Patriots are now a Dynasty (1 Viewer)

[vinwinephans]

Vin,By pronouncing the PATS as a Dynasty, how does the NFL get anymore of my money than they are already getting? Just curious. Conspiracy theories always intrigue me.

I see it more as the media hype and merchandising scheme.This is a dynasty - they are rare and you are living it NOW.By this towel, this blanket or throw - this DVD or this poster. There is also the memorabilia and not to mention the money on endorsements.The better you make something sound, the more you get for or the higher the demand ends up being.It's always money. Just look at everything the SuperBowl is and is about. The actual game is almost lost in all the hoopla surrounding it.

 

[2190]

I can see your point. I guess for me it was the first Super Bowl win when I bought all of the memorabilia and everything else. I was actually at that game and it was the most special. Last year and this year I will just get the SB DVD for my collection. I'm not sure the PATS being a Dynasty or not would affect my spending but the additional hype could entice NON-PATS fans to buy more I guess. Or just to hate them until they finally lose which they eventually will.

 

[Repressed Dennis]

I just knew that things would be ugly here today - just not how ugly.For the people saying Colin's an idiot, you can't have read all of the thoughtful, articulate, and even somewhat insightful posts he's made here over the years. He's not always right, and sometimes he's less than politically correct, but I'd take his football acumen over most of the folks threatening to leave, or cancel their subscription.Colin, Jason, Evilgrin - the horse is dead. Nothing you or anyone else can say will convince some people that their beloved team is not a dynasty, and must be mentioned with veneration any time that great teams are talked of for the next 30 years.I personally don't think the Pats are a dynasty yet. However, they are the world champions, and I woudn't pick against them next year either...and they will be talked of as a great football team for 30 years to come.

 

[Colin Dowling]

I just knew that things would be ugly here today - just not how ugly.For the people saying Colin's an idiot, you can't have read all of the thoughtful, articulate, and even somewhat insightful posts he's made here over the years. He's not always right, and sometimes he's less than politically correct, but I'd take his football acumen over most of the folks threatening to leave, or cancel their subscription.Colin, Jason, Evilgrin - the horse is dead. Nothing you or anyone else can say will convince some people that their beloved team is not a dynasty, and must be mentioned with veneration any time that great teams are talked of for the next 30 years.I personally don't think the Pats are a dynasty yet. However, they are the world champions, and I woudn't pick against them next year either...and they will be talked of as a great football team for 30 years to come.

I appreciate your kind words, and I agree with everything you just posted.Colin

 

[2190]

I tried to make this clear in one of my earlier posts. This isnt about the Patriots anymore. Its about what constitutes a Dynasty in the NFL. Some have taken a broader approach and defined what they think a Dynasty is in Sports.If you have something to add to the discussion fine. If you are just here to say Pats fans suck, why bother? The Pats fan bias is quite tangible here at FBG's so its old news.It seems Joe Bryant somehow legitimized the Pats fan bias and bashing by referencing that some Pats fans he encountered were whiny tools. Wow, we have Joe's blessing, lets call all Pats fans a bunch of Whiny Tools.

 

[Colin Dowling]

It seems Joe Bryant somehow legitimized the Pats fan bias and bashing by referencing that some Pats fans he encountered were whiny tools. Wow, we have Joe's blessing, lets call all Pats fans a bunch of Whiny Tools.

No one has called anyone a whiney tool in a page and a half. Why did you feel the need to bring up just as a constructive discussion was breaking out?COlin

 

[2190]

Colin, Jason, Evilgrin - the horse is dead. Nothing you or anyone else can say will convince some people that their beloved team is not a dynasty, and must be mentioned with veneration any time that great teams are talked of for the next 30 years.

Ya, was the bolded part above from Repressed Dennis part of the constructive discussion? He was who my last post was directed at. This thread has morphed into a constructive discussion about what constitutes a Dynasty and I didnt think he added anything to that discussion.

 

[Colin Dowling]

Colin, Jason, Evilgrin - the horse is dead. Nothing you or anyone else can say will convince some people that their beloved team is not a dynasty, and must be mentioned with veneration any time that great teams are talked of for the next 30 years.

Ya, was the bolded part above from Repressed Dennis part of the constructive discussion? He was who my last post was directed at. This thread has morphed into a constructive discussion about what constitutes a Dynasty and I didnt think he added anything to that discussion.

Where does "Nothing you or anyone else can say will convince some people that their beloved team is not a dynasty" = "They are whiney tools"?

