T-Scorp Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 First let me say I am not a fan of NE, but I am a football fan and can put my "homerism" aside for a few moments. With the fact that they have won 2 out of the past three SB's and could win 3 out of 4 is it too early to consider them a dynasty? They can accomplish what Dallas did in the 90's IF they defeat the Eagles in two weeks. In this age of free agents and high profile players what NE has done is incredible! (yes they did get some breaks during their run...the "tuck", Kasay's bad kick, etc.. but so did most championship teams...the "immaculate reception") I could be wrong but aren't they 56-16 over the last 4 years (including 8-0 in the playoffs)? In this day and age that is incredible! Only Philly with a record of 54-19 (including a playoff record of 6-3) come close over the past 4 years. And they didn't win 2 Superbowls!) They may not be as good a team as the Packers of the 60's, the 70's Steelers, the 49ers of the 80's or even the 90's Cowboys (the NFL is a little more watered down with 32 teams) but they deserve to be ranked up there with the great championship teams in NFL history. My hope is that if the Vikings do get a new owner they can accomplish half of what the NE franchise has. Just some thoughts from a jealous Vikings fan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pork chop express Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Regardless of who your team is, you must put NE up there as dynasty if they can win the Super Bowl. The organization is the NFL's pinnacle. They play the game the right way and are the ultimate team. They are not flashy, they are merely effective. I actually like their players individually and am pulling for them as opposed to the Eagles. I don't think that I can handle the Eagle fans if they win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 They have to win February 6. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uglytuna Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 If they win next Sunday and they should blow out the Eagles they are a DYNASTY! With the Salary Cap Era you may never see another one again! Ugly Tuna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MustOfBeenDrunk Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 all ready a dynasty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bier Meister Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 their making the afc champ game made them a dynasty in my eyes (only because they have aready won 2 sb's) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 I think they are a dynasty from their past accomplishments, holding Peyton to 3 points, and all the records set this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. Ryan Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 hmm. What happened yr 2 of this so called Dynasty. This team didnt even sniff the playoffs. This isn't a Dynasty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeegiebo Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 To me, dynasty implies consistent greateness over a period of time. Certainly 3 rings in 4 years would be impressive. But, then again, they didn't even make the playoiffs the other year. Eagles made it to the NFC Championship 4 years in a row. To me, that is nearly, if not just, as impressive a feat in this day and age. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Scorp Posted January 24, 2005 Author Share Posted January 24, 2005 To me, dynasty implies consistent greateness over a period of time. Certainly 3 rings in 4 years would be impressive. But, then again, they didn't even make the playoiffs the other year. Eagles made it to the NFC Championship 4 years in a row. To me, that is nearly, if not just, as impressive a feat in this day and age. 669751[/snapback] I see your point Sqeegiebo, however, by that standard the Buffalo Bills could be considered a dynasty as they went to 4 SuperBowls in a row in the 90's. They lost all 4 but they are still the only team to appear in 4 straight superbowls. The Vikings also were a great team in the 70's , appearing in 3 superbowls in 4 years, but they too failed to win the Big One. Neither are considered as a dynasty. My feeling is that to be a Dynasty you need to win the superbowl multiple times in a short period of time. If the Patriots win in Jax, they have to be considered a dynasty. Granted they had an off year in 2002 but even with that down year they still have the best winning percentage over the last 4 years. Throw in their record 21 game winning streak and their opportunity to go 9-0 in playoffs over 3 years... NE fans are spoiled!! AND they could be just as good next year! GOD help me I sound like a UT clone!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgcoach Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 If they win this year I think they would have to be considered a dynasty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeegiebo Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 I see your point Sqeegiebo, however, by that standard the Buffalo Bills could be considered a dynasty as they went to 4 SuperBowls in a row in the 90's. They lost all 4 but they are still the only team to appear in 4 straight superbowls. The Vikings also were a great team in the 70's , appearing in 3 superbowls in 4 years, but they too failed to win the Big One. Neither are considered as a dynasty. 