Patriots are now a Dynasty (1 Viewer)

[Mr. Pink]

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

I understand where you're coming from Colin. I remember reading the sig bet from last year. You're not a Pats fan, and that's fine. But 3 titles in four years? That's only been done once before, and has never been topped. It is what it is.

Its actually been done by the PAts and the Cowboys, IIRC, both of whom also made the playoffs in their off years. Get a fact checker.Colin

Geez, how did I miss this last night?Get a fact checker??? The Pats didn't make the playoffs in their 'off year' of this four year run...the Cowboys did and I credited them for that. Who needs a fact checker now???

 

[Mr. Pink]

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

You really are delusional.

 

[b-snatchers]

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

I think that is what you are doing right now Herd..crying DYNASTY!!! DYNASTY!!!

 

[Humping Rhino]

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

Another shocking development is the Goat Herder not accepting the Patriots as what they are. A DYNASTY! Deal with it, loser. They are a dynasty. You can try alll you want to discredit them but it is true. It must kill you that Pats have won 3 of the last 4 Super Bowls.

 

[AB in DC]

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.

Wait! The Packers didn't make the playoffs in 1963 or 1964. So according to Colin's logic, they weren't a dynasty either.

 

[AB in DC]

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.

How many players from the 1974 Steelers were still on the team in 1979?How many players from the 1981 49ers were still on the team in 1989?

 

[porkins]

Hey, as long as they keep raising the championship banner in front of me, I don't give a crap what you call them. Just get used to calling them "Champs".All this talk over calling them a dynasty is really getting old. Who cares?

 

[satch]

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

The Pats did win. That's why the Eagles lost.The dynasty debate is a non-issue. The media and the commissioner of the NFL himself have proclaimed the Patrioits a dynasty.

 

[Mr. Pink]

Has anbody seen Mac_Daddy? Mac, are you out there? I was hoping to read some of your 'classless' and 'whiny tool' references. After all of your Pats bashing, the classy thing to do would be to show yourself. Sincerely,Another whiny Pats fan.PS: DYNASTY!!! DYANSTY!!! DYNASTY!!! DYNASTY!!! DYNASTY!!!

 

[[icon]]

This is awesome. All you little lapdogs coming around for milk. Here's the best part: I could care less what any of you think about my comments. Truth is, you guys had your minds made up long ago. Good. Enjoy it.But know this: I think your team is a great team, but they aren't a dynasty. Not yet anyway. Enjoy your Sam Adams tonight. There's at least one person, ME, who still hasn't been sold.LOL AT ALL OF YOU.Colin

:rotflmao: Taking whining to a new level.

COlin = The New Whiny Tool :rotflmao:

 

[[icon]]

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.

:rotflmao:

 

[Harpua]

I think you all are missing the definition of dynasty. Dynasty must follow a progression of rulers. Football has never had a dynasty.

Bob Ryan

In this case, 'D' is for dominance

By Bob Ryan, Globe Columnist | February 7, 2005

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- It's done. Two straight. Three out of four. The Patriots stand astride the professional football world. But please, don't embarrass yourself. Don't even think about invoking the dreaded "D-word."

The New England Patriots are not a "dynasty."

Pardon me for being a stickler for details, but as someone who makes his living playing with words, I am dismayed by the casual misuse of the English language implicit in the contention that winning three out four anything in sport constitutes a "dynasty."

Let's look, you and me, at just what the Webster's New World dictionary has to say about the word "dynasty."

1. "A succession of rulers who are members of the same family."

2. "The period during which a certain family reigns."

"Succession of rulers," huh? Well, let's see. If we're talking about the coach, I can only see one "ruler," Bill Belichick. If we're talking about the owner, I can only see one "ruler," Bob Kraft.

Now you might slip a three-in-four champion in under definition two, I suppose. Four years would indeed be the period in question during which a certain family could be said to have reigned. But please, this is by far the weaker concept of "dynasty."

The Mings. That was a dynasty. The Romanoffs. That was a dynasty. The Tudors. That was a dynasty. Four years in any of those cases was but a little burp of history. It has always been understood that a dynasty is something that encompasses centuries or, at least, decades, not just a few years.

Using this guideline, there have only been three North American sports dynasties -- the Yankees, Canadiens, and Celtics.

The Yankees began winning pennants in 1921, and from that year until 1964 they won 29 American League pennants (and 20 World Series) in 44 years. After a recession decade, they won American League pennants in 1976-77-78-81. There was another recession, after which they won again in 1996-98-99 and 2000-01-03.

During those 82 years, everything turned over, including their home ballpark. They started off winning in the Polo Grounds and kept on winning in both the old and refurbished Yankee Stadiums. The only constant was the seven letters on the front of the uniform: "New York."