 

[2190]

Ok. You dont see any sarcasm at all in that comment? You left out the part about "and must be mentioned with veneration any time that great teams are talked of for the next 30 years."No shots at Pats fans there?

 

[Repressed Dennis]

Colin, Jason, Evilgrin - the horse is dead. Nothing you or anyone else can say will convince some people that their beloved team is not a dynasty, and must be mentioned with veneration any time that great teams are talked of for the next 30 years.

Ya, was the bolded part above from Repressed Dennis part of the constructive discussion? He was who my last post was directed at. This thread has morphed into a constructive discussion about what constitutes a Dynasty and I didnt think he added anything to that discussion.

Sorry if this sounded sarcastic - I really meant it as a more generic comment on fans in general.We all get very passionate about our teams, and under circumstances like this, it's difficult to keep an emotional distance. A lot of guys I know won't draft fantasy players from their favorite teams for this very reason.

So when people say "the Pats aren't a dynasty because of XYZ", it's VERY easy for a Pats fan to hear "the Pats aren't a dynasty because I hate them and their fans and everything they stand for". Even though it's not really meant like that, it's very difficult to argue with that mentality.

Now when teh Redskins win next year and I start talking about Joe Gibbs as the greatest football coach of all time, please bump this thread at me.

Really. I won't mind...

 

[Colin Dowling]

Ok. You dont see any sarcasm at all in that comment? You left out the part about "and must be mentioned with veneration any time that great teams are talked of for the next 30 years."No shots at Pats fans there?

Seriously? I think you either have a complex or you are WAY TOO SENSITIVE.His point seems clear to me, sarcasm or not: Suggesting the Patriots are not a Dynasty is opening the door for hordes of criticism. Based on the content of this thread, I'd say he was stating the obvious.Colin

 

[2190]

RD, nice explanation. I am cynical, coming after everything else that was posted in this thread, I imported my own sarcasm into your post.RD, on the plus side, I recently moved to Pennsylvania from Boston and am equidistant from Philly and Baltimore and only slightly farther from DC.If any of Philly, Baltimore or Washington rise up next year, I can still claim them as my home town team.

 

[Repressed Dennis]

RD, nice explanation. I am cynical, coming after everything else that was posted in this thread, I imported my own sarcasm into your post.RD, on the plus side, I recently moved to Pennsylvania from Boston and am equidistant from Philly and Baltimore and only slightly farther from DC.If any of Philly, Baltimore or Washington rise up next year, I can still claim them as my home town team.

Brilliant! You cover all the bases!

 

[Turf Toe killed Me]

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.

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.Colin

Colin , You take yourself waaay to serious dude.Cosidering you posted at least 5 times per page, you are right...it was wasted time. :rotflmao: Once a good board poster...now just a staff poser.

 

[Colin Dowling]

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.

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.Colin

Colin , You take yourself waaay to serious dude.Cosidering you posted at least 5 times per page, you are right...it was wasted time. :rotflmao: Once a good board poster...now just a staff poser.

:rotflmao: Why am I taking myself too seriously to actively participate in a thread of interest? COlin

 

[Kit Fisto]

Read the first page, skipped to the six, and still see COlin whining. :rotflmao:What a joke.

No #####, you guys want to talk about Pats fans being whiney tools, listen to Colin. Jeez man, did you do anythng else today? Boy do you love hearing (reading) yourself talk, dude.You went fishing for trouble when you started this thread, and you know it.I'm just surprised that this thread was started, and fueled all day long, by a staff member. Are you 12? You don't think the Pats are a dynasty; we get it. Save your sour grapes for someone else. FBG's loses credibilty in my eyes by the day.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

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.

Talk about beating a dead horse. Read back through my posts - I have already said I understand the difference in their arguments very clearly. I'm not even debating either side, and frankly I could care less who does/doesn't consider the Patriots a dynasty.All I wondered was why you felt the need to pelt Colin with insults, questioning his credibility, football acumen, etc. because he posted an opinion which was different than yours. That's it. You still haven't answered that, and frankly I don't care anymore.

 

[2190]

You say you understand the difference between their arguments and then you lump them together when trying to make your point. Doesnt really show a whole lot of understanding there.You want an answer? I'm just trying to educate Colin. I hate to see him look so foolish all the time.At least he cant be called a yes man on this issue, his boss says that there is NO DOUBT that the Patriots are a Dynasty.Sorry Colin, I said I wouldnt post anymore but Evilgrin wanted an answer to his question.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

You say you understand the difference between their arguments and then you lump them together when trying to make your point. Doesnt really show a whole lot of understanding there.

