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.