, those Boston teams keep putting up to shut you up.  I can only imagine the ridiculous gloating we'll hear from you if one of those teams fails to win a championship.Man, lose with some grace.

You aren't paying attention. I'm calling them "the best team in at least a decade" and you tell me to lose with grace? Come on. I'm not prepared to call them a "dynasty", which is semantics, but that makes me biased?LOlColin

You are severly biased. I'm sure there are many past threads to prove this inarguable point. The problem you face is that the Pats and Sox just keep winning. Kind of puts a damper on all your vitriol.

You aren't paying attention. The better team won. I'm fine with that.

 

[gman8343]

I've admitted they are a great team.  I'm saying they are certainly deserving the accolades hurled upon them.  But that isn't good enough? 

The accolades being hurled upon them right now is "dynasty." It's on the news.

And I, of my own volition, disagree with it. Why is that a big deal?Colin

Nothing, I think this whole thing is kind of funny. It's just a word...But... you can't say you agree with the accolades being hurled at them, when all over all you hear is the word "dynasty," if you don't think they're a dynasty. That means you DISAGREE with the accolades being hurled at them.No biggie, just semantics.

 

[Colin Dowling]

I dont care whether you like the Pats or not. I am only commenting on your comment, "because they missed the playoffs 1 year during their run, they cannot be a dynasty."That is an idiotic statement and I continue to say that. If you continue to stand behind that statement, I think you lose any credibility that you may or may not have had. If you are a known staff member, you are in some way representing FBG's. I feel you embarass yourself and FBG's by holding onto and trying to justify that opinion in the face of overwhelming evidence that you are wrong.None of your other posts have really stuck out to me so I would have to leave it to the rest of the board as to how much credibility you actually had to lose.

So, you disagree with me? Fine.I'm an "idiot?" Uh...okay.Colin

 

[Colin Dowling]

I've admitted they are a great team.  I'm saying they are certainly deserving the accolades hurled upon them.  But that isn't good enough? 

The accolades being hurled upon them right now is "dynasty." It's on the news.

And I, of my own volition, disagree with it. Why is that a big deal?Colin

Nothing, I think this whole thing is kind of funny. It's just a word...But... you can't say you agree with the accolades being hurled at them, when all over all you hear is the word "dynasty," if you don't think they're a dynasty. That means you DISAGREE with the accolades being hurled at them.No biggie, just semantics.

Yup. Semantics have gotten Pats fans to waste their evening debating an idiot. Colin

 

[2190]

Dont know you personally. Maybe you are an idiot. I just said that you are making idiotic statements. That much I think is clear.

 

[gman8343]

I've admitted they are a great team.  I'm saying they are certainly deserving the accolades hurled upon them.  But that isn't good enough? 

The accolades being hurled upon them right now is "dynasty." It's on the news.

And I, of my own volition, disagree with it. Why is that a big deal?Colin

Nothing, I think this whole thing is kind of funny. It's just a word...But... you can't say you agree with the accolades being hurled at them, when all over all you hear is the word "dynasty," if you don't think they're a dynasty. That means you DISAGREE with the accolades being hurled at them.No biggie, just semantics.

Yup. Semantics have gotten Pats fans to waste their evening debating an idiot. Colin

 

[Capella]

Nope. Missing the playoffs means they aren't. Sorry. Cry all you want, but "dynasties" don't miss the playoffs during their run. Period.Colin

this is shtick, no?

 

[Jefferson the Caregiver]

Nope. Missing the playoffs means they aren't. Sorry. Cry all you want, but "dynasties" don't miss the playoffs during their run. Period.Colin

Even though your argument was flawed to begin with, your timing couldn't have been any worse and when you start throwing out words like "Cry all you want", you are looking for a fight. Well you got one. You want people to respect your opinion? First, don't be so pompous when you deliver it and think it out a little better the next time. Don't come on a half an hour after the Pats win their 3rd Super Bowl in four years, when emotions are at their peak and expect people to buy it. Think it out and deliver it a few days from now with just a little undertone that might suggest its not just some personal bias that's getting in the way.You probably won't ever get my respect but maybe you'll have better luck with next year's group of subscribers.