No American sports team has ever more aptly fit the description of having a "succession of rulers who are members of the same [i.e. Yankee] family."

The Canadiens won the Stanley Cup 24 times from 1916-93, including 16 in 27 years (1953-79). Again, there was a complete turnover of ownership, management, coaches, and player personnel. But throughout those years there was a viable Canadien mystique. The bleu, blanc, et rouge stood for something special in the world of hockey. They were most certainly a dynasty.

The Celtics were the dominant team in the NBA from 1956-86, and the argument can be made that their era of prominence can be extended as far as 1991. That would make 35 seasons and would clearly fall into the "dynasty" category, since the only constant throughout that span was the presence of Red Auerbach, who began the run as the team's coach and general manager and ended as more of a CEO emeritus. But as the great names changed from Russell and Cousy to Havlicek and Cowens and then to Bird, McHale, and Parish, the name "Celtics" stood for something majestic and classy in the basketball world.

Football has not produced any such team, for whatever reason. People talk about the Green Bay Packers, but their span of true prominence began in 1960 and ended just eight years later. They won five NFL titles and the first two Super Bowls, but then Vince Lombardi left, the team aged, and they fell back into the great middle class of the NFL.

The Pittsburgh Steelers won four Super Bowls from 1975-80. The Washington Redskins won it all three times from 1983-92. The San Francisco 49ers won five times from 1982-95. Finally, the Dallas Cowboys won three Super Bowls, with two different coaches, from 1993-96.

And now we have the Patriots.

With three out of four, what the Patriots have done for themselves is gain a seat at the mythical Council of Football Greats, along with the above-named teams in the Super Bowl era. For the sake of this argument we will leave out the Cleveland Browns of the 1940s and '50s, who, from 1946 in the old All-America Football Conference through 1957 in the NFL, made it to a championship game 11 times and won the title seven times. But with a couple of conspicuous exceptions -- quarterback Otto Graham and the incomparable Jim Brown -- those teams were simply too small, slow, and essentially unathletic to stack up with teams from the 1980s, '90s, and early 21st century.

Should we also include the Miami Dolphins, who won back-to-back Super Bowls in 1973 and '74, and who, in 1972 (plus the '73 Super Bowl) had the only undefeated season in NFL history? Why not? Should we talk about Denver's repeat Super Bowl champions of 1998 and '99? We could, especially since Denver has continued to be a viable contender in the ensuing years.

Anyway, the Patriots have earned a right to be included in that particular discussion.

Just don't expand that topic to emply the word "dynasty," because football has never had one. What football has had are "runs" or "eras" or some other word of one's choice. But to use the word "dynasty" is simply wrong. What's the use of words if they have no specific meaning? And the meaning of "dynasty" excludes those whose period of true supremacy is but a few years.

By this line of reasoning, there has been one mini-dynasty, that being the 14-year championship run of the 49ers, who at least went through two coaches, successive Hall of Fame quarterbacks, and one essential roster re-tool in a stretch that was also part of the impressive accomplishment of winning 12 regular-season games 11 times from 1981-2001.

Not having any true "dynasties" may very well be to football's credit. Logic dictates that if the number of players involved is significantly higher than those in other sports, it would be that much more difficult to keep rolling winning rosters over and over the way it is when fewer players are needed. In football you need a whole lot of a whole in order to be relentlessly successful.

So here's some free advice for the NFL: Rather than phony up "dynasty" teams, football should embrace its lack of them. Just say that in our sport it is just too difficult for a dynasty to exist. Say that we like it that way, we see no need to apologize, and end of story.

 

[satch]

For anybody that for some reason refuses to accept the Patriots as a dynasty, please refer to the link below which will bring you directly to the home page of the NFL. I think that should settle the dispute.

http://nfl.com/

 

[Colin Dowling]

Let me make sure I don't miss any."Whiney Tool""Loser""Moron""The reason I quit posting here""Idiotic Staff""Disgrace""Idiot""Colon Dowling""Terd/Turd"I think thats everything...All because I said that the Patriots are the best team in a long time, but I'm not prepared to call them a dynasty.I like how you guys handle yourselves when someone disagrees with you. (For the record, the boards are free. No one, including the "moronic staff" gets paid to post here. )Have a nice day. Herd the TERD

 

[Harald]

3 out of 4. They are the best there is at present without a single doubt. Belichik is probably the best coach of all time. If you beat Manning with a rook, a 2nd year player and a wide receiver in the backfield you are all that and more!Too bad he aint moving to Kansas City...