You gotta let this go. I get the difference. I didn't feel the need to reiterate everything they had said - they were both making the same point, but for different reasons. Just expurgating, my man, nothing more.Thanks for your answer, I am sure Colin appreciates the education tremendously. In all sincerity, you'd probably enjoy this a lot more if you just focus on the fact that your team is on top of the mountain and stop trying to assimilate everyone to your own way of thinking.

 

[JC-PGH-PA]

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.

Aikman said he would consider the Patriots 3 in 4 years a more difficult accomplishment than the Cowboy's 3 in 4 years due to the salary cap. I never heard him say anything close to the Patriots being a better team than the Cowboys were.

 

[2190]

Putting this thread aside, which is more fun:1. There are no dynasties, lets not discuss it.2. The Patriots are the latest Dynasty. How do they compare to the other recognized Dynasties? Who would have won in a game? Lets break down the matchups. (many offshoot threads are formed and discussion ensues).Nope, #1 is better. Lets not talk about it.

 

[Colin Dowling]

Read the first page, skipped to the six, and still see COlin whining.  :rotflmao:

What a joke.

No #####, you guys want to talk about Pats fans being whiney tools, listen to Colin. Jeez man, did you do anythng else today? Boy do you love hearing (reading) yourself talk, dude.You went fishing for trouble when you started this thread, and you know it.

I'm just surprised that this thread was started, and fueled all day long, by a staff member. Are you 12? You don't think the Pats are a dynasty; we get it. Save your sour grapes for someone else.

FBG's loses credibilty in my eyes by the day.

I didn't start this thread.

Why should I NOT answer when people attack me or inquire about my opinion?

COlin

 

[2190]

In defense of Colin (what were the odds of me saying that in this thread), he didnt start the thread. He is just the one that put it into overdrive and got us to 8 pages.

 

[falconeyed]

This entire thread is humorous and sad. Colin, I think, started a bit of a fishing expedition by coming in strong with questionable logic, which resulted in the original posters getting defensive, which then resulted in Colin getting defensive, and now everyone's pissed at everyone else. I would honestly think that board admins would tend to be a little less agressive that the average poster. This sort of conduct has turned me off to other forums in the past. Whether or not C cares about claims against his "credibility" ... my opinion is that it has. Credibility is kind of like a GPA ... one sour grade can sink the ship. Generally the debate on this site is good. This thread is not a good example.I, for one, think this thread should be locked, as it is not generating any discourse and is more or less turning into a flame war. Not that anyone's listening to me, of course.

 

[NE_REVIVAL]

Are the Pats a dynasty? To be honest the word is so subjective I don't really care one way or the other but most seem to agree that they are. If Jason and others have a higher "Celtic" like standard for a Dynasty that's their perogative and it is easy to see the logic and reasoning in that.However, if one considers the Cowboys, 9'ers & Steelers were a dynasty then it is literally impossible to make a valid arguement that the Pats aren't also a dynasty.The media and the vast majority of professionals being paid for their opinion all believe NE is a Dynasty so who cares what Colin thinks? If NE being considered a Dynasty is really important then rest easy because the vast majority of the football world believes they are. As for Colin, he is a "Guy With a Keyboard" who didn't think much of NE before the season began and another SB win or 2 isn't going to change that. As for not liking the Pats Colin is hardly alone among FBG staff as Doug doesn't care for them and Cracker is IMO probably the most nasty and misguided antagonist.But all of those guys are entitled to their opinions and since they are all human they can't help but have some bias that is based on things other than fact. We all have our own so there is no sense in taking it personally, there will always be Pats haters just as there will always be Cowboys haters or Yankees hater etc etc.However IMO, there is a little more to this arguement at least as far as Pats fans and FBG staff are concerned. Four years ago when NE shocked the football world and beat the Rams many people including FBG staff had a hard time accepting NE as the best team in football. NE fans were told the Rams blew it, the Pats were lucky and or they cheated, anything but the Pats were the best team. When NE fans dared protest they were derisively labelled by FBG staff as "Whiney Tools". I must admit I took that personally and it is the reason I no longer subscribe.Now in hindsight 3 years later we can see the core of that NE team went on to win 2 more super bowls. The debate is no longer about NE being the best team which clearly they are. The debate is now about whether they are one of the best teams in the history of the NFL.FBG staff and others can continue to say and not say whatever they want but the facts and the record speaks for itself. There is little doubt now who was right and who the tools really were :(

 

[Jimmy James]

However, if one considers the Cowboys, 9'ers & Steelers were a dynasty then it is literally impossible to make a valid arguement that the Pats aren't also a dynasty.