 

[John Facenda]

3 Supah Bowl wins in 4 yeahhs.....The New England Patriots are a modern day dynasty (cue music)

 

[satch]

Sean Salisbury and Michael Irvin are arguing about the whole dynasty thing, even though they both agree that they are a dynasty.

 

[roadeyes]

Colin, you have a blind hatred for the Pats (and the Sox too, no?) The thing is, those Boston teams keep putting up to shut you up. I can only imagine the ridiculous gloating we'll hear from you if one of those teams fails to win a championship.Man, lose with some grace.

You aren't paying attention. I'm calling them "the best team in at least a decade" and you tell me to lose with grace? Come on. I'm not prepared to call them a "dynasty", which is semantics, but that makes me biased?LOlColin

You are severly biased. I'm sure there are many past threads to prove this inarguable point. The problem you face is that the Pats and Sox just keep winning. Kind of puts a damper on all your vitriol.

You aren't paying attention. The better team won. I'm fine with that.

Ah, sure. OK.

 

[metoo]

dynasty yes beat the cowboys team in the 90's nope

 

[satch]

Colin,Is 3 Super Bowl victories in a row a dynasty?

 

[HellToupee]

Colin,Is 3 Super Bowl victories in a row a dynasty?

thats just a good run

 

[2190]

dynasty yes beat the cowboys team in the 90's nope

Its very possible that the Cowboys would have beaten the Patriots. That was a GREAT Cowboys team. That is an interesting debate.Both teams are Dynasties. I dont think that is debateable and if it is you better come up with a better argument than they cant be a Dynasty because in 1 of the 4 years they tied for the division lead but lost on a tiebreaker.Thats almost as smart as trying to put down Tom Brady for being 9-0 in the Playoffs by saying "but he didnt make it in 2002." I've heard that one over the last couple of weeks as well.The guy has won EVERY playoff game he has ever played.Back to the Dynasty talk. Sorry for the tangent.

 

[satch]

Colin,Is 3 Super Bowl victories in a row a dynasty?

thats just a good run

What about 2, then a non-playoff year, then 2 more? Is 4 out of 5 years with a non-playoff year sandwiched between them a dynastyAt what point does the non-playoff year get thrown out?

 

[roadeyes]

dynasty yes beat the cowboys team in the 90's nope

Its very possible that the Cowboys would have beaten the Patriots. That was a GREAT Cowboys team. That is an interesting debate.Both teams are Dynasties. I dont think that is debateable and if it is you better come up with a better argument than they cant be a Dynasty because in 1 of the 4 years they tied for the division lead but lost on a tiebreaker.Thats almost as smart as trying to put down Tom Brady for being 9-0 in the Playoffs by saying "but he didnt make it in 2002." I've heard that one over the last couple of weeks as well.The guy has won EVERY playoff game he has ever played.Back to the Dynasty talk. Sorry for the tangent.

I heard Aikman say that if the Pats won today that he would consider them better than his Cowboy teams.Did anyone hear his rationalization behind this.

 

[satch]

Colin,Is 3 Super Bowl victories in a row a dynasty?

thats just a good run

What about 2, then a non-playoff year, then 2 more? Is 4 out of 5 years with a non-playoff year sandwiched between them a dynastyAt what point does the non-playoff year get thrown out?

nope 'cuz they missed the playoffs :rotflmao:

So if the Pats win another Super Bowl next year, the dynasty discussion would be 3 in a row, not 4 in 5 years, because the non-playoff year seperates the run?

 

[bueno]

Why this isn't a post yet surprises me. Breath easy Pats fans, we can finally call it what it is...a dynasty! I still give the nod to the Cowboys of the 90's as the ultimate dynasty, as they went to 4 confrerence championship games during their incredible run. I also give love to the Steelers of the 70's for their four championships in 6 years. However, the Pats can now, at least, lay claim to being mentioned in the same breath with those great teams.My hat is off to the Eagles for a great game. TO exceeded all expectations, McNabb had a heck of a game, save for the turnovers, and the D was solid. A great game played by two great teams. Philly fans should be proud.I just have to . It's been a great ride.

Young punk - Lombardi's Packers - 5 championships. I'd put the Pats third behind the Packers of the 60's and all those Noll Steeler teams. Kind of in a tie with SF and Dallas.