 

[Jason Wood]

Dynasty is THE most overused word of the last two weeks.One thing I've noticed about our society is that thanks to the omnipresent media in all its forms (websites, bloggers, news, cable, sat, radio) and the need to differentiate from the noise, EVERYONE is so inclined to put these unyielding labels on things.We are so quick to want to be in the presence of greatness that we label people, teams, plays, coaches the "BEST EVER", and are equally quick to label disappointing performances in that manner (e.g., Manning being a choker b/c he's had a few playoff losses) yet the truth really lies somewhere in the middle.In the strict meaning of the word, very few sports teams have been dynasties. Auerbach's Celtics, Wooden's Bruins come to mind.Three SB titles in four years during the salary cap era may in fact be one the most, if not the most, impressive runs in NFL history for sure. But dynasty? I don't think it passes that litmus test.

 

[Mr. Pink]

Let me make sure I don't miss any."Whiney Tool""Loser""Moron""The reason I quit posting here""Idiotic Staff""Disgrace""Idiot""Colon Dowling""Terd/Turd"I think thats everything...All because I said that the Patriots are the best team in a long time, but I'm not prepared to call them a dynasty.I like how you guys handle yourselves when someone disagrees with you. (For the record, the boards are free. No one, including the "moronic staff" gets paid to post here. )Have a nice day. Herd the TERD

Yep, the thread took a bad turn there. Sorry Colin. I never like to see that. I'll respect your opinion...hopefully the others will as well. Time to think of warm, happy thoughts.

 

[[icon]]

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

Okay....Well....I think You're an idiot....and since I'm a paid subscriber I guess my criticisms carry weight?

 

[2's wild]

I hate to say this but yes New England is a dynasty..I must go throw up know..

 

[Jason Wood]

I think you all are missing the definition of dynasty. Dynasty must follow a progression of rulers. Football has never had a dynasty.

Bob Ryan

In this case, 'D' is for dominance

By Bob Ryan, Globe Columnist  |  February 7, 2005

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- It's done. Two straight. Three out of four. The Patriots stand astride the professional football world. But please, don't embarrass yourself. Don't even think about invoking the dreaded "D-word."

The New England Patriots are not a "dynasty."

Pardon me for being a stickler for details, but as someone who makes his living playing with words, I am dismayed by the casual misuse of the English language implicit in the contention that winning three out four anything in sport constitutes a "dynasty."

Let's look, you and me, at just what the Webster's New World dictionary has to say about the word "dynasty."

1. "A succession of rulers who are members of the same family."

2. "The period during which a certain family reigns."

"Succession of rulers," huh? Well, let's see. If we're talking about the coach, I can only see one "ruler," Bill Belichick. If we're talking about the owner, I can only see one "ruler," Bob Kraft.

Now you might slip a three-in-four champion in under definition two, I suppose. Four years would indeed be the period in question during which a certain family could be said to have reigned. But please, this is by far the weaker concept of "dynasty."

The Mings. That was a dynasty. The Romanoffs. That was a dynasty. The Tudors. That was a dynasty. Four years in any of those cases was but a little burp of history. It has always been understood that a dynasty is something that encompasses centuries or, at least, decades, not just a few years.

Using this guideline, there have only been three North American sports dynasties -- the Yankees, Canadiens, and Celtics.

The Yankees began winning pennants in 1921, and from that year until 1964 they won 29 American League pennants (and 20 World Series) in 44 years. After a recession decade, they won American League pennants in 1976-77-78-81. There was another recession, after which they won again in 1996-98-99 and 2000-01-03.

During those 82 years, everything turned over, including their home ballpark. They started off winning in the Polo Grounds and kept on winning in both the old and refurbished Yankee Stadiums. The only constant was the seven letters on the front of the uniform: "New York."

No American sports team has ever more aptly fit the description of having a "succession of rulers who are members of the same [i.e. Yankee] family."

The Canadiens won the Stanley Cup 24 times from 1916-93, including 16 in 27 years (1953-79). Again, there was a complete turnover of ownership, management, coaches, and player personnel. But throughout those years there was a viable Canadien mystique. The bleu, blanc, et rouge stood for something special in the world of hockey. They were most certainly a dynasty.

The Celtics were the dominant team in the NBA from 1956-86, and the argument can be made that their era of prominence can be extended as far as 1991. That would make 35 seasons and would clearly fall into the "dynasty" category, since the only constant throughout that span was the presence of Red Auerbach, who began the run as the team's coach and general manager and ended as more of a CEO emeritus. But as the great names changed from Russell and Cousy to Havlicek and Cowens and then to Bird, McHale, and Parish, the name "Celtics" stood for something majestic and classy in the basketball world.

Football has not produced any such team, for whatever reason. People talk about the Green Bay Packers, but their span of true prominence began in 1960 and ended just eight years later. They won five NFL titles and the first two Super Bowls, but then Vince Lombardi left, the team aged, and they fell back into the great middle class of the NFL.

