#21
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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.
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
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] |
|
|