Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Patriots are now a Dynasty (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Mr. Pink
- Start date
Colin Dowling
Footballguy
I don't recall calling those "other teams" dynasties either.Colin
And you still don't realize that by saying "Cry all you want", you're making it personal? You were obviously directing that comment at someone, or some group.Complain about bad grammar all you want (yes, that is personal too), but don't be surprised when people respond to your comment in the same tone that it was offered.
Colin Dowling
Footballguy
I'm not suprised. But since when does saying, "Cry all you want..." make something personal? I must have thicker skin than other people. THats an IMpersonal comment if you ask me. Personal would have been something like, "Eagles fans all smell bad.." or "Panthers fans have no fashion sense..." or "Chargers fans talk funny..."How is saying "cry all you want" a personal insult?Colin
b/c whiny t00ls are a sensitive bunch
Last edited by a moderator:
My buddy Aaron 
Are you stalking me now because you are posting in a thread that I am in?Looks like you need the same reading comprehension class that Evilgrin does. My company offers an "English as a second language class" quarterly. Maybe I can get you guys signed up. Just let me know.Roadeyes no more agrees with Collin than Bob Ryan does. Collins definition of "non-dynasty" is actually very narrow. The Patriots qualify in all regards except they missed the playoffs 1 year during their run. Collin never said that he didnt believe in dynasties or that there were no football dynasties. Wood, Bob Ryan and Roadeyes said that. The inference to Collins post is that if the Pats had made the playoffs in 2002 and lost in the first round instead of missing the playoffs due to a tiebreaker, that they would be a dynasty. I, among others, think that is a very silly argument.If you are going to comment on the argument at least know which argument you are commenting on.
Are you stalking me now because you are posting in a thread that I am in?Looks like you need the same reading comprehension class that Evilgrin does. My company offers an "English as a second language class" quarterly. Maybe I can get you guys signed up. Just let me know.Roadeyes no more agrees with Collin than Bob Ryan does. Collins definition of "non-dynasty" is actually very narrow. The Patriots qualify in all regards except they missed the playoffs 1 year during their run. Collin never said that he didnt believe in dynasties or that there were no football dynasties. Wood, Bob Ryan and Roadeyes said that. The inference to Collins post is that if the Pats had made the playoffs in 2002 and lost in the first round instead of missing the playoffs due to a tiebreaker, that they would be a dynasty. I, among others, think that is a very silly argument.If you are going to comment on the argument at least know which argument you are commenting on.
Colin Dowling
Footballguy
20 bucks says they don't pile on you for making that comment. But me, I disagree with something and its like a full-fledge prison riot. GB Message Boards.HERDb/c whiny t00ls are a sensitive bunch
In another thread, you wrote:"Sort of. I think that Dynasties are few and far between. I think the NFL has seen 2 - the Steelers (4 in 6) and the Cowboys (3 of 4). Going back to back is nice (a la Denver) but I don't see it as getting over the dynasty hurdle. "
I dont think "cry all you want" is a personal insult. I just thought you were embarassing yourself with your silly argument and enjoyed bringing it to your attention.I'm not going to go over each post but I think the only name calling that i did was calling your OPINION idiotic. Other than that just pointing out that you were embarassing yourself as a staff member I think is about as far as I have gone.
Tenderknee
Footballguy
As far as "dynasties" go, if you find yourself referring to a team like someone may have referred to a civilization in historical terms, then I think that qualifies as a "dynasty". When the poor peasants cried out, "Here come the Romans", they never stopped to say they weren't a dynasty because they never could control the Mediterranean uprisings in the Agean regions. They kicked but for their period, regardless of how long, and they won enough times that they were considered the supreme group of the time by a large margin. I think people will say, "Those Patriots were an awesome team." And no one would mistake them for a Patriot team of a different time period should you refer to them as such. Just like when you say those awesome 49ers, or Steelers. Now can you mention in conversation anything about those awesome Seahawks and have anyone know what years you mean? No, so I think that is the minimum for a Dynasty. Yes, people are going to try to pick your team apart and minimize their "dynastic" pedigree, but Greeks will say they had the best civilization, and Italians will say Romans were the best, but we all know it was the Japanese.I don't know about how you all feel, but to me it felt like the Patriots rule started a while ago, and is still rolling, so it sure seems like a dynasty to me. Now when we are a decade down the road, that may not seem so much like a dynasty anymore, then at that time it may be concluded that it really wasn't a dynasty. But as several writers have written, if you call all of these other NFL teams dynasties, then New England could also be called one.As far as calling them "one of the best dynasties ever" (which I have seen in a post) would be completely wrong in my opinion at this time. They might be a dynasty, but they would be one of the bottom end ones in the spectrum as far as dynasties go....again, right now that is how I feel.
you mentioned me tough guy...not the other way around.even when I'm not around, I always seem to be on your mind.My buddy Aaron
"Cry all you want" = "Pats fans are criers"My last comment here. You're entitled to your views of Pats fans. All I'm saying is, if you dish it out, you better be able to take it. Your cries of innocence and whining about the response that you were cleaqrly asking for are falling on a lot of deaf ears.