The Pittsburgh Steelers won four Super Bowls from 1975-80. The Washington Redskins won it all three times from 1983-92. The San Francisco 49ers won five times from 1982-95. Finally, the Dallas Cowboys won three Super Bowls, with two different coaches, from 1993-96.

And now we have the Patriots.

With three out of four, what the Patriots have done for themselves is gain a seat at the mythical Council of Football Greats, along with the above-named teams in the Super Bowl era. For the sake of this argument we will leave out the Cleveland Browns of the 1940s and '50s, who, from 1946 in the old All-America Football Conference through 1957 in the NFL, made it to a championship game 11 times and won the title seven times. But with a couple of conspicuous exceptions -- quarterback Otto Graham and the incomparable Jim Brown -- those teams were simply too small, slow, and essentially unathletic to stack up with teams from the 1980s, '90s, and early 21st century.

Should we also include the Miami Dolphins, who won back-to-back Super Bowls in 1973 and '74, and who, in 1972 (plus the '73 Super Bowl) had the only undefeated season in NFL history? Why not? Should we talk about Denver's repeat Super Bowl champions of 1998 and '99? We could, especially since Denver has continued to be a viable contender in the ensuing years.

Anyway, the Patriots have earned a right to be included in that particular discussion.

Just don't expand that topic to emply the word "dynasty," because football has never had one. What football has had are "runs" or "eras" or some other word of one's choice. But to use the word "dynasty" is simply wrong. What's the use of words if they have no specific meaning? And the meaning of "dynasty" excludes those whose period of true supremacy is but a few years.

By this line of reasoning, there has been one mini-dynasty, that being the 14-year championship run of the 49ers, who at least went through two coaches, successive Hall of Fame quarterbacks, and one essential roster re-tool in a stretch that was also part of the impressive accomplishment of winning 12 regular-season games 11 times from 1981-2001.

Not having any true "dynasties" may very well be to football's credit. Logic dictates that if the number of players involved is significantly higher than those in other sports, it would be that much more difficult to keep rolling winning rosters over and over the way it is when fewer players are needed. In football you need a whole lot of a whole in order to be relentlessly successful.

So here's some free advice for the NFL: Rather than phony up "dynasty" teams, football should embrace its lack of them. Just say that in our sport it is just too difficult for a dynasty to exist. Say that we like it that way, we see no need to apologize, and end of story.

Odd, I just responded and then saw this post after the fact. Exactly what I'm thinking. We're all SO desperate to be in the presence of greatness that we stumble over ourselves to put labels on things that don't really fit. This is the latest example. The Patriots are a great team, a great organization, their feat over the past four seasons is remarkable by anyone's definition...but they aren't a dynasty, nor has their been a dynasty in the SB era.

 

[RBM]

They certainly are.3 Super Bowls in 4 years - only done by ONE other team. (Bears and Packers did in prior to the Super Bowl though)Longest consecutive wins in regular season and playoffs.Belichick has the highest playoff winning percentage going right now.That's a dynasty.Pretty impressive in this day of the salary cap too....Yet I wouldn't rank these Patriots players with those of the Steelers, Niners or Cowboys teams from their championship runs. They are fundamentally sound and coached very well.

Leave it to a Bear fan to get it right

 

[Colin Dowling]

,Feb 7 2005, 03:01 PM]

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

Okay....Well....I think You're an idiot....and since I'm a paid subscriber I guess my criticisms carry weight?

Fair enough. The shafts your company makes suck. As a person who has spent money on them, I assume my criticisms carry weight as well.Are we even? COlin

 

[Colin Dowling]

Dynasty is THE most overused word of the last two weeks.One thing I've noticed about our society is that thanks to the omnipresent media in all its forms (websites, bloggers, news, cable, sat, radio) and the need to differentiate from the noise, EVERYONE is so inclined to put these unyielding labels on things.We are so quick to want to be in the presence of greatness that we label people, teams, plays, coaches the "BEST EVER", and are equally quick to label disappointing performances in that manner (e.g., Manning being a choker b/c he's had a few playoff losses) yet the truth really lies somewhere in the middle.In the strict meaning of the word, very few sports teams have been dynasties. Auerbach's Celtics, Wooden's Bruins come to mind.Three SB titles in four years during the salary cap era may in fact be one the most, if not the most, impressive runs in NFL history for sure. But dynasty? I don't think it passes that litmus test.

Oh boy. You should put on your body-armor now and take cover...COlin

 

[[icon]]

NFL.com on "dynasty" tag...

