Dynasty
 

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)

Re: Dynasty
 

Dynasty moves to Las Vegas.

Patriots win 3 Super Bowls

Red Sox break curse and win World Series.

Coincidence?

Re: Dynasty
 

It is obviously NOT a coincidence.

craig

Re: Dynasty
 

There was an earthquake and a snowstorm in LA today.

-Michael

Re: Dynasty
 

[ 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.

Re: Dynasty
 

They are a new-age dynasty, but not doing too well 2 years ago is what sets them apart from historical dynasties.

Re: Dynasty
 

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.

Re: Dynasty
 

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? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Dynasty
 

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.

Re: Dynasty
 

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)

Re: Dynasty
 

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.

Re: Dynasty
 

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?

Re: Dynasty
 

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.

Re: Dynasty
 

[ 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.

Re: Dynasty
 

[ 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.

Re: Dynasty
 

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.

Re: Dynasty
 

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

Re: Dynasty
 

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.

Re: Dynasty
 

It doesn't matter if you win by an inch or a mile; winning's winning.

Re: Dynasty
 

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.

Re: Dynasty
 

[ 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.

Re: Dynasty
 

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?

Re: Dynasty
 

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.

Re: Dynasty
 

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?

Re: Dynasty
 

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.

Re: Dynasty
 

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

Re: Dynasty
 

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.

Re: Dynasty
 

[ 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.

Re: Dynasty
 

[ 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?

Re: Dynasty
 

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? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Dynasty
 

[ 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.

Re: Dynasty
 

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.

Re: Dynasty
 

public's expectations

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

Re: Dynasty
 

[ 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.

Re: Dynasty
 

Dynasty = dominance, not just winning

lol, this just keeps getting better.

Re: Dynasty
 

[ 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.

Re: Dynasty
 

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.

Re: Dynasty
 

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.

Re: Dynasty
 

[ 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".

Re: Dynasty
 

[ 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 [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]), but not a bad call.