WaterMan Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 ....beat the Steelers and make it to the Superbowl and lose, will they still be thought of as a dynasty: with the records, past Superbowl wins, and stopping one of the best offenses in football? Or is it going to take another Superbowl win? Since some of the coaches below Bellicheck(sp?) are leaving, does this mark the end of the Patriots dynasty push no matter what happens in the next few weeks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 Pats are a very good team. Tough call on the dynasty thing. If they lose, probably not, unless they win next year making it 3 in 5. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vet Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 (edited) ....beat the Steelers and make it to the Superbowl and lose, will they still be thought of as a dynasty: with the records, past Superbowl wins, and stopping one of the best offenses in football? Or is it going to take another Superbowl win? Since some of the coaches below Bellicheck(sp?) are leaving, does this mark the end of the Patriots dynasty push no matter what happens in the next few weeks? 662744[/snapback] Interesting question. In my mind, they need another Superbowl win to be considered a "dynasty" along the lines of the 74-79 Steelers, the 85-89 49ers, or the 93-96 Cowboys (the only 3 teams I consider "dynasties" in pro football). If they don't get it this year, I wouldn't consider them a "dynasty", especially since they didn't even make the playoffs in 2002. Are the 1997-1998 Bronco teams considered a "dynasty"? Not in most of the conversations I've heard. I think you need 3 in a 5 year span to be considered a dynasty. That said, I don't consider this a make-or-break season for the Pats in terms of "dynastyism" - If they win it next year, I'd still consider the 2001-2005 Patriots to be a dynasty along the lines of those other great teams. But if they fell off the map next year - just another great team, not a dynasty. IMHO. Edited January 20, 2005 by Vet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skylive5 Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 (edited) If the coaches they hire continue to stay the course, and no one gets a swelled head thinking they are better than the rest of the team, I don't see why NE can't continue to be a very good, winning NFL team with visits to the PO's over the next couple or three years. Don't think that makes them a "Dynasty" type team unless they win a couple more SB's. Gotta be close though, especially in this day and age of FA. Edited January 20, 2005 by skylive5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menudo Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 If the coaches they hire continue to stay the course, and no one gets a swelled head thinking they are better than the rest of the team, I don't see why NE can't continue to be a very good, winning NFL team with visits to the PO's over the next couple or three years. 662774[/snapback] Good point. I actually think that the AFC is going to be tough grounds for the next few years. I know I am probably going against conventional wisdom, but with their youth and how solid they are at this point in their development, I expect the Steelers, Patriots, Colts, and Chargers to have a say in the next several AFC Championships. Obviously other teams will join them, but I like what these 4 teams have built. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vet Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 Good point. I actually think that the AFC is going to be tough grounds for the next few years. I know I am probably going against conventional wisdom, but with their youth and how solid they are at this point in their development, I expect the Steelers, Patriots, Colts, and Chargers to have a say in the next several AFC Championships. Obviously other teams will join them, but I like what these 4 teams have built. 662780[/snapback] The AFC East is going to be brutal next year. The Pats, Jets and Bills are all going to be very tough. And there ate 5 or 6 other very good AFC teams. It'll come down to injuries next year. He who stays healthy will win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menudo Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 True. I wasn't trying to discount the Jets or the Bills, just saying that the 4 teams that did the best in the AFC in the regular season really have built themselves a solid foundation and are young. The Bills and Jets, as well as a few others can certainly join that group. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 The Pats do not need to win a Superbowl this year to be considered a dynasty. In truth, I wouldn't consider them one if they did. What they need to do is sustain, continue to be in the playoff hunt for the next several years, and win another championship in that run down the line. Then they will be looked at as having done it for a long time, and as being an NFL Dynasty. In the meantime, I could care less about that. As long as the team focuses on playing well and winning, that's all I care about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menudo Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 The Pats do not need to win a Superbowl this year to be considered a dynasty. In truth, I wouldn't consider them one if they did. What they need to do is sustain, continue to be in the playoff hunt for the next several years, and win another championship in that run down the line. Then they will be looked at as having done it for a long time, and as being an NFL Dynasty. In the meantime, I could care less about that. As long as the team focuses on playing well and winning, that's all I care about. 662819[/snapback] Hey Nick, do you agree that the Pats should be at least 14+ favorites. I just don't get it, I mean these are the champs. Tom Brady and Bill Belichik don't lose. The Steelers have a ROOKIE QB ???? The fact that they are only 3 point favorites is appalling, do you think ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vet Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 Hey Nick, do you agree that the Pats should be at least 14+ favorites. I just don't get it, I mean these are the champs. Tom Brady and Bill Belichik don't lose. The Steelers have a ROOKIE QB ???? The fact that they are only 3 point favorites is appalling, do you think ? 