 

[Mr. Pink]

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

 

[Macdaddy_2004]

I just can't call them a dynasty - when I think Dynasty I think dominating teams that strike fear into the heart of their opponentEvery year the pats have won the SB they have done both or either1. Cheat2. Win by a field goalThere is no doubt in my mind that the PATS are a great team - in my eyes if you call them a dynasty than it is the weakest dynasty ever in the NFL and in my mind you lower the bar for future so-called dynasty teamsWhat happens if the Bucs win the next 2 SuperBowls - do we call them a dynasty for getting the job done 3/5 years - I don't think soIf the Pats want to be known as a Dynasty they can continue to do what they are doing - However if the PATS don't make the Playoffs next year (new OC, new DC) than how can we really call this team a dynasty ??especially after they barely squeak out wins in the SB anyways.Steve Young said it yesterday as well - for the PATS to be considered a dynasty they had to come out yesterday and make a statement. Win the game 48-17 or 28-10. THey did not do that.This team is the best team we've seen in ages but they are not a Dynasty in football terms - at least not yet.And for those of you that do call them a dynasty essentially you are de-valuing the term.Remember this team failed to make the playoffs in 2002 - what kind of dynasty does not even make the playoffs??

 

[[icon]]

,Feb 7 2005, 03:01 PM]

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

Okay....Well....I think You're an idiot....and since I'm a paid subscriber I guess my criticisms carry weight?

Fair enough. The shafts your company makes suck. As a person who has spent money on them, I assume my criticisms carry weight as well.Are we even? COlin

Fair enough... In both cases we'll go with the opinions of the experts. Our shafts lead the count on the PGA, Nationwide, and Champions Tours by a sizeable margin (more than all other competitors combined).... WITHOUT paying a single dollar to the players in sponsorships. I think we make a pretty solid product.

 

[[icon]]

I just can't call them a dynasty - when I think Dynasty I think dominating teams that strike fear into the heart of their opponent

Good point.... I'm sure teams look forward to going into Foxboro on Sunday morning all but knowing they will lose :rotflmao:

 

[Macdaddy_2004]

,Feb 7 2005, 10:17 AM]

I just can't call them a dynasty - when I think Dynasty I think dominating teams that strike fear into the heart of their opponent

Good point.... I'm sure teams look forward to going into Foxboro on Sunday morning all but knowing they will lose :rotflmao:

I'm sure Miami felt that fear in week 15 (yes I know the game was in Miami)My point is - The PATS don't scare me - I feel the right NFL coach would chew Belichek up(ie Parcells)Oh yeah do the Browns play the PATS next year - I would love to see Romeo stick it to his buddy

 

[AB in DC]

In the strict meaning of the word, very few sports teams have been dynasties. Auerbach's Celtics, Wooden's Bruins come to mind.

Oh boy. You should put on your body-armor now and take cover...COlin

I don't think any Pats fan can argue with Jason Wood or Bob Ryan here. The Pats are being called a dynasty because that's what the Steelers, Cowboys, etc. were called. If they're not really dynasties, then no NFL team is a dynasty.

 

[The Commish]

Did I miss something?? Why isn't Colin allowed to have his own opinion? It's clear that the term "dynasty" is overused. I think we can all agree on that. With that overuse, there come many many many different interpretations, definitions etc. It's clear to me that Colin simply has a higher standard to which he holds the term "dynasty". One of those requirements being the team in question needs to make the playoffs each year of their run. That doesn't seem like much to ask. Is he discounting all the things the Patriots have done? I haven't seen that. Patriot fans, you need to be confident enough in yourselves and your team to believe what you want and say "who cares what xxx thinks". You aren't going to change Colin's mind by insulting him. The only thing you are doing is making yourselves look foolish.....calling a person names because they disagree with you.....that's stuff I remember from first grade. Good grief!!!

 

[Colin Dowling]

Did I miss something?? Why isn't Colin allowed to have his own opinion? It's clear that the term "dynasty" is overused. I think we can all agree on that. With that overuse, there come many many many different interpretations, definitions etc. It's clear to me that Colin simply has a higher standard to which he holds the term "dynasty". One of those requirements being the team in question needs to make the playoffs each year of their run. That doesn't seem like much to ask. Is he discounting all the things the Patriots have done? I haven't seen that. Patriot fans, you need to be confident enough in yourselves and your team to believe what you want and say "who cares what xxx thinks". You aren't going to change Colin's mind by insulting him. The only thing you are doing is making yourselves look foolish.....calling a person names because they disagree with you.....that's stuff I remember from first grade. Good grief!!!