669925[/snapback] I do not like this word dynasty. There is too little consensus over its definition, and I think, like "diva" in music these days, the term is bandied about far too often. It is way too soon to tell what the legacy of this Patriots team will be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vet Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 (edited) I consider 3 championships and at least 4 playoff appearances in 5 years to be a "dynasty". So, by my own definition, the Pats have to win either this year or next year to capture "dynasty" status. Of course, that's just one man's humble opinion. Edited January 24, 2005 by Vet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampnuts Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 This year aside (because they should win in Jax)... If they can come back strong again next year without Weis and Crennell then you could officially give em the dynasty tag. Then Belichick will be the "Yoda" of the league Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Scorp Posted January 24, 2005 Author Share Posted January 24, 2005 I guess I understand your aversion to the word "Dynasty". Maybe a better way to put it would be where will this Patriots team be ranked amoung the elite teams of the NFL in any given decade. Packers in the 60's Steelers in the 70's 49ers in the 80's Cowboys in the 90's ???? in the 00's (Patriots have the edge so far but we still have half a decade to go!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chargerz Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 If they win this year I think they would have to be considered a dynasty. 669956[/snapback] Yep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Sacrebleu Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 hmm. What happened yr 2 of this so called Dynasty. This team didnt even sniff the playoffs. This isn't a Dynasty. 669708[/snapback] Didn't they go 9-7 and miss getting in to the playoffs on some weird tiebreak (which bizarrely had the Browns going)? Or am I remembering this wrong? It's not like they went 6-10 In this age of parity and salary cap, 2 superbowl titles, and 1 superbowl appearance should be enough to be considered a dynasty, but for the storyline when people will be comparing eras of football, I think the Pats have to win this one to be considered a bona fide dynasty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 their making the afc champ game made them a dynasty in my eyes (only because they have aready won 2 sb's) 669648[/snapback] darn close and the way it looks wis it will continue.... if and only if loosing the coaches doesnt harm anything Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigrocks Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 As of now, the Pats have won 2 SBs. That puts them in the same company as the 97-98 Broncos -- i.e. not a dynasty. If they win in 2 weeks, that makes 3 SBs in 4 years and puts them in the same company as the early 90's Cowboys -- i.e. not a dynasty, but worthy of 'team of the decade' status. Dynasties are teams such as the Steelers and 49ers. Four or more SB wins over 5, 6, 7 years. That is a dynasty. If the Pats accomplish that, then we can talk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czarina Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 I hate all this dynasty talk. I think it's stupid. I don't think you can properly judge these things while they're happening. If we can look back 10 years from now and see the other teams were able to put together runs of good/great teams given salary cap/parity, etc., then no. But who knows? And more to the point, who cares? They're a great team right now and I'm enjoying it. Now on the other hand Squeege, to say that what the Eagles have done in any way equals what the Pats have done is just ridiculous and you know it. It took them 4 tries just to win the NFC championship game. The year the Pats didn't make the playoffs they weren't that great, but I do believe they only missed out on getting to the playoffs by a tie breaker because the AFC east was so tightly packed that year. The AFC is by far the tougher conference right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeegiebo Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Now on the other hand Squeege, to say that what the Eagles have done in any way equals what the Pats have done is just ridiculous and you know it. It took them 4 tries just to win the NFC championship game. 670110[/snapback] But they got there 4 straight times. That in itself is impressive. dy·nas·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dn-st)n. pl. dy·nas·ties A succession of rulers from the same family or line. A family or group that maintains power for several generations: a political dynasty controlling the state Eagles have maintained their position in the NFC for 4 straight years. Pats have been up and down. Dynasty = successive maintenance of power. Pats are no dynasty. Yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeegiebo Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 You want to talk about an actual dynasty? UCLA had a dynasty in college basketball. That is a freaking dynasty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSab Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 To me, dynasty implies consistent greateness over a period of time. Certainly 3 rings in 4 years would be impressive. But, then again, they didn't even make the playoiffs the other year. Eagles made it to the NFC Championship 4 years in a row. To me, that is nearly, if not just, as impressive a feat in this day and age. 669751[/snapback] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Random Guy Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 I used to love watching Dynasty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skrappy1 Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 all ready a dynasty 669605[/snapback] I'd agree...only I'd spell already right. 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.