It isn't impossible at all. In fact, I did it in this very thread. If you define the minimum possible dynasty as 4 straight years in the playoffs with 3 championships, the Patriots are not a dynasty. The Cowboys are because they meet that criteria. The scale slides to not require playoff apperances when there are longer periods of success, which allows the Niners to make it with 5 championships in 14 years. My own definition would allow for the Patriots to claim the label in my book if they win one more championship in the next three seasons no matter how they do in the playoffs the other two years. How exactly is this not a valid definition and therefore a valid argument? You said yourself that the use of the term is subjective.

 

[Jimmy James]

Putting this thread aside, which is more fun:1. There are no dynasties, lets not discuss it.2. The Patriots are the latest Dynasty. How do they compare to the other recognized Dynasties? Who would have won in a game? Lets break down the matchups. (many offshoot threads are formed and discussion ensues).Nope, #1 is better. Lets not talk about it.

I think you're falling victim to several fallacies here. The biggest one is that the dynasties somehow have the best teams. I would personally put the 85 Bears, 72 Dolphins, or 91 Redskins up against any of the Super Bowl era dynasty teams.Second of all, if we're looking at the "fun" factor, why don't we call any team with two Super Bowl wins a dynasty? Isn't it more fun to be able to argue about the Elway/Davis Broncos? Third, it's not like we're not discussing the dynasty issue now. By having some dissent here, we get even more "fun" discussion because we get to explore your #1 *and* we get to explore #2 as well.

 

[Colin Dowling]

As for Colin, he is a "Guy With a Keyboard" who didn't think much of NE before the season began and another SB win or 2 isn't going to change that

I have stated repeatedly that I have no problem anymore with the Patriots. They were the best team this season it is clear that they deserved to win the Super Bowl. I choose to harbor a different opinion regarding application of the word "dynasty", but the Patriots are quite obviously the best team and franchise in recent memory. I can't help it if people think I'm being disingenuous. COlin

 

[roadeyes]

Tweeeeet!Gotta call a foul on myself. I was one that jumped on Colin's case last night. My reaction was based on the belief that he was an unabashed Patriots hater and we were about to get more of the same from him. I allowed the FACTS of the argument to be drowned out by a misperceived tone. I see that he no longer harbors irrational hatred towards the Patriots, and in fact, presents a solid case.After reviewing the thread and giving it some thought, I am in lockstep with Bob Ryan on the matter. A great run by a great team-but no dynasty. I'll take the loss of down AND a timeout on this one.

 

[Jimmy James]

Tweeeeet!Gotta call a foul on myself. I was one that jumped on Colin's case last night. My reaction was based on the belief that he was an unabashed Patriots hater and we were about to get more of the same from him. I allowed the FACTS of the argument to be drowned out by a misperceived tone. I see that he no longer harbors irrational hatred towards the Patriots, and in fact, presents a solid case.After reviewing the thread and giving it some thought, I am in lockstep with Bob Ryan on the matter. A great run by a great team-but no dynasty. I'll take the loss of down AND a timeout on this one.

This is classy. I'll almost always applaud people who say they're wrong when they go back and look at something. Are you sure you're a Patriots fan, though? You're ruining my whole image of the bunch...

 

[Mr. Pink]

Overall, this has been a heck of a discussion. While I am biased on the subject and contend that the Pats should be considered a dynasty, I respect the views of those both for and against and although I have a couple of exceptions, Colin isn't one of them. I also respect the fact that he hung tough and held to his convictions despite the onslaught.Hats off guys. Let's do this again soon.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I know I'm going to regret posting in here but....What exactly is the Patriots dynasty? I guess I can see it as Belichick and Brady, but not much else. When I think of NE, the three best players (outside of Brady) I think of are Dillon, Harrison and Law.Harrison didn't play in SB XXXVI.Dillon didn't play in SB XXXVIII.Law didn't play in SB XXXIX.As ironic as this sounds, a dynasty to me invokes the image of the SAME team dominating. (I know a true dynasty, by definition, means several rulers in succession). The 2004 Pats are a totally different team than the 2001 Pats, who I'm still unsure of how good they truly were. (Between the 2001 Pats and 1990 Giants, there aren't two more teams that confuse me when I think of how good they were. I just can't figure out where they rank).Likewise, what do people mean when they refer to the Cowboys dynasty? They had two different coaches win the Super Bowl. (Anyone else catch the flub in the post-game show? I forget who the host was--maybe JB--but he implied that Johnson won three SBs with the Cowboys).Deion Sanders and Jimmy Johnson were never on the Cowboys together. They were different teams, just like this Patriots squad.For all the talk about the 49ers dynasty, Rice and Montana won just two Super Bowls together. Where was that dynasty? Bill Walsh, Jerry Rice and Joe Montana was just ONE Super Bowl together. I don't know the exactl composition of the teams, but from my current base of knowlege I put the Steelers and Packers--and maybe the Dolphins--as dynasties. It all depends on your definition of a dynasty, not rocket science here. But I interpret it as one team being so dominant, that they just keep winning over and over with the same guys.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