I appreciate it Commish. The only problem is, people seem to think I harbor a deep-seeded hatred of the Patriots, so any "credit" I give them MUST be disingenuous. NOthing could be further from the truth. I've explained many times that I'm over the fact that I used to dislike the Pats. Its a waste of time and energy and last year's baseball season showed me that I'd rather spend my time cheering for a team I follow than worrying about everyone else. Congrats to the Patriots, a great team. Colin

 

[satch]

Taken directly from the front page of NFL.com. Dynasty fulfilled: Pats win! The Steelers of the 1970s, the 49ers of the 1980s and the Cowboys of the 1990s have company. For the third time in four years, the New England Patriots are champions, defeating the Eagles 24-21 in Super Bowl XXXIX, to join the ranks of NFL dynasties. "We're thrilled to win," head coach Bill Belichick said. "These players played great all year, their best in the big games and they deserve it; they really deserve it."

 

[Newman]

The only thing you are doing is making yourselves look foolish.....calling a person names because they disagree with you.....that's stuff I remember from first grade. Good grief!!!

 

[Jefferson the Caregiver]

Did I miss something?? Why isn't Colin allowed to have his own opinion? It's clear that the term "dynasty" is overused. I think we can all agree on that. With that overuse, there come many many many different interpretations, definitions etc. It's clear to me that Colin simply has a higher standard to which he holds the term "dynasty". One of those requirements being the team in question needs to make the playoffs each year of their run. That doesn't seem like much to ask. Is he discounting all the things the Patriots have done? I haven't seen that. Patriot fans, you need to be confident enough in yourselves and your team to believe what you want and say "who cares what xxx thinks". You aren't going to change Colin's mind by insulting him. The only thing you are doing is making yourselves look foolish.....calling a person names because they disagree with you.....that's stuff I remember from first grade. Good grief!!!

Colin asked for it, he got it. He should not have said "Cry all you want." If you want to know when this thread went downhill, it was in his initial post. That pissed me off and probably a couple of other Pats fans. I am sorry I stooped to his level with the name calling but aside from that, I still don't respect his opinion.

 

[Colin Dowling]

Did I miss something?? Why isn't Colin allowed to have his own opinion? It's clear that the term "dynasty" is overused. I think we can all agree on that. With that overuse, there come many many many different interpretations, definitions etc. It's clear to me that Colin simply has a higher standard to which he holds the term "dynasty". One of those requirements being the team in question needs to make the playoffs each year of their run. That doesn't seem like much to ask. Is he discounting all the things the Patriots have done? I haven't seen that. Patriot fans, you need to be confident enough in yourselves and your team to believe what you want and say "who cares what xxx thinks". You aren't going to change Colin's mind by insulting him. The only thing you are doing is making yourselves look foolish.....calling a person names because they disagree with you.....that's stuff I remember from first grade. Good grief!!!

Colin asked for it, he got it. He should not have said "Cry all you want." If you want to know when this thread went downhill, it was in his initial post. That pissed me off and probably a couple of other Pats fans. I am sorry I stooped to his level with the name calling but aside from that, I still don't respect his opinion.

Lighten up, Francis. You just won the Super Bowl.COlin

 

[The Commish]

Did I miss something?? Why isn't Colin allowed to have his own opinion? It's clear that the term "dynasty" is overused. I think we can all agree on that. With that overuse, there come many many many different interpretations, definitions etc. It's clear to me that Colin simply has a higher standard to which he holds the term "dynasty". One of those requirements being the team in question needs to make the playoffs each year of their run. That doesn't seem like much to ask. Is he discounting all the things the Patriots have done? I haven't seen that. Patriot fans, you need to be confident enough in yourselves and your team to believe what you want and say "who cares what xxx thinks". You aren't going to change Colin's mind by insulting him. The only thing you are doing is making yourselves look foolish.....calling a person names because they disagree with you.....that's stuff I remember from first grade. Good grief!!!

Colin asked for it, he got it. He should not have said "Cry all you want." If you want to know when this thread went downhill, it was in his initial post. That pissed me off and probably a couple of other Pats fans. I am sorry I stooped to his level with the name calling but aside from that, I still don't respect his opinion.

I guess my question is, why did it piss you off soooooo much? Does it really matter what others think? What I think you see is him saying your team sucks, but what he is really saying is they are a great team but not a dynasty by HIS definition. I haven't been very active on here the last few weeks, so he may have said they sucked and that he wished they were all dead, at a different time, but that's not what he is saying here....at least from what I am reading.

 

[saintsfan]

I think the dynasty term is also thrown out too much these days. I'm not sure the NFL has ever had a dynasty, unless you count the Browns of the 40's and 50's.To me, a dynasty should last, at least, over an entire decade. With that said, the 60's Celtics, 60's UCLA Bruins, 1920's through 1960's Yankees, and (not sure about the years) the Canadiens.Everything else is just a good run. This is not to minimize what the Pats have done. In this era of free agency, I find what they've done to be nothing short of amazing, but it doesn't yet deserve to be mentioned with the above teams which are true dynasties. If they appear in 4 more Super Bowls and win 2 or three of them in the next 5 or 6 years, we can start talking about the Pats as a dynasty.

