Can the Pats now be called an "Official Dynasty"?

[McBoog]

Dare we say… “Dynasty”?

 

After the Pats Super Bowl victory, their third in four years, I for one think we can clearly now call them a “Dynasty”.

 

When looking at the environment of free agency, parity and profit sharing, that organization seems to have their proverbial exctrement together, top to bottom.

 

I think that their appearance would have qualified them alone with a good showing in the game. They won the game playing football the way they always play. I do think that they dodged a bullet in this game and got very lucky with the way the game unfolded.

 

“Catch rag” Pats fans will not see it this way, but here are McBoog’s five takes on the game.

 

1. The Eagles DOMINATED the first half. Anyone that was fairly neutral had to be wondering if the Patriots were EVER going to see a possession of more than three minutes about half way through the 2nd quarter.

 

2. The Eagles killed themselves in the first half. Forget all the second guessing of coulda, woulda, shoulda, in the fourth quarter. Mistakes made by the Eagles, in the red zone, in the first half, drained 9 points or more off the scoreboard. In a three point game… you do the math.

 

3. The argument that the Patriots “forced” those mistakes can be made, but, they are still mistakes made by the Eagles. McNabb and crew looked a little “too excited” at times and were missing some nice opportunities. The Pats were “takable” and were not anywhere near the solid, methodical club I have been watching all year. Reid had a good game plan, and the players just did not execute.

 

4. Sometimes I’d rather be lucky than good. Lady Luck is a sweetheart that smiles on good teams when they are not having their best days. I don’t think the Pats were having one of their better games.

 

5. Something had to give. You dominate a team the way you did in the first half and walk into the locker room with a 7-7 tie, it screws with your brain. You feel like you should just “keep doin’ what you’re doin’ “, but you then also wonder if it is the right thing. The Pats went in and made adjustments, gave a fresh look and a couple of twists and caught the Eagles flat-footed. We have seen this scenario many times before. Had the Eagle scored a FG and a TD and gone in with a 6 to 10 point lead. This game is very different in the fourth quarter. This game was like watching two mini-Super Bowls, the first half and the second half.

 

I watched this game without the luxury of hearing much if any of it. My 2 ½ year old twins were really on a roll, so I only got to watch the game (every play though) out of the corner of my eye. I still have not had time to read an article or see a show recapping the game, so if I am repeating what an “expert” says, it is unintentional.

 

Freebee take #6. Rodney Harrison should have won the MVP!

[Chargerz]

I think we can safely use the "D" word!!!

[whotz]

there's not much u can argue about. 3 Super Bowl titles in 4 years, that about sums it up!

[DemonKnight]

Just look what they did with Corey Dillon.

 

689395[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I dont understand why people keep saying this. Corey Dillon has been a great RB since hes been in the league, just on a crappy team. He had a bad attitude cause he was doing so well and still not winning, wouldent you be pissed?

[Squeegiebo]

3 Superbowls in 4 years and a salary cap. Although I don't like the word "dynasty," I had to vote for #1, as much as it pains me.

 

Just because I acknowledge their greatness doesn't mean I have to like them. 'Cause I don't.

[Jrick35]

What Mr.'s Kraft and Belichick have done and are still doing in New England is nothing short of incredible.

 

And it was not even supposed to be possible in the Free Agency era.

 

And if they can find a young RB within the next year or so to replace Dillon, since he will be 31 before the end of next season, they can stay good for a few more years, as they are young and have managed to keep some wriggle room under the cap.

 

They are definaitely a Dynasty.

 

Enjoy this time Pats fans.

[darin3]

I'm undecided. It's hard to use the "D" word in ANY sport these days, because things are honestly very different. I probably could have voted for "modern dynasty", though. A serious run in the playoffs next year all but cements that, for sure.

[Hugh 0ne]

The only thing that I can come up with that might at least give you something to argue that they're not a dynasty is the fact that they didn't even make the playoffs in the year in between.

[NAUgrad]

What Mr.'s Kraft and Belichick have done and are still doing in New England is nothing short of incredible.

 

And it was not even supposed to be possible in the Free Agency era.

 

And if they can find a young RB within the next year or so to replace Dillon, since he will be 31 before the end of next season, they can stay good for a few more years, as they are young and have managed to keep some wriggle room under the cap.

 

They are definaitely a Dynasty.

 

Enjoy this time Pats fans.

 

689434[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

This sums it up well. Free Agency period Dynasty not doubt. Just not as dominant as past dynasties IMO.

[jgcoach]

I went with modern dynasty. Not as dominant as past teams but definitely a dynasty for their time.

[Selly]

I went with modern dynasty, they are the best team of the past few seasons. the real test will be when all these guys that have won 3 Super Bowl titles in 4 years want to get PAID. They can't cut them all and all of them won't drink Big Bill's Kool-Aid. When they pay the 1st one what he wants, the avalanche will start from the others. How they handle that situation will determine if they are truly one of the "all-time greats"

[godtomsatan]

90s Cowboys, 80s 49ers, 70s Steelers, 60s Packers...

 

The only thing I don't get about these Pats is, other than Brady, who are the stars? Those other clubs, every one of us could easily rattle off 3 names on both sides of the ball.