90s cowboys included: Aikman, Emmitt, Irvin, Novacek, Erik Williams, Larry Allen, Nate Newton, Charles Haley, Darren Woodson

they were stacked.

Recent article that compares the Cowboys and Pats:LINK

1990s Cowboys

The only way Tom Brady's Patriots could beat Troy Aikman's Cowboys would be if Bill Belichick were to out-scheme Dallas. That would be a triumph for coaching over talent, but I won't make that bet. I'll take the roster of superstars.

The Cowboys were loaded. From Aikman's passing to Michael Irvin's receiving to Emmitt Smith's running to Larry Allen's blocking, this was a star-laden offense. On defense, end Charles Haley applied pressure while Deion Sanders absorbed half the field. That's six certain Hall of Famers, plus another 13 Pro Bowl players from 1992-95, when Dallas won three Super Bowls and advanced to the NFC championship game the other year. Overall, the Cowboys won playoff games in six consecutive seasons.

With the Patriots having beaten the Eagles, they have now matched the Cowboys with three titles in four years, but their off year was a complete playoffs whiff. As for talent, New England has but one Canton possibility — Brady — to go with eight other Pro Bowl participants over the past four years. And two of those guys were special teamers.

Obviously, Belichick's coaching goes a long way. But Jimmy Johnson was no knucklehead. He won the 1992 championship with the youngest team in the league, then bagged Buffalo again the next year.

The most convincing case for the Cowboys overcoming anything Belichick might devise? After Johnson left, they won a Super Bowl with Barry Switzer on the sideline. Now that's a great group of players.

2000s Patriots

The issue here isn't talent. The stars on the Cowboys' helmets were never more appropriate than during their '90s run, and no one will confuse the Patriots' lineup with a Pro Bowl roster.

But even if the Patriots are short on talent, their emerging dynasty rarely falls short on the field. New England has won 14 regular-season games each of the past two years in a league supposedly dominated by parity. Despite a talent-laden roster, the Cowboys never won more than 13 — and they won 13 only once.

Don't get caught thinking the Patriots merely eke out victories. The 2004 Patriots' average margin of victory (11 points) was higher than the Cowboys' average in any of their '90s glory years.

Corey Dillon has given New England the only thing it lacked: a true rushing threat. I'll be generous and let the Cowboys have Deion Sanders, though in truth, he played only nine regular-season games for Dallas' dynasty (all in '95). Dallas' secondary still didn't have the depth to handle New England's multireceiver sets.

Belichick's schemes would flummox Jimmy Johnson/Barry Switzer just as they have every other NFL coach. Troy Aikman, Emmitt Smith and Michael Irvin would be a handful, but can't the same be said of the Colts' stars the past two seasons? Belichick made league MVP Peyton Manning look like younger brother Eli. And don't forget the Pats' Super Bowl victory after the 2001 season. Matched up against a St. Louis juggernaut, the Patriots found a way to win. They would do the same against the Cowboys of the '90s.

 

[Colin Dowling]

Roadeyes, thats a cool thing to have posted. I appreciate that you can try to look at the merits of what people (myself included) are saying, whether you agree with them or not. As an addition, I've said a lot times that I think that the Patriots are well on their way to a Dynasty. Its just that, to me, if and when they get there, it will begin in 2003, not 2001. Colin

 

[Kit Fisto]

Read the first page, skipped to the six, and still see COlin whining.   :rotflmao:

What a joke.

No #####, you guys want to talk about Pats fans being whiney tools, listen to Colin. Jeez man, did you do anythng else today? Boy do you love hearing (reading) yourself talk, dude.You went fishing for trouble when you started this thread, and you know it.