Colin Dowling
Footballguy
...and 6 pages later, a substantive discussion begins!!!!Point:
I think that the Patriots are on a run of incredible magnitude. I think disputing that is a fool's game. However, IMO, any team that even lays CLAIM to being a dynasty with any credibility must meet a few inflexible standards. They must win the title frequently enough that people are genuinely suprised when they don't win it, they must have a chance to win the title each year (i.e. make the playoffs), and they must play at a sustained level of excellence that makes people think of them and only them when they look back on that sport for that time.
I think the Patriots easily meet the first and third, but fail in the second. In 2002, they were a mere 5-3 at home and finished the year 2-2. As an additional kicker to the whole thing, their rush Defense was positively wretched.
So, while the Patriots clearly were the best team of 2001, 2003, and 2004, they weren't, in my opinion, even CLOSE to being the best team in 2002. In a league format where a full 37.5% of teams make the post season, I would expect the "greatest team of the short-era" to finish in the top third of the league after a 16 game regular season.
Colin
Colin Dowling
Footballguy
Who's crying? I'm remarkably well-suited for this discussion. Also, I don't see where I was saying anything about Patriots fans. There are a lot of non-Patriots fans talking about a "dyansty" as well. My comment is every bit directed at them too. Colin
Jimmy James
Footballguy
I think somebody is way too sensitive about it because they percieve an element of truth to the statement "Pats fans are criers". That's just my read of what would lead somebody to the above conclusion.
Sinrman
Footballguy
The Patriots are as complete as any of the "best teams ever." They are solid on both sides of the ball (and ESPECIALLY now that they have Corey Dillon, and can actually mix it up with the run, unlike previous years).I'm not a Pats fan. But I totally respect what Belicheck and Co. have done. That is one solid franchise. Pats fans should definitely be proud. It should also give the rest of us something to shoot for -- trying to knock them off their pedastal.
Bobcat10
Footballguy
I tend to agree here. But let's say the Pats make the playoffs the next three years and they win the SB in one (or two) of those years. Doesn't that brake your arguement towards your point #2? I think it would be safe to assume the word dynasty after 4 or 5 SBs over 7 years, with missing the playoffs just once.
Colin Dowling
Footballguy
....and I have said and will continue to say that as long as they meet the standards put forth, they can and will work towards the "dynasty" tag. I will simply start it at 2003, instead of 2001, like everyone else.
Colin
Collin,Your first sentence says it all. Your first post and subsequent arguments through 6 pages dont look ANYTHING like this post.
I think that was the point that JTC was trying to make. You had an argument to make. One that I still disagree with, but your execution of that argument was poor.
For those that are slower than others (Evilgrin), I had no problem with anything that Wood said here. Although I might have pointed out that it appeared that Wood was posting to back up Collin as a fellow staffer but his argument was completely different.
Billy Ball Thorton
Footballguy
First off, I Was pulling for Philly last night.... But make no mistake this team is a dynasty and maybe the greatest of all.Colin, Missery loves company dosent it? There is always that one bitter guy that tries to discredit a great achievement because it doesent suit him..You are that guy .. Get over itI hate the Pats to be honest but I'll give them the respect they have earned and call them a Dynasty.
Colin Dowling
Footballguy
I never got a chance. I posted initially that "no they weren't a dynasty" and in the next half dozen posts, I was called an idiot, told I my schtick was getting old, told my credibility was gone, etc, etc, etc.I'm not so above the fray that I won't get neck deep in it when summoned.
Colin
Jimmy James
Footballguy
I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I will say that another Super Bowl win in the next two years locks the Patriots into being a dynasty in the sense the Cowboys, Steelers, and 49ers are dynasties no matter what they do in the other year. 4 championships in 6 years is a shocking .667 success rate over what I would consider to be just long enough to be an extended period of time.