 

[Serenity Now]

Every year the pats have won the SB they have done both or either1. Cheat

:rotflmao:

 

[rhawkins68]

Yep, anyone arguing it at this point is an idiot. congrats to the Pats and their fans, they are on one hell of a run.

See my post. They are DEFINITELY having a great run, but a team that is "great" of DYNASTIC proportions takes care of business all the way. missing the playoffs in 2002 undoes their claim.COlin

Colin, think long and hard. We know you don't like the Pat's, but you undermine your own credibility with statements like that. I respect a lot of what you write, but get over it. The cold hard facts are staring you in the face.

Agreed.

 

[Colin Dowling]

I think the dynasty term is also thrown out too much these days. I'm not sure the NFL has ever had a dynasty, unless you count the Browns of the 40's and 50's.To me, a dynasty should last, at least, over an entire decade. With that said, the 60's Celtics, 60's UCLA Bruins, 1920's through 1960's Yankees, and (not sure about the years) the Canadiens.Everything else is just a good run. This is not to minimize what the Pats have done. In this era of free agency, I find what they've done to be nothing short of amazing, but it doesn't yet deserve to be mentioned with the above teams which are true dynasties. If they appear in 4 more Super Bowls and win 2 or three of them in the next 5 or 6 years, we can start talking about the Pats as a dynasty.

More

 

[2190]

Did I miss something?? Why isn't Colin allowed to have his own opinion? It's clear that the term "dynasty" is overused. I think we can all agree on that. With that overuse, there come many many many different interpretations, definitions etc. It's clear to me that Colin simply has a higher standard to which he holds the term "dynasty". One of those requirements being the team in question needs to make the playoffs each year of their run. That doesn't seem like much to ask. Is he discounting all the things the Patriots have done? I haven't seen that. Patriot fans, you need to be confident enough in yourselves and your team to believe what you want and say "who cares what xxx thinks". You aren't going to change Colin's mind by insulting him. The only thing you are doing is making yourselves look foolish.....calling a person names because they disagree with you.....that's stuff I remember from first grade. Good grief!!!

Again, I think I posted this on page 2, how is the term Dynasty overused when it comes to the NFL? There have been 4 recognized Dynasties in the past 45 years.Packers 60'sSteelers 70's49ers 80'sCowboys 90'sI dont find that to be overuse. Miami of the early 70's was close. 3 straight Super Bowls including an undefeated season. Only won 2 Bowls, not qute a Dynasty.I think Bob Ryan is just using schtick. You can break out Websters all you want but we all know that there is a different definition of Dynasty in the NFL. Dominance over an extended period of time. Winning 3 SB's in 4 years is dominance over an extended period of time.If you want to basically say that there has never been a Dynasty in the NFL, fine, take that stance.However, I didnt see our friend Collin denouncing any of the above so-called Dynasties. He simply said that he didnt think the Pats measured up to the other teams.Collin is entitled to his opinion. The rest of the board is also entitled to call him on it and let him know that we think it is an idiotic opinion.Its nice of you (Wood) to try and come to his rescue but if you really believe there are no true Dynasties in the history of the NFL, it kind of makes the discussion of NFL history a little more boring.

 

[Jefferson the Caregiver]

I think the dynasty term is also thrown out too much these days. I'm not sure the NFL has ever had a dynasty, unless you count the Browns of the 40's and 50's.To me, a dynasty should last, at least, over an entire decade. With that said, the 60's Celtics, 60's UCLA Bruins, 1920's through 1960's Yankees, and (not sure about the years) the Canadiens.Everything else is just a good run. This is not to minimize what the Pats have done. In this era of free agency, I find what they've done to be nothing short of amazing, but it doesn't yet deserve to be mentioned with the above teams which are true dynasties. If they appear in 4 more Super Bowls and win 2 or three of them in the next 5 or 6 years, we can start talking about the Pats as a dynasty.

More

Sure, that's the difference between a well thought out post and a personal bias. Maybe you should have tried that route, it would have gone over a lot better.