 

[2190]

Bueno,How did Lombardi win 5 championships and only amass a 9-1 playoff record? 5 championships means only 4 other playoff wins. In some years, all there was was the championship game itself?I would put the Steelers above the Packers because at least they had to win 3 games each time they won a championship. Seems to me that what they did (4 in 6 years) was tougher.

 

[bostonfred]

I'm so happy that the Patriots won. What a great team, and what an unexpected priveledge that New Engand fans have been given over the last four years. When we look back at this team, we may remember it as one of the great dynasties of all time. Hopefully this run isn't over yet, but if it is, I tip my cap to what may be the best sporting accomplishment of my lifetime.

 

[roadeyes]

I'd put the Pats third behind the Packers of the 60's and all those Noll Steeler teams. Kind of in a tie with SF and Dallas.

As a Pats fan, I'd say that's pretty accurate and pretty good company.Only thing that gives me pause is that the Lomabardi and Noll teams were in eras when it was unquestionably easier to acquire and retain players. The same could be said, to a lesser degree maybe, about the niner and cowboys teams.But then, comparing players and teams from different eras is just about impossible. For instance, is there really any doubt that this Pats team would slaughter any of those Packer teams?

 

[CrossEyed]

Haven't read the whole thread, so sorry if this was already mentioned.The Patriots only have 15 players from the first Super Bowl team. It's not a dynasty because it's not even the same team.

 

[gman8343]

The Patriots only have 15 players from the first Super Bowl team. It's not a dynasty because it's not even the same team.

That's an interesting way to look at it, and if that's the case, there may never be another dynasty again with free agency causing such high tunover.I do think they're a dynasty, however.

 

[CrossEyed]

The Patriots only have 15 players from the first Super Bowl team. It's not a dynasty because it's not even the same team.

That's an interesting way to look at it, and if that's the case, there may never be another dynasty again with free agency causing such high tunover.I do think they're a dynasty, however.

I would call it an awesome franchise but not a dynasty.

 

[dickey moe]

Haven't read the whole thread, so sorry if this was already mentioned.The Patriots only have 15 players from the first Super Bowl team. It's not a dynasty because it's not even the same team.

This is a ridiculous standard -- in the era of free agency, you're not going to have the same rosters year to year. You're lucky if you can keep your best players, and skilled if you have an eye for talent that enables you to plug in players as necessary (as the Pats had to with their injuries on defense this year). The fact that the Pats have been able to win three Super Bowls in four years, with varying rosters, is even more impressive, and deserving of being labeled a dynasty.

 

[Portis 26]

The Patriots only have 15 players from the first Super Bowl team.

That's actually quite a lot - it's numerous key starters. By way of comparison, even in the pre-Free Agency era, I think you will find that there was also quite a high degree of turnover. For example, each Redskins Super Bowl team in the 80s won with a different QB.

 

[Portis 26]

I would call it an awesome franchise but not a dynasty.

Only Brad Smith's Arizona Cardinals are an awesome dynasty!

 

[CrossEyed]

Haven't read the whole thread, so sorry if this was already mentioned.The Patriots only have 15 players from the first Super Bowl team. It's not a dynasty because it's not even the same team.

This is a ridiculous standard -- in the era of free agency, you're not going to have the same rosters year to year. You're lucky if you can keep your best players, and skilled if you have an eye for talent that enables you to plug in players as necessary (as the Pats had to with their injuries on defense this year). The fact that the Pats have been able to win three Super Bowls in four years, with varying rosters, is even more impressive, and deserving of being labeled a dynasty.

dy·nas·ty Pronunciation: 'dI-n&-stE also -"nas-tE, esp British 'di-n&-stEFunction: nounInflected Form(s): plural -ties1 : a succession of rulers of the same line of descent2 : a powerful group or family that maintains its position for a considerable timeundefined

Not the same group. Not a dynasty.And you are right, there will never be another true dynasty in the NFL. I'm not saying this isn't an incredibly impressive run by the Patriots. It certainly is. But it just doesn't meet the definition of a dynasty. You can't compare the Patriots of today to the Packers of the 60s, Steelers of the 70's, Niners of the 80s or Cowboys of the 90s. It's a different league.

