New England Patriots a Dynasty?

[adios]

Yep the Patriots have won 3 out of the last 4 Superbowls which is a great accomplishment. However, they've won each game by a field goal. Also in their first two Superbowl victories they won on field goals with very little time remaining. So I think it's fair to say that the teams were close to being evenly matched. Looking at the stats from each game I think it's fair to say that they really didn't dominate their opponent. I guess the Patriots winning 3 out of the last 4 Superbowls makes them a dynasty but I wouldn't say that they've dominated like some of the great Steelers teams, 49er's teams, or even the Cowboys in the 90's.

[Shajen]

Yes, they are a dynasty.

It doesn't matter if they won the 3 games by 3 points or 1 point.

They won 3 in the last 4 years.

That's a dynasty. Doubly impressive because they did it in the free agent era.

[pshreck]

This is not a bad post, but you are going to be ripped apart by the NE fans.

[B00T]

someone please post the heaping pile of [censored] in the mountains

[anisotropy]

There's no question that they are a very good team with an excellent coach. But really, all of this "dynasty" talk should be tempered with time, like selecting HOF entrants. All of this "instant classic" and "instant dynasty" ESPN-esque nonsense is really getting out of hand...

I suppose if that's your thing, then go read the Sports Guy (puke) and the rest of the self-congratulatory morons on Page 2...

[adios]

You're right I probably will be. The Panthers missed on 2 two point conversion attempts in the second half. If the Panthers kick two extra points they lose by one (I realize they still lost) and if they make the first two point conversion New England needs the field goal to put them into overtime. I won't even get into how Mike Martz screwing up in the first Superbowl victory. Coach 'B' has no doubt done a masterful job. I stated that winning 3 out of 4 makes them a dynasty perhaps but it doesn't mean that they're a dominant team in the sense of some of the other great teams.

[adios]

What did I post that isn't the truth?

[AngryCola]

How much they won the SB games by is meaningless to me.

They won.

Case closed.

*NOTE*
Raiders fan

[pokerjo22]

They won by a field goal, because that's how Bellichek plays the game. He has this whole 'bend but don't break' philosophy. So the Pats consistently win, but not by much. But ultimately who cares what the margin is?

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
But ultimately who cares what the margin is?

[/ QUOTE ]

adios

/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[adios]

You missed the point entirely. I stated that the Patriots winning 3 out of 4 Superbowls is a great accomplishment. The hype now is that this puts them as one of the all time great teams and I say that is bunk when they've basically been evenly matched in all three Superbowl victorys. A great accomplishment yes, one of the all time great teams no.

[pokerjo22]

/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

"Is that his name? Yossarian? What the hell kind of a name is Yossarian?"

Lieutenant Scheisskopf had the facts at his finger tips. "It's Yossarian's name, sir," he explained.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
A great accomplishment yes, one of the all time great teams no.

[/ QUOTE ]

Easy for you to say.

But why is it everyone who knows the NFL disagrees with you and says the complete opposite?

They are easily one of the great teams.
Winning 3/4 in the modern NFL is an astounding feat.

[Richard Tanner]

No see, the heaping [censored] pile means that your post has been done before. I don't really get it, but some people just can't stand the fact that people start new threads that have been done.

Cody

[Richard Tanner]

You need to remember that those dominent teams existed in an NFL where there was no Salary Cap, that is they were the Yankees. New rules make that kinda of thing virtually impossible. I hate the Pats, but doing what they did given their situation makes them a modern dynasty.

Cody

[daryn]

am i the only patriots fan that says "who cares"?

keep the rings coming boys, let others worry about "dynasty or no dynasty"

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
:p

"Is that his name? Yossarian? What the hell kind of a name is Yossarian?"

Lieutenant Scheisskopf had the facts at his finger tips. "It's Yossarian's name, sir," he explained.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice.

I'd take the account name Major Major Major Major but that would seriously screw up the pages when I post a new thread. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Toro]

[ QUOTE ]
This is not a bad post, but you are going to be ripped apart by the NE fans.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not by me. I couldn't care less about the dynasty label. The fact that they only won each game by a field goal argues against them being a dynasty but in a way is more impressive than big blowout wins.

[Goodie54]

The Sports guy is from Boston and has been a Boston Sports fan his whole life. What would you like for him to write about after HIS team wins a championship?

