Dynasty - Page 4

TimTimSalabim · #31 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 · #32 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 · #33 02-07-2005, 02:10 AM

public's expectations

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

TimTimSalabim · #34 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 · #35 02-07-2005, 02:12 AM

Dynasty = dominance, not just winning

lol, this just keeps getting better.

AngryCola · #36 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 · #37 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 · #38 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 · #39 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 · #40 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 [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]), but not a bad call.