Dynasty - Page 3

pshreck · #21 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 · #22 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 · #23 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 · #24 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 · #25 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 · #26 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 · #27 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 · #28 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 · #29 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 · #30 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? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]