PDA

View Full Version : Dynasty


sublime
02-06-2005, 11:18 PM
sure, this team doesnt look as dominant as some of the "classic" dynastys but in the era of free agency this team is just as impressive as the other ones (pitt/gb/dalls/sf etc)

Dynasty
02-06-2005, 11:22 PM
Dynasty moves to Las Vegas.

Patriots win 3 Super Bowls

Red Sox break curse and win World Series.

Coincidence?

craig r
02-06-2005, 11:24 PM
It is obviously NOT a coincidence.

craig

Michael Davis
02-06-2005, 11:25 PM
There was an earthquake and a snowstorm in LA today.

-Michael

nolanfan34
02-07-2005, 12:47 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Dynasty moves to Las Vegas.

Patriots win 3 Super Bowls

Red Sox break curse and win World Series.

Coincidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

If there's a way to convince you to move to Seattle for a while, then move back to Las Vegas, let me know.

pshreck
02-07-2005, 01:07 AM
They are a new-age dynasty, but not doing too well 2 years ago is what sets them apart from historical dynasties.

istewart
02-07-2005, 01:10 AM
Eh, not really. The Yankees didn't make the World Series in 1997 either. Still an great team from that year. The Indians were stacked.

sublime
02-07-2005, 01:32 AM
They are a new-age dynasty, but not doing too well 2 years ago is what sets them apart from historical dynasties.

doesnt the win streak make up for that? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

TimTimSalabim
02-07-2005, 01:33 AM
The Pats have won all three SBs by a mere field goal. And one SB they only played in because of a bad call in a previous game. Hardly a dynasty in my book.

sublime
02-07-2005, 01:36 AM
The Pats have won all three SBs by a mere field goal. And one SB they only played in because of a bad call in a previous game. Hardly a dynasty in my book.

lmao!

well, i guess its good that your book means nothing to anybody else.

lol, only won 3 SB's by a FG each (i am shaking my head right now)

TimTimSalabim
02-07-2005, 01:37 AM
Ok, my memory is bad, never mind. They lost that other game because of a bad call. I'm getting old. But I still think the margins of victory count for something.

sublime
02-07-2005, 01:39 AM
But I still think the margins of victory count for something.

in theory, the last game of the season SHOULD be close.

if anything, the fact that they ONLY won by 3 strengthens thier case for being a modern day dynasty. do you see why?

tech
02-07-2005, 01:42 AM
Personally I think they are the most well-run organization in the history of the NFL, from top-to-bottom. And it's not close.

With that said, I think they would get pasted by the other teams on that list. I don't say that because of anything against the Pats. I just think the teams in the era before the salary cap and free agency had much greater concentrations of talent.

Dynasty
02-07-2005, 01:43 AM
[ QUOTE ]
But I still think the margins of victory count for something.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah. Dynasties are all about winning the championship. Nothing else matters. Winning division titles, making it to conference championship, or finishing 0-16 are irrelevent. If you win X number of championships in Y number of years, you are a dynasty. In football, 3 championships in 4 years has been extremely difficult to achieve. So, I think that's the test.

Perhaps you could say the Patriots are a weak dynasty. But, that's about it.

TimTimSalabim
02-07-2005, 01:44 AM
[ QUOTE ]
But I still think the margins of victory count for something.

in theory, the last game of the season SHOULD be close.

if anything, the fact that they ONLY won by 3 strengthens thier case for being a modern day dynasty. do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't. It means that the games were close enough that they could just as easily be 0-3 instead of 3-0, save for a lucky break here and there. Whereas if they had won each game by 20 points, you couldn't make that argument. This is not a dynasty, even by "modern" standards.

pshreck
02-07-2005, 01:45 AM
Margin has nothing to do with it. If it did, you could make a claim that this team is even better because they can win the close ones.

My problem with this dynasty is that after not making the Superbowl 2 years ago, talks of the dynasty should have never begun the next year. If anything, the Pats are a dynasty for winning 2 of 2 and the streak. If they win next year, it will be a guaranteed dynasty. This winning 3 of 4 thing always seems a bit weird, since they don't even have the AFC championship in the 2nd years.

sublime
02-07-2005, 01:46 AM
With that said, I think they would get pasted by the other teams on that list. I don't say that because of anything against the Pats. I just think the teams in the era before the salary cap and free agency had much greater concentrations of talent

i agree

BottlesOf
02-07-2005, 01:46 AM
I don't know that I consider NE a dynasty yet. 3 championships in 4 years... I feel like Dynasties need to endure longer, for me anyway. Not to say that what they've accomplished isn't amazingly impressive. They've won like 32 of their last 34 games? That may be more impressive than some dynasties. If they win next year, they will have achieved dynastyu status in my humble opinion.