662901[/snapback] "Help me Obi-Wan, you're our only hope..." Menudo - I think being the underdog is your greatest asset this week. No one expects you guys to win - so, maybe you will. Sometimes it's nice to be the underdog - especially on your home field. What are the local papers saying about your team, Cower, and the game? Is this game at all a referendum on Cower? Are the locals expacting a victory, or do you view yourselves as the lovable underdogs? I assume you expect a smashmouth kind of game, but do you have any tricks up your sleeves? Just interested in what the local press is saying about the game - I can tell you (and I'm sure you know) that the national press is pro-Patriot. I view this game as a toss-up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balzac Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 Even if they win the SB, I'm not sure they qualify as a "dynasty." 3 out of 4 years is awesome, but they've really only been good for 4 years . . . if they can stretch that out for another 2-3 years, then I think the D word would be appropriate. Losing Weis and RAC may make it difficult to keep up the championship ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donutrun Jellies Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 3 superbowl wins in five years is a minimum ... I like four in six as a definition of dynasty ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. Ryan Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 I heard someone on ESPn last night question if they were the best team of all time. If some think that, wouldnt Miami of this yr be better, since they beat the pats. These arguments are ludicrous. I personally think the 92-93 Cowboys are the best team of all time. Teams new the plays they were running on offense but couldnt stop it. The defense was ranked #1 in the NFL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pigskin Junkie Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 (edited) "Help me Obi-Wan, you're our only hope..." Menudo - I think being the underdog is your greatest asset this week. No one expects you guys to win - so, maybe you will. Sometimes it's nice to be the underdog - especially on your home field. What are the local papers saying about your team, Cower, and the game? Is this game at all a referendum on Cower? Are the locals expacting a victory, or do you view yourselves as the lovable underdogs? I assume you expect a smashmouth kind of game, but do you have any tricks up your sleeves? Just interested in what the local press is saying about the game - I can tell you (and I'm sure you know) that the national press is pro-Patriot. I view this game as a toss-up. 662952[/snapback] Vet, I listen to quite a variety and it seems that the local press feels much the same as i have seen on here from Menudo. They are pretty optimistic and are predicting the Steelers to win, however, it will be won-loss in the trenches and it is not a sure fire thing. Have not heard of any tricks or rumors about tricks. I did hear one radio show that has stated that Randel El may be a factor since Brandon Stokely was the most open receiver in the Indy Pat/game. We also hear the national press interviews and commentaries, so of course I know that they are Pro-Patriot. (would you have thought that they would be anything else?) Edited January 20, 2005 by Pigskin Junkie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czarina Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 I think Nick is right on. They don't need to have x number of SB rings in y number of years to qualify. However, I do think that they need to maintain top level quality for a long span of time 5 years or more, to qualify. So if at the end of 5 years they've got their 2 super bowl championships along with a couple trips at least 2 games deep into the playoffs, maybe a trip to the SB but not a win...then IMO they will be regarded as a dynasty down the road. Thing about history is you need some distance from it before you can really decide. What could make them a dynasty can't really be judged while it's happening. A lot of what counts is what the other teams are doing too. The AFC is a tough place nowadays and getting tougher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patsfan04 Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 (edited) I heard someone on ESPn last night question if they were the best team of all time. If some think that, wouldnt Miami of this yr be better, since they beat the pats. These arguments are ludicrous. I personally think the 92-93 Cowboys are the best team of all time. Teams new the plays they were running on offense but couldnt stop it. The defense was ranked #1 in the NFL. 663030[/snapback] Also heard on ESPN is that in an age where the league is striving for parody, that it is hard to argue that the Pats wouldn't be a dynasty even if they didn't win the SB. The league is set up for each team to be 8-8, the fact that a team can be in 3 of the last 4 Superbowls in this day and age is a great achievement. The Miami argument is the stupidest thing I have ever heard (well, OU beating USC and "Indy is going to trash the Pats" in NE are up there as well). Your 92 Cowboys lost to the 6-10 LA Rams. How can that team be the best of all time if they lost to a 6-10 team? Drop the Miami arguement because you look like an a$$clown. The Patriots are 32-4 including playoffs over the last 2 years, and IF they do win it this year, it will be one of the best 2 year periods ever. Edited January 20, 2005 by Patsfan04 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vet Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 I think Nick is right on. They don't need to have x number of SB rings in y number of years to qualify. However, I do think that they need to maintain top level quality for a long span of time 5 years or more, to qualify. So if at the end of 5 years they've got their 2 super bowl championships along with a couple trips at least 2 games deep into the playoffs, maybe a trip to the SB but not a win...then IMO they will be regarded as a dynasty down the road. Thing about history is you need some distance from it before you can really decide. What could make them a dynasty can't really be judged while it's happening. A lot of what counts is what the other teams are doing too. The AFC is a tough place nowadays and getting tougher. 