 

[Macdaddy_2004]

Every year the pats have won the SB they have done both or either1. Cheat

:rotflmao:

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

 

[guderian]

Interesting dichotomy between this "dynasty" thread and the TO "legend" thread. TO doesn't have to win the game to be a "legend", but the Pats go 9-7 and miss the playoffs one year and that voids their invitation to the "dynasty" club? Also, the term "dynasty" is over-used yet we can call a guy a "legend" because he juiced up on pain killers and played a good game? I don't have a dog in this fight (not a Pats or an Eagles fan, but I don't particularly care for TO). The problem is that there is no common definition for a sports dynasty. In my mind a dynasty is a team that has an extended run of championships over a relatively contiguous time period. Going 9-7 and missing the playoffs, IMO doesn't void a team's membership to the dynasty club--maybe if they went 2-14 it would. In the salary cap, free agency era winning 3 championships in 4 years is a tremendous accomplishment. In my mind that accomplishment is more impressive then the spending created "dynasties" of the Cowboys and 49ers. So, if those are among the 4 benchmarks for being considered a dynasty (along with the Steelers and the Packers) then, IMO the Patriots are a dynasty.

 

[Jimmy James]

With this win, the Patriots join 6 other teams with at least three Super Bowl wins. There can be no dispute about that. The issue here is the use of the term dynasty. The Redskins aren't a dynasty even though they did an impressive thing by winning three Super Bowls with three almost totally different rosters. The Dolphins aren't a dynasty even though they own the league's only perfect season (at least in the modern era). In the modern era, I would argue that there are only 3 dynasties:Steelers49ersCowboysThe Cowboys did the very minimum that a team needs to do to become a dynasty if you ask me. The question in my mind is what exactly they did that constitutes being a dynasty. Is their NFC Championship game loss to the 49ers an essential part of that formula? Was it simply that they made the playoffs? To me, the Patriots are not a dynasty for the reason Colin raises. I don't think a year outside the playoffs always kills a dynasty, but I think a minimum of three straight championships or four years in the playoffs with three championships is what you need to have a dynasty. I think four championships in six years is the lowest standard that would support a season outside the playoffs. By labeling the Patriots a dynasty, you're heaping high praise on the team. That praise just doesn't seem justified when you consider that the 2002 version of the team went 6-7 against teams .500 and above and lost to the eventual division winner in week 16 of the season (so much for "coming on strong", Pats fans). They sat at home in favor of the lowly Browns. You're annointing a dynasty when the team was a less than even bet to beat a decent team one of the years it was supposedly a dynasty.Attack at will, Patriots fans. I don't like you anyway, and I'm getting sick of the media praise you get. None of that changes the rational approach I am taking when I evaluate where your team stands at this moment.

 

[[icon]]

My point is - The PATS don't scare me - I feel the right NFL coach would chew Belichek up

(ie Parcells)

:rotflmao: Poor kid.... doesn't even get it when the obvious was staring him in the face.

I've got a homework project for you, juniior:

1) How many titles did Parcells win with Bill as his right hand man?

2) How many has he won since?

3) How many has Bill won since leaving Parcells?

This will be graded.....

 

[Colin Dowling]

,Feb 7 2005, 03:42 PM]

My point is - The PATS don't scare me - I feel the right NFL coach would chew Belichek up

(ie Parcells)

:rotflmao: Poor kid.... doesn't even get it when the obvious was staring him in the face.

I've got a homework project for you, juniior:

1) How many titles did Parcells win with Bill as his right hand man?

2) How many has he won since?

3) How many has Bill won since leaving Parcells?

This will be graded.....

Agreed. People may think I'm an idiot because I'm disagreeable, but even I see it as patently WRONG to bark up the "Patriots cheat and Belichik sucks" tree.COlin

 

[Macdaddy_2004]

,Feb 7 2005, 10:42 AM]

My point is - The PATS don't scare me - I feel the right NFL coach would chew Belichek up

(ie Parcells)

:rotflmao: Poor kid.... doesn't even get it when the obvious was staring him in the face.

I've got a homework project for you, juniior:

1) How many titles did Parcells win with Bill as his right hand man?

2) How many has he won since?

3) How many has Bill won since leaving Parcells?

This will be graded.....

And how many championships has Belichek won with Crennel on his wing ???hmmmm food for thought PAT fans.

Just thought I would damper the party a bit.

LETS GO ROMEO!!!!

EDIT TO ADD:

Colin I don't think that the PATS SUCK I just think they have gotten the benefit of the doubt more than enough in crucial parts of "what defines a great team" one to many times

I'll give you the Tuck or the clutch and stab but not both.

 

[Colin Dowling]

,Feb 7 2005, 10:42 AM]

My point is - The PATS don't scare me - I feel the right NFL coach would chew Belichek up

(ie Parcells)

:rotflmao: Poor kid.... doesn't even get it when the obvious was staring him in the face.

I've got a homework project for you, juniior:

1) How many titles did Parcells win with Bill as his right hand man?

2) How many has he won since?

3) How many has Bill won since leaving Parcells?

This will be graded.....

And how many championships has Belichek won with Crennel on his wing ???hmmmm food for thought PAT fans.

Just thought I would damper the party a bit.

LETS GO ROMEO!!!!

Your logic is baffling. COlin