Popinjay
02-07-2005, 01:46 AM
It doesn't matter if you win by an inch or a mile; winning's winning.

sublime
02-07-2005, 01:47 AM
No, I don't. It means that the games were close enough that they could just as easily be 0-3 instead of 3-0, save for a lucky break here and there. Whereas if they had won each game by 20 points, you couldn't make that argument. This is not a dynasty, even by "modern" standards.

what standards are those?

please, enlighten us.

pshreck
02-07-2005, 01:50 AM
[ QUOTE ]
No, I don't. It means that the games were close enough that they could just as easily be 0-3 instead of 3-0, save for a lucky break here and there. Whereas if they had won each game by 20 points, you couldn't make that argument. This is not a dynasty, even by "modern" standards.

what standards are those?

please, enlighten us.

[/ QUOTE ]

He means that sports dynasties are changing now because of the modernization of sports... aka making it very tough to keep a solid group of players together. They play good and they are worth more, and the team can't afford them. So, people are lowering their standards of the length of a dynasty for one, and what defines one. Again, remember 2 seasons ago the Patriots were no wear NEAR a dynasty. It seems weird that they could become one from that point in 2 seasons.

sublime
02-07-2005, 01:54 AM
He means that sports dynasties are changing now because of the modernization of sports... aka making it very tough to keep a solid group of players together. They play good and they are worth more, and the team can't afford them

which would make it easier to become a dynasty.

Again, remember 2 seasons ago the Patriots were no wear NEAR a dynasty. It seems weird that they could become one from that point in 2 seasons.

over the past 4 years, they have the best record in football (i am pretty sure) broke the record for most consecutive wins by a team and won 3/4 of the super bowls.

ummmm, duuh?

pshreck
02-07-2005, 01:57 AM
Look, I know you are from Boston, but it is far from "Duh" status. The question will be discussed throughout the next year, but I think it will be decided this next season.

I think that a dynasty has to be questioned and discussed for years and years before it is established. Like I said, there was no discussion whatsoever until really the Superbowl last year. I think if they win a third consecutive superbowl, then its a dynasty, but I am not sure about it now.

sublime
02-07-2005, 01:59 AM
think if they win a third consecutive superbowl, then its a dynasty, but I am not sure about it now.

how many NFL teams have won 3 consecutive SB's?

how many have won 3/4?

TimTimSalabim
02-07-2005, 02:00 AM
The Pats are nowhere near as dominant as say, the Lakers were a few years ago. They weren't even a prohibitive favorite in tonight's game, only 7 points, and they didn't even cover that.

sublime
02-07-2005, 02:01 AM
The Pats are nowhere near as dominant as say, the Lakers were a few years ago

the NBA and NFL are two different sports. history has shown that it is much harder to win multiple championships in a given period in the NFL than in the NBA.

why do i get myself in these conversations?

goodnight

ugggh

sfer
02-07-2005, 02:02 AM
They are, that is clear--anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves. They are clearly the team to beat in the NFL.

The interesting question is how they stack up against the great historical teams.

Dynasty
02-07-2005, 02:02 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The Pats are nowhere near as dominant as say, the Lakers were a few years ago. They weren't even a prohibitive favorite in tonight's game, only 7 points, and they didn't even cover that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whether or not a football team covers the gambling spread should not be a factor.

pshreck
02-07-2005, 02:03 AM
[ QUOTE ]
think if they win a third consecutive superbowl, then its a dynasty, but I am not sure about it now.

how many NFL teams have won 3 consecutive SB's?

how many have won 3/4?

[/ QUOTE ]

how many are clearly defined dynasties?

sublime
02-07-2005, 02:04 AM
Whether or not a football team covers the gambling spread should not be a factor.

have i not told you before to leave logic out of these debates? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

TimTimSalabim
02-07-2005, 02:07 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Pats are nowhere near as dominant as say, the Lakers were a few years ago. They weren't even a prohibitive favorite in tonight's game, only 7 points, and they didn't even cover that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whether or not a football team covers the gambling spread should not be a factor.