I'm just surprised that this thread was started, and fueled all day long, by a staff member. Are you 12? You don't think the Pats are a dynasty; we get it. Save your sour grapes for someone else.

FBG's loses credibilty in my eyes by the day.

I didn't start this thread.

Why should I NOT answer when people attack me or inquire about my opinion?

COlin

My bad Colin, on who started this thread.I'm just surprised that you get into these things, being a staff member and all. You say you don't care about what people think of you. So, let it go.

I've learned how fast "discussions" turn into flame wars around here, and I've only been here a few months.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

I know I'm going to regret posting in here but....What exactly is the Patriots dynasty? I guess I can see it as Belichick and Brady, but not much else. When I think of NE, the three best players (outside of Brady) I think of are Dillon, Harrison and Law.Harrison didn't play in SB XXXVI.Dillon didn't play in SB XXXVIII.Law didn't play in SB XXXIX.As ironic as this sounds, a dynasty to me invokes the image of the SAME team dominating. (I know a true dynasty, by definition, means several rulers in succession). The 2004 Pats are a totally different team than the 2001 Pats, who I'm still unsure of how good they truly were. (Between the 2001 Pats and 1990 Giants, there aren't two more teams that confuse me when I think of how good they were. I just can't figure out where they rank).Likewise, what do people mean when they refer to the Cowboys dynasty? They had two different coaches win the Super Bowl. (Anyone else catch the flub in the post-game show? I forget who the host was--maybe JB--but he implied that Johnson won three SBs with the Cowboys).Deion Sanders and Jimmy Johnson were never on the Cowboys together. They were different teams, just like this Patriots squad.For all the talk about the 49ers dynasty, Rice and Montana won just two Super Bowls together. Where was that dynasty? Bill Walsh, Jerry Rice and Joe Montana was just ONE Super Bowl together. I don't know the exactl composition of the teams, but from my current base of knowlege I put the Steelers and Packers--and maybe the Dolphins--as dynasties. It all depends on your definition of a dynasty, not rocket science here. But I interpret it as one team being so dominant, that they just keep winning over and over with the same guys.

Chase,The dynasty is that the NE Patriots won 3 out of 4 years. You're not going to have the same players every year in the format the NFL has set up. If you need the same players for you to call a team a dynasty, maybe you could allow for the same coaching staff to fill that role, as the NE staff has created a dynasty.I don't think there has to be the same players for a dynasty. I think that's what we've experienced in the past with dynasties. But New England has found a way to win, to be the best with different players. That's a credit to their coaching staff and organization.

 

[Colin Dowling]

Read the first page, skipped to the six, and still see COlin whining.   :rotflmao:

What a joke.

No #####, you guys want to talk about Pats fans being whiney tools, listen to Colin. Jeez man, did you do anythng else today? Boy do you love hearing (reading) yourself talk, dude.You went fishing for trouble when you started this thread, and you know it.

I'm just surprised that this thread was started, and fueled all day long, by a staff member. Are you 12? You don't think the Pats are a dynasty; we get it. Save your sour grapes for someone else.

FBG's loses credibilty in my eyes by the day.

I didn't start this thread.

Why should I NOT answer when people attack me or inquire about my opinion?

COlin

My bad Colin, on who started this thread.I'm just surprised that you get into these things, being a staff member and all. You say you don't care about what people think of you. So, let it go.

I've learned how fast "discussions" turn into flame wars around here, and I've only been here a few months.

Point taken. Not that it means much since we're 9 pages in, I'll focus on the discussion (The term "Dynasty" as it relates to the Patriots) at hand and ignore the riff-raff from here on out. COlin

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

Read the first page, skipped to the six, and still see COlin whining.   :rotflmao:

What a joke.

No #####, you guys want to talk about Pats fans being whiney tools, listen to Colin. Jeez man, did you do anythng else today? Boy do you love hearing (reading) yourself talk, dude.You went fishing for trouble when you started this thread, and you know it.

I'm just surprised that this thread was started, and fueled all day long, by a staff member. Are you 12? You don't think the Pats are a dynasty; we get it. Save your sour grapes for someone else.

FBG's loses credibilty in my eyes by the day.

I didn't start this thread.

Why should I NOT answer when people attack me or inquire about my opinion?

COlin

My bad Colin, on who started this thread.I'm just surprised that you get into these things, being a staff member and all. You say you don't care about what people think of you. So, let it go.