Obviously, your not from Boston so let me clue you in, The Boston Sports Guy captures the essence of being a sports fan in this area better than anyone I've read or heard.

If you were from here, you'd understand, I know it's cliche but it's the truth.

Peace

Goodie

[Goodie54]

They were not evenly matched in this year's superbowl. They played their C game at best and still won because they were the far superior team.

Peace

Goodie

[droolie]

I am a HUGE Pats fan but think it's too early to call them a dynasty. In Boston we know dynasties and this dynasty talk is not fair to the Pats or the other true sports dynasties. I've actually heard them called the weakest dynasty ever. Come on.

Based on what they've already done, the Pats are going to be considered the "Team of the Decade" but to call them a dynasty is kind of watering down what a dynasty really is. Winning 3 of 4 is a massive acheivement in the free agency climate. In my opinion the margin of victory does not matter, it's the number of titles is what counts. I think a team really needs to have at least 5 (or more) championships in a 10 year period to really qualify as a true sports dynasty. A dynasty is when a single team dominates a decade or more to the point where year in and year out it's a surprise when they don't win a championship. As much as I love them the Pats are no where near that status yet.

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2005/02/07/d_for_dominance_not_dynasty/

The Celtics of the 60's were a dynasty, probably the ultimate dynasty. The Yankees of the 20's through 60's were a dynasty. The Canadiens of the 50's through 70's were one. The Bulls of the 90's were a dynasty. The Lakers of the 80's were a dynasty. And the Packers of the 60's were the only modern football dynasty.

The Cowboys of the 90's were not a dynasty. They were a "team of the decade". The Shaq-Kobe Lakers came close but didn't quite keep things going long enough. The 49ers and Steelers were very close and probably count as mini-dynasties. The Pats might be on their way to being a true dynasty but they're not there yet. If they can win 2 more Lombardis in the next six years I 'll give it to them. They certainly have some elements that will help them accomplish true dynasty status with a young quarterback and arguably the coach of his generation in the fold for the foreseeable future.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a team really needs to have at least 5 (or more) championships in a 10 year period to really qualify as a true sports dynasty

[/ QUOTE ]

By this definition, most of the the dynasties wouldn't really be dynasties. As in.. most of them.

Any definition of a dynasty which would exclude the Cowboys of the 1990s is not a good one, IMHO.

Your standards for a dynasty are insanely high.

[droolie]

[ QUOTE ]


Your standards for a dynasty are insanely high.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good. They should be rare and very infrequent. Being called a dynasty should be the ultimate compliment and should be insanely hard to acheive. We shouldn't be seeing dynasty in every sport every decade. When a dynasty occurs there should be no debate.

I agree that it's damn near impossible to have a football dynasty, especially in the salary cap/ free aganecy era. Basketball is clearly the easiest sport to have one in due to the large impact one elite player can have. Baseball is probably the 2nd easiest given the fact that there's no salary cap and one team (The Yankees) can actually afford to spend twice as much (or more) as their closest rival.

[istewart]

Winning one Super Bowl by a field goal could be considered a fluke. Winning three is not.

[The Armchair]

The are not only a dynasty, they may be the dynaasty. Winning three SBs in 4 years is exceptional given:
a) the salary cap era
b) sixteen game seasons
c) three (or four) playoff wins needed
d) all sorts of suspensions

A team of Aikman, Emmitt, and Irvin could happen today, but it would have the defense of the present-day Colts or the Vikings. Forget a team like the Bradshaw-era Steelers.

The fact is that in a league with a lot of alleged parity, the Patriots are on the opposite extreme. If that's not a dynasty, what is?

[Voltron87]

I would post in this thread but there's no point since droolie said my opinion well.

[MelK]

Don't forget that they should not have even been in Superbowl XXXVI, a bad call in the Championship game gave them a unearned entry.

[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't forget that they should not have even been in Superbowl XXXVI, a bad call in the Championship game gave them a unearned entry.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you are talking about. Perhapse you are refering to the "tuck rule" call which occured in the divisional playoff (not the championship game). You may conside this to be a bad rule (I do not), but it was indisputably the correct call acording to the rules that were in effect at the time (and remain in effect today).

After the "tuck rule" call, the patriots still had to make a 48 yard field gaol in the snow just to tie the game. They then had to win that game in overtime, and win the championship game before they got to the superbowl. It's true that if that rule had not been there they would have been eliminated, but that one play did not give them their spot in the superbowl.