[/ QUOTE ]

It shows that they underperformed according to the public's expectations, a public that clearly did not consider them dominant in the first place, or they would have been favored by more.

sublime
02-07-2005, 02:08 AM
how many are clearly defined dynasties?

ummm, by your standars probably none of them.

no team in NFL HISTORY has won 3 in a row. and only one other team (dalls) has won 3 out of 4.

sfer hit the nail on the head. they are a MODERN dat NFL dynasty. could they beat the powerhouses of even a decade ago? probably not, but that doesnt subtract what they have accomplished.

sublime
02-07-2005, 02:10 AM
public's expectations

yeah, cuz the public is so smart.
/images/graemlins/confused.gif

TimTimSalabim
02-07-2005, 02:10 AM
[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't matter if you win by an inch or a mile; winning's winning.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the Lakers had won each of their championships in the seventh game of the series on a last second field goal, I don't think they would have been considered a dynasty. The dynasty came from their absolute dominance of their opposition. Dynasty = dominance, not just winning.

sublime
02-07-2005, 02:12 AM
Dynasty = dominance, not just winning

lol, this just keeps getting better.

AngryCola
02-07-2005, 02:36 AM
[ QUOTE ]
think if they win a third consecutive superbowl, then its a dynasty, but I am not sure about it now.

[/ QUOTE ]

By that standard, the Cowboys of the 1990s weren't a dynasty.

Ponks
02-07-2005, 03:41 AM
I think there is more to dynasties then that. I think dynasties should be longer lasting then just 3 superbowls outta 4 years. They don't have to win every year but they should dominate for a good period of time. I guess it really depends on your definition of dynasty though. I didnt even watch the game, but this is my take.

Dynasty
02-07-2005, 03:56 AM
A poll on espn.com has about 85% of respondants saying the Patriots are now a dynasty. In the end, the term dynasty gets assigned by the fans (and media). I think they're going to speak in the Patriots favor.

jstnrgrs
02-07-2005, 04:27 AM
[ QUOTE ]
They are a new-age dynasty, but not doing too well 2 years ago is what sets them apart from historical dynasties.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two years ago, they were 9-7 and they missed the playoffs on the third tiebreaker. Certainly not dominant, but I would hardly call it "not doing to well".

jstnrgrs
02-07-2005, 04:29 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The Pats have won all three SBs by a mere field goal. And one SB they only played in because of a bad call in a previous game. Hardly a dynasty in my book.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhapse a bad rule (I'm sure you'd be supprised to know that I like the rule just fine /images/graemlins/grin.gif), but not a bad call.

jstnrgrs
02-07-2005, 04:38 AM
[ QUOTE ]
My problem with this dynasty is that after not making the Superbowl 2 years ago, talks of the dynasty should have never begun the next year

[/ QUOTE ]

This is redicolous. So as soon as a team fails to make a super bowl, their run for a dynasty must start over? By this test, there has never deen a dynasty (unless you want to count Buffalo of the ninties for loosing 4 straight). None of the teams that are considered dynasties made three conseutive super bowls. It's these kinds of crazy statments that perpetuate the notion that the Patriots aren't respected.

Clarkmeister
02-07-2005, 12:34 PM
"I think dynasties should be longer lasting then just 3 superbowls outta 4 years."

So there's never been a dynasty in the NFL in the 39 years of the Super Bowl?

jakethebake
02-07-2005, 12:45 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know that I consider NE a dynasty yet. 3 championships in 4 years... I feel like Dynasties need to endure longer, for me anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. People were calling Pitt. a dynasty after winning 3 in 5 years.

sublime
02-07-2005, 12:47 PM
Interesting. People were calling Pitt. a dynasty after winning 3 in 5 years.

they are a dynasty.

period.

Joe Tall
02-07-2005, 12:54 PM
Dynasty,
Joe Tall

sublime
02-07-2005, 12:55 PM
you in cali?

Alobar
02-07-2005, 01:03 PM
Who cares?

I'm not saying that to be a dick about your post. I just think its kinda dumb all this media talk about "Dynasty".

