Dynasty

[sublime]

The Patriots are not a dynasty.

if you say so

[TimTimSalabim]

[ QUOTE ]
The Patriots are not a dynasty.

if you say so

[/ QUOTE ]

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

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]

[ 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]

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]

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]

[ 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]

Bump for Tom.

[adios]

Sorry missed that thread [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].