I've learned how fast "discussions" turn into flame wars around here, and I've only been here a few months.

I'm surprised so many people care that he's a staff member and posting what he thinks.I've read more complaints about that, than his opinion that NE isn't a dynasty. I could care less that a FBG Staff member differs from my opinion or the opinion of many football fans. That's strange that we'd attack him for being a staff member and basically attack footballguys for allowing someone to speak what they think. Should they all say and think the same things?

Take Colin for Colin, he disagrees with this Dynasty term. I personally agree with it. To me, the definition has changed as well in time. Just like the definition of pass interference has, just like the definition of a lot of things change over time.

The rules have changed in regards to keeping teams together, so to then is what it means to become a dynasty. So holding NE to the same standards as the 70 Steelers doesn't make sense to me because they aren't playing by the same rules, so we need to adjust.

 

[Colin Dowling]

The rules have changed in regards to keeping teams together, so to then is what it means to become a dynasty. So holding NE to the same standards as the 70 Steelers doesn't make sense to me because they aren't playing by the same rules, so we need to adjust.

I agree completely. Things have changed and its not fair to any of the teams being discussed to try and hold them to the EXACT same standards concerning the application of NFL rules. Someone somewhere made a solid point about the blessing and the curse that is free agency, essentially arguing that its a wash because savy teams and GMs adapt to the rules and succeed.Colin

 

[NE_REVIVAL]

However, if one considers the Cowboys, 9'ers & Steelers were a dynasty then it is literally impossible to make a valid arguement that the Pats aren't also a dynasty.

It isn't impossible at all. In fact, I did it in this very thread. If you define the minimum possible dynasty as 4 straight years in the playoffs with 3 championships, the Patriots are not a dynasty. The Cowboys are because they meet that criteria. The scale slides to not require playoff apperances when there are longer periods of success, which allows the Niners to make it with 5 championships in 14 years. My own definition would allow for the Patriots to claim the label in my book if they win one more championship in the next three seasons no matter how they do in the playoffs the other two years. How exactly is this not a valid definition and therefore a valid argument? You said yourself that the use of the term is subjective.

I didn't say you couldn't make an arguement, I said you couldn't make a valid one You value playoffs over championships when its the Cowboys and championships when it is the 9'ers. Your definition isn't consistent and therefore IMO not valid.Nobody is forcing you to listen to the rest of the football world or anyone else so go ahead and call them whatever you like

 

[Colt Of Personality]

I know this may be a question of semantics, but the Patriots are a dynasty - pure and simple. People trying to discount them are just being PEZ heads.And this coming from an Eagles fan.

 

[Colin Dowling]

I know this may be a question of semantics, but the Patriots are a dynasty - pure and simple. People trying to discount them are just being PEZ heads.And this coming from an Eagles fan.

I know this may be a question of semantics, but the Patriots are a dynasty - pure and simple. People trying to discount them are just being PEZ heads.

If its a "question of semantics," doesn't that say that people might have differing views on the matter?

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

New England is very good, but not a dynasty. 3 out of 4 on the surface looks pretty good, but Dallas did so much more convincingly and were only 10 points shy of 4 consecutive Super Bowl victories.New Englands collaps 2 years ago raises a cautionary flag. I will say this however, I have never seen a team do so well with so little. This is not a put down as their players are solid, but they don't have the super stars that the Cowboys had during their run. So I hedge when asked if they are a dynasty, but I certainly think they are one of the best "teams" I can remember. Truly the team was stronger than the sum of each individual part.

 

[Colt Of Personality]

The rules have changed in regards to keeping teams together, so to then is what it means to become a dynasty. So holding NE to the same standards as the 70 Steelers doesn't make sense to me because they aren't playing by the same rules, so we need to adjust.

I agree completely. Things have changed and its not fair to any of the teams being discussed to try and hold them to the EXACT same standards concerning the application of NFL rules. Someone somewhere made a solid point about the blessing and the curse that is free agency, essentially arguing that its a wash because savy teams and GMs adapt to the rules and succeed.Colin

absolutely. Views can be different. Hey, whatever makes people feel better. Fact is, they won 3 of 4 years. They steamrolled the AFC this year. They are a dynasty.

 

[Colin Dowling]

The rules have changed in regards to keeping teams together, so to then is what it means to become a dynasty. So holding NE to the same standards as the 70 Steelers doesn't make sense to me because they aren't playing by the same rules, so we need to adjust.