Colin Dowling
Footballguy
I'm not bitter. I don't hate the Patriots. They're a great team and deserved to win. So, sorry, I'm not "that guy."Colin
Colin Dowling
Footballguy
YEah! A joke! Yeah! Did you hear the one about the nurse and the preacher? Where am I whining? I need a little help there.... Colin
Last edited by a moderator:
DerangedGridironGeek
Footballguy
Last time I checked.....it takes a full 60 minutes to play a game....furthermore, the Raiders had no business being there anyways....if we suck, because we were lucky....then the Raiders sucked even more because they got smoked the next year by the Bucs and went to total S**t the year after that. Why do Pats haters seem to resort to one ####### play...particularly a play that was reviewed and correctly called by interpretation. It says a lot of your character when you stickup for a franchise with the image of the Raiders, yet routinely bash a Patriot organization that hasnt done nothing but handle itself with class. We went on to beat a great Rams team...the Raiders would have only embaressed themselves a year early. Now with regard to your comments on the 2nd SB.....take off your skirt little girl..cause this is football and if the Colts arent smart enought to realize that the refs were letting them play....then shame on the coaches for not pointing it out. IMO....this year's spanking was further proof that they also didnt belong.Now for this year....take your praise and shove it...cause Pats nation doesnt want your childish praise.Oh so you think its okay to fumble a ball but get credit for a non-fumble ???Even going by The Tuck Rule Brady fumbled end of story and one tainted SuperBowlAnd you must also think its alright to man-handle Marvin Harrison and Co 10-12 yards down field. There you go two tainted superbowlsI'll give you credit - this year you guys won fair and square.Oh and let me save you the smiley
The Commish
Footballguy
All fans define themselves in here by what they post. It's that simple. I know that I don't know a single one of you personally, but I rest assured that each of you arguing with Colin, because you disagree with him, is a whiner because that's all you have done today. That's the only information I have been presented with to make a conclusion. NOTE: I am not saying ALL PATS FANS ARE WHINERS. That’s an important thing to note. I am sure you will come back at me and say it's the way I interpret it, blah blah blah. And that is right....it's the way I interpret it, but is it my responsibility to change the way I interpret it or your responsibility to change the way you present it? Obviously, I am not the only one that interprets what you are saying as whining so it is either in the message or the way the message is broadcast too us. I dare to speculate, but this seems to be a sure thing to me. Colin's original post was a direct result of previous encounters with "Pats Fans" who were a bunch of whiners and so he was addressing THEM. If that is any one of you in here.....it's pretty simple....if you don't want to be called a whiner, don't whine. It's as simple as that. However, if you choose not to whine I will be supremely disappointed as all of my amusement will be lost, but that's a risk I am willing to take as I don't think you have the ability to stop whining.
Bobcat10
Footballguy
I'm sorry if I missed your comment on this, but I did read most of this thread.Are these dynasties? I'm looking at SB teams only.
'72 - '79 Steelers
'83 - '90 Niners (missed '82 playoffs so that rules out '81 SB title)
'91 - '96 Cowboys
Can there be two dynasties at once? The Pats could continue to make the playoffs to solidify their dynasty per your rules, but the Eagles could be the team of the decade before its all said and done. I would not consider the Eagles three NFC championship losses total failures if they won two out of the next three SBs.
Jefferson the Caregiver
Rebel Without A Pause
You are whining right now.
Last edited by a moderator:
Evilgrin 72
Distributor of Pain
I make it so easy? You're the one that gotBoy, you make it so easy.
Have you read the whole thread?
Wood and Collin are not even making the same argument? How's that for reading comprehension. How's your reading comprehension?
Wood says there is no such thing as a dynasty.
Collin says that the Patriots are not a dynasty like those other teams because they missed the playoffs 1 year.
Can you see that those are 2 different arguments? Have I gone slowly enough for YOU?
I told Wood that I had no problem with his argument. Disagreed with it but if you want to say there are no true dynasties fine. My basic premise is that you can not call the Packers/Steelers/49ers/Cowboys a dynasty and not put the Patriots in with that same group. I stand by that argument.
How is Bob Ryan making the same argument as HERD? He is making the same argument as Wood and you cant even see the difference.
You and Collin can stroke each other all you want with yourand
smilies all you want. It doesnt make you right.
I'm with abrecher, you are having a problem comprehending what the actual argument is.