 

Of the Pats who have been there for the duration of the "dynasty", other than Brady, is there a HOFer in the bunch?

[Vet]

The Ming Dynasty lasted 276 years.

 

I don't remember anyone bringing up the "D-word" until around year 185. So, on that basis, I'd say the Patriots have a ways to go.

[soopanuts]

I am undecided bc I think this year will be an interesting test w/o Charlie and Romeo.

[lobsterclaw]

The Ming Dynasty lasted 276 years.

 

I don't remember anyone bringing up the "D-word" until around year 185.  So, on that basis, I'd say the Patriots have a ways to go.

 

689660[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

You are one funny guy.

[TimC]

90s Cowboys, 80s 49ers, 70s Steelers, 60s Packers...

 

689645[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

The difference is every one of these teams would absolutely crush the Pats.

[rocknrobn26]

Sorry, I voted the last option. A true dynasty is a myth. Yes, NE has a great team, and yes they won 3 out of 4 SB's. But the tide will turn, and a new team will take over. Such is the NFL! JMHO!

[sunysteelfly76]

I am undecided bc I think this year will be an interesting test w/o Charlie and Romeo.

 

689800[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I'd call them a modern day dynasty. I also think the dynasty will be over with these two leaving.

[BS Miscreant]

The only thing that I can come up with that might at least give you something to argue that they're not a dynasty is the fact that they didn't even make the playoffs in the year in between.

 

689451[/snapback]

 

 

 

I voted "still undecided" due to how different things are now. Thing is i really agree with Hugh on this one but I'll add some additonal info to help you understand my position.

 

dynasty - a powerful group or family that maintains its position for a considerable time

 

With the whole (missing the playoffs in the middle) thing hanging over their heads, it's a bit difficult to justify "maintains its position for a considerable time". I'm a Dallas fan and I have a difficult time putting the dynasty label on their 90s run for this very reason. Hell, the Cowboys were even in the NFC championship game that third year and if not for 2 early tunovers and spotting the Niners 14pts, they'd probably have won 4 in a row. That would have been a dynasty.

[SuperBalla]

The thing that keeps coming up in my mind is the fact that I can't think of a team that could have beat them...sure anyone can beat anybody however Bellichek virtually makes that impossible. He always calls a flawless game.

 

Dillon made a huge difference but he was coupled with Faulk who could start on atleast 7 teams. Their wide-outs were not extrordinary but great athletes that respected the coaches and Brady. All of the top tier wide-outs in the league are more of a dragging anchor to their teams than they are helpful...Moss, T.O., C. J.

 

The reason I find this the Patties arguably the best ever is the fact that they have a sound and careful offense and their defense is crushing. No offense in the league had their ticket. Many of us here know more than the average Joe about Football and most of us thought Harrison should have been the MVP. Think about if Ty Law would have been healthy . Bruschi, Vrabel, McGinest, J. Green are pure badarsses and I think that they deserve the title dynasty!

[Donutrun Jellies]

I voted for #1. 

 

They might not be as powerful or talented as the other dynasties.

 

However, you invoked the word "team" and they embody that word.  Just look what they did with Corey Dillon.

 

689395[/snapback]

 

 

 

I agree ... May not be my Steeeelers of the 70s, but they are impressive -- especially as a role model for "team" ... Bravo.

[WaterMan]

I voted for #1. 

 

They might not be as powerful or talented as the other dynasties.

 

However, you invoked the word "team" and they embody that word.  Just look what they did with Corey Dillon.

 

689395[/snapback]

 

 

 

I agree with that and they stopped Manning cold in the post season after his 49 TD season without some of their best players.

Edited February 9, 2005 by WaterMan

[Piranha]

I say not yet.

My reason for this is simple.

They win 3 superbowls in 4 years, truly a great feat

by any NFL standards.

 

But that one year they didn't win,

they didn't even make the playoffs. So, again, by NFL standards,

couldn't have played very well that year.

 

Which would mean that Dallas' run in the early 90's would

be more of a Dynasty than the current Pats.

 

Keep in mind, all 3 superbowls, the Pats have won by 3 points. Every one.

So they are not exactly blowing anyone out either.

Edited February 9, 2005 by Piranha

[Bill Swerski]

I'm sick of watching them win all the time, but one has to give credit where credit is due. They're certainly a dynasty. Maybe not the greatest dynasty ever but if they win another SB within the next two years, they might be that as well. What's especially impressive is that they're doing this in the age of the salary cap and have won despite losing studs either permanently or temporarily (e.g., Lawyer Milloy and Ty Law, respectively).

 

And at this point, Belichick has cemented his place in NFL history among the likes of Bill Walsh and Chuck Noll.

[Caveman_Nick]

The difference is every one of these teams would absolutely crush the Pats.

 

689966[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

That's a silly thing to say. If you objectively look at the sheer size and speed of the players in 2004 as opposed to 10, let alone 20 years ago, it's easy to conclude that a very good team today has a big advantage in sheer athleticism. I think the Pats would also have an edge in coaching and philosophy, as well as having purposefully crafted a roster based on intelligence and mindset. Schemes within the game have been developed significantly as well, and are in many ways superior to what they were during those eras.

 

If it was something that could be measured, I would take this team against any of those teams and expect to win handily.