I agree completely. Things have changed and its not fair to any of the teams being discussed to try and hold them to the EXACT same standards concerning the application of NFL rules. Someone somewhere made a solid point about the blessing and the curse that is free agency, essentially arguing that its a wash because savy teams and GMs adapt to the rules and succeed.Colin

absolutely. Views can be different. Hey, whatever makes people feel better. Fact is, they won 3 of 4 years. They steamrolled the AFC this year. They are a dynasty.

Cool. We are in agreement. Views CAN be different. They steamrolled the AFC this year and have won 3 of 4 Super Bowls. They are a great team but.....aw, forget it.

 

[roadeyes]

I will say this however, I have never seen a team do so well with so little. This is not a put down as their players are solid, but they don't have the super stars that the Cowboys had during their run.

I have been watching the Patriots since I can remember (1967ish). So maybe it's just ingrained in me that I expect a collapse. Or a ruling to go against my team. Or to just flat out stink-there has been more than one 2 or 3 win season in my lifetime.But even AFTER they won in 2001-right up through Sunday and probably continuing on next year, I never really watch the Pats and think-Gosh, they will win this easily. Game in and game out, I am a little surprised when I see them consistently make the big play. And I think that is attributable to what you are saying. I just don't see any physical specimens on this team. No freaks. No super stars. (Seymour could be an emerging exception)It's a little different and sometimes difficult to base faith in your team upon it's ability to execute best. Or play mistake-free. Or scheme better than the opponent.

 

[Colin Dowling]

But even AFTER they won in 2001-right up through Sunday and probably continuing on next year, I never really watch the Pats and think-Gosh, they will win this easily. Game in and game out, I am a little surprised when I see them consistently make the big play.

Interesting. After the first 20 minute (roughly) of the game Sunday, the thing that struck me was that a game where the Eagles were moving the ball and couldn't get it done in the red zone did not favor them. I knew it was a matter of time until the Patriots started moving the ball in earnest. On the flip side, the fact that the Eagles could have been up 6-0, or 14-0 pretty early and couldn't get it done struck me as a significant problem because the Patriots, you just knew, were eventually going to make some things happen.COlin

 

[Jimmy James]

I didn't say you couldn't make an arguement, I said you couldn't make a valid one You value playoffs over championships when its the Cowboys and championships when it is the 9'ers. Your definition isn't consistent and therefore IMO not valid.

Nobody is forcing you to listen to the rest of the football world or anyone else so go ahead and call them whatever you like

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth here. I'm on petty solid ground here, btw -- staff members of this site and members of the press like Bob Ryan aren't calling the Patriots a dynasty, either. If you're going to accept the notion that this is a subjective definition (which you imply when you say I can call them what I want), you can't suggest my definition is invalid.In case there is any confusion, my definition is this:

Dominant over a short period of time or very good over a long period of time. Dominance takes into account playoff appearances and very good does not.

I think what you're really saying is that you don't agree with my definition. That's fine. I accept I'm in the minority here. I thought this was a forum for discussion, though. Isn't that what we're doing?

 

[NE_REVIVAL]

I didn't say you couldn't make an arguement, I said you couldn't make a valid one   You value playoffs over championships when its the Cowboys and championships when it is the 9'ers. Your definition isn't consistent and therefore IMO not valid.

Nobody is forcing you to listen to the rest of the football world or anyone else so go ahead and call them whatever you like

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth here. I'm on petty solid ground here, btw -- staff members of this site and members of the press like Bob Ryan aren't calling the Patriots a dynasty, either. If you're going to accept the notion that this is a subjective definition (which you imply when you say I can call them what I want), you can't suggest my definition is invalid.In case there is any confusion, my definition is this:

Dominant over a short period of time or very good over a long period of time. Dominance takes into account playoff appearances and very good does not.

I think what you're really saying is that you don't agree with my definition. That's fine. I accept I'm in the minority here. I thought this was a forum for discussion, though. Isn't that what we're doing?

Sorry about the eye roll it was uncalled for.I don't think your arguement is consistent or valid and I hope you agree I am entitled to my opinion. I have already conceded that you, Bob Ryan, Pee Wee Herman, the FBG staff and anyone else with a keyboard is entitled to their opinion but you are all a decided minority on this one.

Lets move on.

 

[Jimmy James]

I practically own rolling eyes in a lot of circumstances. I didn't even take offense. You're entitled to your opinion about my opinion, and I'm entitled to my opinion that your opinion about my opinion sucks. Moving on as requested...