I understand perfectly what the difference in their arguments is. Read my post. I said they were both arguing that the Patriots are not a dynasty because their run has been too short and because they missed the playoffs one year. That encapsulates both arguments in one concise statement, I didn't feel the need to spell it all out again, even for you. Besides which, this isn't even what I took umbrage with. The issue I addressed is why you seem to care so much whether or not HERD views this Patriots team as a dynasty.... you apparently are not following my contention even remotely, so before you start calling people slow, maybe you should figure out what you're talking about first.Also, I would gladly sign up for your exciting reading comprehension class except for the fact that your spelling class didn't seem to work too well for you. Incorrectly spelling Colin's name C-O-L-L-I-N about 12 times when his name is plastered all over the boards and site doesn't do much to inspire confidence in your ability to teach the language to others.
![[icon]](/data/avatars/m/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}
[icon]
Insoxicated
Good pointsI make it so easy? You're the one that gotBoy, you make it so easy.
Have you read the whole thread?
Wood and Collin are not even making the same argument? How's that for reading comprehension. How's your reading comprehension?
Wood says there is no such thing as a dynasty.
Collin says that the Patriots are not a dynasty like those other teams because they missed the playoffs 1 year.
Can you see that those are 2 different arguments? Have I gone slowly enough for YOU?
I told Wood that I had no problem with his argument. Disagreed with it but if you want to say there are no true dynasties fine. My basic premise is that you can not call the Packers/Steelers/49ers/Cowboys a dynasty and not put the Patriots in with that same group. I stand by that argument.
How is Bob Ryan making the same argument as HERD? He is making the same argument as Wood and you cant even see the difference.
You and Collin can stroke each other all you want with your
I'm with abrecher, you are having a problem comprehending what the actual argument is.
Also, I would gladly sign up for your exciting reading comprehension class except for the fact that your spelling class didn't seem to work too well for you. Incorrectly spelling Colin's name C-O-L-L-I-N about 12 times when his name is plastered all over the boards and site doesn't do much to inspire confidence in your ability to teach the language to others.
Hey.. you can nix the steelers sig now BTW.... season's over 
F
FightingWombat
Guest
:rotflmao: 
Perhaps the question should be "how many pages will this thread go before its locked?".
Perhaps the question should be "how many pages will this thread go before its locked?".
Evilgrin 72
Distributor of Pain
YES !!!!!!!!!:rotflmao: :rotflmao:,Feb 7 2005, 03:18 PM]
Good pointsI make it so easy? You're the one that gotBoy, you make it so easy.
Have you read the whole thread?
Wood and Collin are not even making the same argument? How's that for reading comprehension. How's your reading comprehension?
Wood says there is no such thing as a dynasty.
Collin says that the Patriots are not a dynasty like those other teams because they missed the playoffs 1 year.
Can you see that those are 2 different arguments? Have I gone slowly enough for YOU?
I told Wood that I had no problem with his argument. Disagreed with it but if you want to say there are no true dynasties fine. My basic premise is that you can not call the Packers/Steelers/49ers/Cowboys a dynasty and not put the Patriots in with that same group. I stand by that argument.
How is Bob Ryan making the same argument as HERD? He is making the same argument as Wood and you cant even see the difference.
You and Collin can stroke each other all you want with your
I'm with abrecher, you are having a problem comprehending what the actual argument is.
Also, I would gladly sign up for your exciting reading comprehension class except for the fact that your spelling class didn't seem to work too well for you. Incorrectly spelling Colin's name C-O-L-L-I-N about 12 times when his name is plastered all over the boards and site doesn't do much to inspire confidence in your ability to teach the language to others.
Hey man, congrats on the big win. Is it getting old yet? Please tell me how it feels, I was 7 the last time the Steelers won it all.
TIA....will answer yours.
Colin Dowling
Footballguy
Oh, its staying WIDE open if I have any say in the matter...COlin:rotflmao:
Evilgrin 72
Distributor of Pain
:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:Oh, its staying WIDE open if I have any say in the matter...COlin:rotflmao:
The Commish
Footballguy
If your definition of whining = calling out those who boohoo for someone not agreeing with them and telling them what's REALLY up, then yes....yes I am.....
Turf Toe killed Me
Footballguy
I remember last year there was a big push to increase the size of the staff at FBG's. Joe and co. doubled or more the number of staff in a very short period. Having read this entire thread....maybe it's time to thin the HERD.....if ya know what i mean.
Last edited by a moderator:
Colin Dowling
Footballguy
Good info here.Edit: I feel bad that you wasted part of your afternoon reading 7 pages of people arguing the meaning of a word.ColinI remember last year there was a big push to increase the size of the staff at FBG's. Joe and co. doubled or more the number of staff in a very short period. Having read this entire thread....maybe it's time to thin the HERD.....if ya know what i mean.