It's obviously a question that totally depends on how you define dynasty. IMO, no they aren't. In other peoples opinion, yes they are.

So all this media hype about "dynasty" to me is really one giant argument about a definition, and I think its just pretty pointless.

TimTimSalabim
02-07-2005, 02:04 PM
Of course it's a pointless discussion. In other words, perfect for OOT /images/graemlins/grin.gif.

Anyway, this article (http://boston.about.com/od/sportsandrecreation/a/dynastry_or_not.htm) states the case against better than I can.

sublime
02-07-2005, 02:12 PM
Anyway, this article states the case against better than I can.

give yourself more credit. the article doesnt make much of an argument for the non-dynasty tag, as he is comparing football to basketball when i already pointed out that it is easier to win a cluster of titles in the NBA than it is in the NFL.

Alobar
02-07-2005, 02:17 PM
[ QUOTE ]
when i already pointed out that it is easier to win a cluster of titles in the NBA than it is in the NFL.

[/ QUOTE ]



The reason that its easier to win a cluster of titles in the NBA, is because the best team wins a much higher percentage of the time (thanks to best of 7 format). So its not really easier, its actually harder, its just easier for the best team to show they really are the best team, therefore its easier to see when a dynasty is actually occuring.

BottlesOf
02-07-2005, 02:19 PM
Pitt or NE? I wasn't around when Pitt did it, I don't think I'd feel any differently. As for "they're a dynasty, period," I don't know how to respond, other than, I don't think I agree.

BeerMoney
02-07-2005, 02:35 PM
[ QUOTE ]
With that said, I think they would get pasted by the other teams on that list. I don't say that because of anything against the Pats. I just think the teams in the era before the salary cap and free agency had much greater concentrations of talent

i agree

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Belichek (?sp) would find a way to win!!

Clarkmeister
02-07-2005, 02:41 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
when i already pointed out that it is easier to win a cluster of titles in the NBA than it is in the NFL.

[/ QUOTE ]


The reason that its easier to win a cluster of titles in the NBA, is because the best team wins a much higher percentage of the time (thanks to best of 7 format). So its not really easier, its actually harder, its just easier for the best team to show they really are the best team, therefore its easier to see when a dynasty is actually occuring.

[/ QUOTE ]


Way off base. The fact is that it is much easier in the NBA. Why? Because instead of 24 relevant starting players, there are only 5. One player in the NBA has a massively disproportionate impact on the game. Note this is also why upsets are far more prevalent in NCAA basketball than in NCAA football. Small schools can get lucky with one or two awesome players in basketball which enables them to hang with the big boys. In football, however, this isn't the case as a few lucky recruits aren't nearly enough to overcome the sheer volume of talent that the big time programs get.

Michael Jordan was not only on the floor for 90% of the time in games he played in, he was on both the offensive and defensive end, and constituted 20% of his teams players on the floor. Compare that to an NFL starter who is on the floor for roughly 50% of a game and is 9% of his team's total on the field. You need much more depth and balance to win in the NFL. Couple that with the higher injury risk and shorter career span and it becomes obvious why NBA teams are able compete and dominate for prolonged periods of time while NFL teams rarely have a window longer than 3-4 years

jakethebake
02-07-2005, 02:42 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Interesting. People were calling Pitt. a dynasty after winning 3 in 5 years.

they are a dynasty.
period.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was my point.

Voltron87
02-07-2005, 02:42 PM
The Patriots are not quite a Dynasty yet, they are close, but they have not done this over enough seasons to be a real dynasty. If they win the SB next year they will be a dynasty, but their current stretch has only lasted 4 years, with one crappy season. It takes 5-7 years to be a dynasty.

jakethebake
02-07-2005, 02:46 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The Patriots are not quite a Dynasty yet, they are close, but they have not done this over enough seasons to be a real dynasty. If they win the SB next year they will be a dynasty, but their current stretch has only lasted 4 years, with one crappy season. It takes 5-7 years to be a dynasty.