663035[/snapback] I respectfully disagree. Two Superbowls and a couple of trips 2 games deep in the playoffs does not a dynasty make, IMO. You need 3 rings to distinguish yourselves from the 72-73 Dolphins and the 97-98 Broncos. These teams are widely recognized as great teams, but not dynasties. Heck - the Redskins won two in 4 years (87 and 91 seasons), but do we consider them a "dynasty"? Hardly. Right now, the Pats are in the class of the Dolphins, Broncos and Redskins - very nice company for sure, but not quite "dynasty" status. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 I respectfully disagree. Two Superbowls and a couple of trips 2 games deep in the playoffs does not a dynasty make, IMO. You need 3 rings to distinguish yourselves from the 72-73 Dolphins and the 97-98 Broncos. These teams are widely recognized as great teams, but not dynasties. Heck - the Redskins won two in 4 years (87 and 91 seasons), but do we consider them a "dynasty"? Hardly. Right now, the Pats are in the class of the Dolphins, Broncos and Redskins - very nice company for sure, but not quite "dynasty" status. 663148[/snapback] Gotta agree with Vet here. I know it's cliche', but with the "parity" in the league right now, winning a couple of Super Bowls in a 3-5 year span isn't reason enough to dub a team a "dynasty". Kinda like the "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me" thing... win 2 Super Bowls in a 3-5 year span, OK, they're a good team, things fell into place. But win 3 in that span, and remain competitive, make the playoffs, make a ton of noise...??? Yeah, you gotta consider that a dynasty, especially in this day and age of increasing parity and free agency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever in debt to mo lewis Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 Also heard on ESPN is that in an age where the league is striving for parody, that it is hard to argue that the Pats wouldn't be a dynasty even if they didn't win the SB. The league is set up for each team to be 8-8, the fact that a team can be in 3 of the last 4 Superbowls in this day and age is a great achievement. The Miami argument is the stupidest thing I have ever heard (well, OU beating USC and "Indy is going to trash the Pats" in NE are up there as well). Your 92 Cowboys lost to the 6-10 LA Rams. How can that team be the best of all time if they lost to a 6-10 team? Drop the Miami arguement because you look like an a$$clown. The Patriots are 32-4 including playoffs over the last 2 years, and IF they do win it this year, it will be one of the best 2 year periods ever. 663063[/snapback] yeah Chris Mortensen has a nice article on Insider about the Pats..about them already being one of the greatest teams ever, even if they were to lose this Sunday..Ill try and post it later but yeah Im glad you chimed in about the Miami argument..because I was going to...ridiculous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 Gotta agree with Vet here. I know it's cliche', but with the "parity" in the league right now, winning a couple of Super Bowls in a 3-5 year span isn't reason enough to dub a team a "dynasty". Kinda like the "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me" thing... win 2 Super Bowls in a 3-5 year span, OK, they're a good team, things fell into place. But win 3 in that span, and remain competitive, make the playoffs, make a ton of noise...??? Yeah, you gotta consider that a dynasty, especially in this day and age of increasing parity and free agency. 663152[/snapback] No sooner do I drop the "parity" word into this discussion, I read this article: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story...ons/daily/email As much as I love Simmons (I literally laugh out loud daily reading his stuff), he is starting to make Yankee fan look tolerable. SHUT UP. You won the Series. You've won Super Bowls. You have a good chance again this year. QUIT WHINING. And for the record, when I was discussing parity, I was referring to the general sense of the "middle of the road teams" beating up on each other so much that they have only a small chance of beating the real good teams (like the Patriots). Add to it the fact that we've seen teams like the Rams (good God), the Titans (cough), Green Bay (Favre), Carolina (???) and the Patriots in the biggest game on Earth the past several years. This season, I can honestly say that I didn't think the Steelers would go 14-2 and make it this far... ESPECIALLY with a rookie QB at the helm. Bet y'all didn't think the Mike Vick Show would do this well, either. But of course, we see the Patriots and Eagles coming this far. That was at least semi-expected by most. So 2 teams that we had a good idea would be here, and 2 that are somewhat of a surprise. THAT, in effect, people, is parity. Word. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Trick Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 I heard someone on ESPn last night question if they were the best team of all time. If some think that, wouldnt Miami of this yr be better, since they beat the pats. These arguments are ludicrous. I personally think the 92-93 Cowboys are the best team of all time. Teams new the plays they were running on offense but couldnt stop it. The defense was ranked #1 in the NFL. 663030[/snapback] Sgt Ryan thinks one of his teams is the best of all time :bigshock: Now's theres a big shocker! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWPFFL BrianW Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 3 Championships from 01-04. That would be very impressive no doubt, but I don't think it makes you a dynasty... yet. Suppose they win this year, bow out in the playoffs the next 2 years, and come back and win it again, with that 4th title in a span of a decade like the Steelers and Niners. Then again, we consider the Cowboys of the 90's a dynasty, (at least I do) and the Patriots would have done the same thing they did. It all depends mainly on what ESPN (and the rest of the sports media) says I suppose. If ESPN says its a dynasty, then it's a dynasty in the eyes of most casual fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.