Last edited by a moderator:
Evilgrin 72
Distributor of Pain
You'd be sacrificing a lot of quality mock drafts, among other things.Just myI remember last year there was a big push to increase the size of the staff at FBG's. Joe and co. doubled or more the number of staff in a very short period. Having read this entire thread....maybe it's time to thin the HERD.....if ya know what i mean.
[icon]
Insoxicated
Well... I must say it's still very sweet but I have to say it's still not on par with the Sox winning the Series.... not sure I'll ever get to experience anything like that roller coaster again. That said.. the 3rd tastes just as sweet as the first. Really got me wondering how much longer we'll be able to keep it up before slipping back into the swamp of mediocrity that the Pats wallowed in until pre-2001Hey man, congrats on the big win. Is it getting old yet? Please tell me how it feels, I was 7 the last time the Steelers won it all.TIA....will answer yours.
I'd not worry too much... Stillers will be a force next year again. 
:stillers:
Evilgrin 72
Distributor of Pain
A gracious winner........You're a credit to the Pats fans, my friend......,Feb 7 2005, 04:24 PM]
Well... I must say it's still very sweet but I have to say it's still not on par with the Sox winning the Series.... not sure I'll ever get to experience anything like that roller coaster again. That said.. the 3rd tastes just as sweet as the first. Really got me wondering how much longer we'll be able to keep it up before slipping back into the swamp of mediocrity that the Pats wallowed in until pre-2001Hey man, congrats on the big win. Is it getting old yet? Please tell me how it feels, I was 7 the last time the Steelers won it all.TIA....will answer yours.
vinwinephans
Footballguy
Mr. Pink the cheerleader - how appropriate!Mac_Daddy is in the house! Yeah!
11 Members: Mr. Pink, Johnny Ice, Jason Wood, fred_1_15301, RBM, [icon], saintsfan, abrecher, Macdaddy_2004, Turf Toe killed Me, gman74
Sorry - big Res Dogs fan and love ripping on Mr. Pink.vinwinephans
Footballguy
Since I posted once already - I guess I give my thoughts.I don't see the Pats as a dynasty - there are no NFL Dynasties. I think the NFL and the media conglomerates it sleeps with would love you to think Dynasty to help fuel their money train, but they are not.Are the Pats on one of the most accomplished runs in NFL History - yes. But their are no dynasties.For all those that think dynasty, you are pawns of the machine.
Sorry to have to rehash old material but this is for Evilgrin. Wood believes that very few sports teams are true Dynasties. He sites the Celtics and UCLA Bruins who each had decade long runs of championships.By inference, he is saying that NO NFL dynasties have been present in the past 45 years by his definition.Colin (are you happy, you really got me with that spelling someones name wrong in a thread) has already stated in other threads that he believes Dallas of the 90's constitutes a Dynasty. The assumption would be that if Dallas passes the litmus test for Colin that San Fran, Pitt and GB also do since his definition only requires continues playoff appearances with multiple champtionships.Are you really that thickheaded that you cannot see these as very different arguments?It is interesting what some of you call whining. A major point of a message board is to spark discussion and debate. I dont see in this thread where Pats fans are whining. In fact, I dont think this conversation is about whether the Pats are a Dynasty anymore (everybody knows they are
) but about the definition of a Dynasty. I still think Colin's definition is silly.You ask, "Why do I care so much what Colin thinks." I dont. I dont know Colin. He could be anyone on this board. Anyone on this board that would be making the same argument, would get the same response from me. Why is that so hard to understand?
Colin Dowling
Footballguy
I believe the question was eventually posed as, "why do you care so much what ANYONE else thinks?"You find my definition silly. Thats fine with me. I don't mind in the slightest. But, here we are, 7+ pages later and you're still calling people "thick-headed" on the heals of calling other postings idiotic or moronic or whatever it was. Why is it so inconceivable to you that other people's opinions are just as valid as yours? And just because those opinions don't mesh with what you think, they aren't "wrong" or, as you put it, "thickheaded?"I never said anything about your spelling.Colin
Colin,Evilgrin didnt like my spelling, I was refering to him. We all know spelling someones USERNAME on a message board correctly is the key to a good post.I am passionate about not only the PATS but football in general. I like to debate. Put the two together and you get an 8 page thread. The argument with Evilgrin isnt even about the Dynasty question. I called him thickheaded because he keeps wanting to lump in You, Woods and Bob Ryan with the same argument. It is astounding to me that he cannot see the difference.If there is no difference between the arguments than how come I have no problem with Woods stance but think yours is fatally flawed. If you two were saying the same thing wouldnt that be a big contradiction?
Similar threads