 

[dickey moe]

Haven't read the whole thread, so sorry if this was already mentioned.The Patriots only have 15 players from the first Super Bowl team. It's not a dynasty because it's not even the same team.

This is a ridiculous standard -- in the era of free agency, you're not going to have the same rosters year to year. You're lucky if you can keep your best players, and skilled if you have an eye for talent that enables you to plug in players as necessary (as the Pats had to with their injuries on defense this year). The fact that the Pats have been able to win three Super Bowls in four years, with varying rosters, is even more impressive, and deserving of being labeled a dynasty.

dy·nas·ty Pronunciation: 'dI-n&-stE also -"nas-tE, esp British 'di-n&-stEFunction: nounInflected Form(s): plural -ties1 : a succession of rulers of the same line of descent2 : a powerful group or family that maintains its position for a considerable timeundefined

Not the same group. Not a dynasty.And you are right, there will never be another true dynasty in the NFL. I'm not saying this isn't an incredibly impressive run by the Patriots. It certainly is. But it just doesn't meet the definition of a dynasty. You can't compare the Patriots of today to the Packers of the 60s, Steelers of the 70's, Niners of the 80s or Cowboys of the 90s. It's a different league.

2 : a powerful group or family that maintains its position for a considerable time

Still don't understand your interpretation of this definition. Most Americans recognize the Kennedys as a family that has had a political dynasty over the last 50+ years or so. Does the fact that several Kennedys have lived and died mean that they aren't a dynasty? Teams change. Where do you draw the line? If the Pats had 80% of the players they had 3 years ago would they qualify as a dynasty? The Pats team as a whole (the franchise) IS a dynasty.

 

[NinerDownUnder]

I think the term dynasty is bandied about far too often.Are the Pats a dynasty? I'm not totally convinced. Last time I checked a decade was 10 years and not 5. A team may come along and win 4 of the remaining 5 Superbowls. Would THEY then be a dynasty?The Patriots are an excellent football team for sure, but for me to put them in the same league as the other established "dynasties" (Cowboys, Steelers, 49ers) they need to match them Bowl for Bowl. They need one more.

 

[valhallan]

Nope. Missing the playoffs means they aren't. Sorry. Cry all you want, but "dynasties" don't miss the playoffs during their run. Period.Colin

Thank God I stopped posting here. What a moronic staff.

 

[Capella]

dy·nas·ty Pronunciation: 'dI-n&-stE also -"nas-tE, esp British 'di-n&-stEFunction: nounInflected Form(s): plural -ties1 : a succession of rulers of the same line of descent

kraftbelichekweiscrennel

 

[Vicktimized]

By any definition, this is a dynasty. It's 3 Super Bowls in 4 years. Had NE not lost a tiebreaker and lost in round 1 or 2 of the playoffs in 02, would the dynasty still be intact?Geez...a team has 2 seasons of 14 or more regular season wins; they beat one of the all time great offenses in their 1st bowl win; they beat another great one in Indy, a 13 win Philly team, and a FIFTEEN win Pitts team this year. They did it w/ a horribly depleted secondary. They have the best coach, and arguably the best QB...Dynasty. Period. The question's laughable.

 

[delusional]

nope...they proved nothing that they were a DOMINATE team tonight, Pats did not win, eagles lost ( time and mcnabb ) If the pats came out and just romped, then yes, i would say the d word but they didnt

 

[2190]

Would a ten point win have been sufficient? They give up a garbage time TD and all of a sudden their win is less impressive?

 

[CrossEyed]

dy·nas·ty Pronunciation: 'dI-n&-stE also -"nas-tE, esp British 'di-n&-stEFunction: nounInflected Form(s): plural -ties1 : a succession of rulers of the same line of descent

kraftbelichekweiscrennel

You'd have more credibility if you actually used the right definition.And you made my point for me. The credit goes to the personnel guys and coaches. Every other team that has ever been mentioned as a dynasty was primarily the same group of players for the entire run. This team isn't. Call it a dynasty if you wish, but it can't be compared to the dynasties of GB, Pittsburgh, SF and Dallas.And I'm not even saying that it's any less impressive, just that it's different.