[/ QUOTE ]
So if you win 3 in 4 years like NE, you're not a dynasty? But if it takes you 5 years to win 3 like Pitt in the 70s (before the last one), then you are?

sublime
02-07-2005, 02:49 PM
with one crappy season

9-7 in a solid division and missing the playoffs due to a tiebreaker is crappy?

damn you guys have high standards /images/graemlins/frown.gif

TimTimSalabim
02-07-2005, 03:45 PM
Dynasties should not be graded on a curve. The Yankees were a dynasty. UCLA basketball under John Wooden was a dynasty. The Patriots are not a dynasty.

sublime
02-07-2005, 04:11 PM
The Yankees were a dynasty

which era?

istewart
02-07-2005, 04:12 PM
The Yankees '96-'01 were a dynasty and that about.com author does not mention them. If the Patriots win next year, I don't think anyone can deny that they will be a dynasty. But now, not so much. It's weird how a lot changes in one year, though.

sublime
02-07-2005, 04:12 PM
The Patriots are not a dynasty.

if you say so

TimTimSalabim
02-07-2005, 04:46 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The Patriots are not a dynasty.

if you say so

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you're getting it /images/graemlins/laugh.gif.

But seriously, a dynasty has to do with a tremendous length of time. Its origins of course are not from sports but from groups that ruled empires for hundreds of years. I just don't think that winning the Super Bowl two years in a row constitutes a dynasty. Perhaps there has never been an NFL dynasty. But you can't relax the standards just because it's difficult to achieve in a particular league or era.

Alobar
02-07-2005, 05:32 PM
[ QUOTE ]


Way off base. The fact is that it is much easier in the NBA. Why? Because instead of 24 relevant starting players, there are only 5. One player in the NBA has a massively disproportionate impact on the game. Note this is also why upsets are far more prevalent in NCAA basketball than in NCAA football. Small schools can get lucky with one or two awesome players in basketball which enables them to hang with the big boys. In football, however, this isn't the case as a few lucky recruits aren't nearly enough to overcome the sheer volume of talent that the big time programs get.

Michael Jordan was not only on the floor for 90% of the time in games he played in, he was on both the offensive and defensive end, and constituted 20% of his teams players on the floor. Compare that to an NFL starter who is on the floor for roughly 50% of a game and is 9% of his team's total on the field. You need much more depth and balance to win in the NFL. Couple that with the higher injury risk and shorter career span and it becomes obvious why NBA teams are able compete and dominate for prolonged periods of time while NFL teams rarely have a window longer than 3-4 years

[/ QUOTE ]

actually, that makes a ton of sense, I never had thought of it like that. Your answer is obviously the far superior one.

Lazymeatball
02-07-2005, 05:54 PM
The Patriots Won 3 out of 4 years.
The Cowboys Won 3 out of 4 years.
The Forty-Niners won back to back, 3 out of 6, 4 out of 9, or 5 out of 14, depending upon how you want to look at it.
The Steelers won back to back twice in a 6 year span, so 4 out of 6.
The Packers won the first two SuperBowls, I forget if they won any championships before they called it the SuperBowl.


I can't believe people are holding the Pats 9-7 season against them when they tied for 1st in the Division that year, and didn't get to go to the playoffs on a tie breaker. I can't believe people are saying that the Pats would have to win 3 in a row to be considered. Why is there some sort of greater standard set for the Pats than any other dynasty in history.
I guess i can believe people are saying margin of victory is significant, I disagree and think winning is winning, but it's not as ridiculous as other claims. But everyone complains about the BCS and how it's based on strenght of a win and such and not just on records.
And I can't believe people are comparing NBA or MLB to NFL, a game played on a schedule of 16 regular season games and 3 or 4 post season games.

istewart
02-07-2005, 06:12 PM
The Steelers were much more obviously a dynasty than the Patriots. I just think it's hard in football to call anyone dynasties, just based on what dynasties are known to be in the other sports. That is, they usually span more than 4 years: Jordan's Bulls, 1970s Canadiens, Auerbach's Celtics, etc. If there are football dynasties, the Patriots are one of them.

Ponks
02-07-2005, 07:26 PM
[ QUOTE ]
"I think dynasties should be longer lasting then just 3 superbowls outta 4 years."

So there's never been a dynasty in the NFL in the 39 years of the Super Bowl?

[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't tell you, but I think I'm just arguing semantics anyways. I don't think championships are the only thing that matters.

Ponks

Clarkmeister
02-10-2005, 04:03 PM
Bump for Tom.

adios
02-10-2005, 04:08 PM
Sorry missed that thread /images/graemlins/smile.gif.