NFL Dynasties - The TRUTH

[still_life]

1974-79 Pittsburgh Steelers
Record (incl. playoffs): 80-22-1 (.780%)
Shutouts: 10
Victories of 10+ points (regular season): 46
Victories of 10+ points (post-season): 10
Total Victories of 3 points or less: 8
1974: #2 Scoring Defense, #6 Scoring Offense
1975: #2 Scoring Defense, #5 Scoring Offense
1976: #1 Scoring Defense, #5 Scoring Offense
1977: #17 Scoring Defense, #7 Scoring Offense
1978: #1 Scoring Defense, #5 Scoring Offense
1979: #5 Scoring Defense, #1 Scoring Offense
Division Titles: 6
Pro Bowl player appearances during stretch: 49
Dynasty Hall Of Famers: 10
League MVP awards: 1
Super Bowl MVP awards: 4

1984-89 San Francisco 49ers
Record (incl. playoffs): 81-28-1 (.736%)
Shutouts: 6
Victories of 10+ points (regular season): 50
Victories of 10+ points (post-season): 8
Total Victories of 3 points or less: 8
1984: #1 Scoring Defense, #2 Scoring Offense
1985: #2 Scoring Defense, #5 Scoring Offense
1986: #3 Scoring Defense, #7 Scoring Offense
1987: #3 Scoring Defense, #1 Scoring Offense
1988: #8 Scoring Defense, #7 Scoring Offense
1989: #3 Scoring Defense, #1 Scoring Offense
Division Titles: 5
Pro Bowl player appearances during stretch: 35
Dynasty Hall Of Famers: 4
League MVP awards: 2
Super Bowl MVP awards: 3

1992-95 Dallas Cowboys
Record (incl. playoffs): 59-16 (.787)
Shutouts: 2
Victories of 10+ points (regular season): 34
Victories of 10+ points (post-season): 10
Total Victories of 3 points or less: 4
1992: #5 Scoring Defense, #2 Scoring Offense
1993: #2 Scoring Defense, #2 Scoring Offense
1994: #3 Scoring Defense, #2 Scoring Offense
1995: #3 Scoring Defense, #3 Scoring Offense
Division Titles: 4
Pro Bowl player appearances during stretch: 38
Dynasty Hall Of Famers: 0
League MVP awards: 1
Super Bowl MVP awards: 3

2001-04 New England Patriots
Record (incl. playoffs): 57-14 (.803)
Shutouts: 3
Victories of 10+ points (regular season): 27
Victories of 10+ points (post-season): 3
Total Victories of 3 points or less: 13
2001: #6 Scoring Defense, #6 Scoring Offense
2002: #17 Scoring Defense, #10 Scoring Offense
2003: #1 Scoring Defense, #12 Scoring Offense
2004: #3 Scoring Defense, #4 Scoring Offense
Division Titles: 3
Pro Bowl player appearances during stretch: 17
Dynasty Hall Of Famers: 0
League MVP awards: 0
Super Bowl MVP awards: 3

The parts in bold say it all if you want to talk about the best teams ever.

[BuriedAlive]

you forgot that the Patriots also had a 6-10 record in between Super Bowl wins. I think that kind of kills the vibe of being considered "one of the best teams ever" Also, how would having the most victories under 3 points help them be considered a great team? Besides the fact that they can hold onto a lead and kick a winning field goal.

[b e L I E v e]

Patriots:

Total Victories of 3 points or less: 13

Suck on that all you assholes who think the patriots are a dynasty....its called LUCK...you want a real team? look at the 80 niners and then tell me whats up...

[still_life]

you forgot that the Patriots also had a 6-10 record in between Super Bowl wins. I think that kind of kills the vibe of being considered "one of the best teams ever" Also, how would having the most victories under 3 points help them be considered a great team? Besides the fact that they can hold onto a lead and kick a winning field goal

They were 9-7, not 6-10. That's still pretty bad though since they missed the playoffs following a SB win. The victories of 3 points or less is a way to show that they aren't the best team. In two less seasons, they've already had 5 more victories like that than the first two dynasties. When you look at margin of victory, Cowboys might have been the best. 10-1 post -season record, with all 10 wins of 10 points or more. And a lot of them were blowouts.

[b e L I E v e]

lets emphasize that the pats had not NEARLY as much 10+ wins as the niners in either post season or regular season.....

and i did i say Brady sucks?

haha

[Piece of Mind]

i would consider the niners dynasty to have started in 1981 when they won their first superbowl... GO NINERS!!

and all of you saying the pats dont deserve to be a dynasty. look at those stats, the pats have the highest win percentage out of all of them. who cares if they dont blow teams out they get the job done and thats all that matters. they have been able to keep their team in tact and thats pretty hard to do now with free agency, salary caps, etc.

[BuriedAlive]

They were 9-7, not 6-10. That's still pretty bad though since they missed the playoffs following a SB win. The victories of 3 points or less is a way to show that they aren't the best team. In two less seasons, they've already had 5 more victories like that than the first two dynasties. When you look at margin of victory, Cowboys might have been the best. 10-1 post -season record, with all 10 wins of 10 points or more. And a lot of them were blowouts.
yeah, was too lazy too actually looked 'em up so I guessed. I do know that they missed the playoffs which was rather funny.

[Piece of Mind]

p.s. if it wasnt for the damn cowboys the Niners dynasty would of lasted until the mid 90's.... :(

[still_life]

I started the 49ers dynasty at 84, because they went 3-6 in 82 (strike year), and didn't make the SB in 83. Plus it made the dynasty the same number of seasons as the Pittsburgh one. Works better that way.

p.s. if it wasnt for the damn cowboys the Niners dynasty would of lasted until the mid 90's....

Yeah probably. Steve Young struggled against them.

and all of you saying the pats dont deserve to be a dynasty. look at those stats, the pats have the highest win percentage out of all of them. who cares if they dont blow teams out they get the job done and thats all that matters. they have been able to keep their team in tact and thats pretty hard to do now with free agency, salary caps, etc.

The Steelers win percentage is very close, and that was over the course of 6 seasons, not 4. Also that was when seasons were 14 games, not 16. So you can say there were two more games in a year that they could have won, but didn't have a chance to.

[b e L I E v e]

agreed...the pats could lose however many staight this year and their so called dynasty record could lose its precentage

and the niners won it back in 94-95 with young.....could we count that?

[still_life]

No. Teams like Buffalo, Washington, and NYG dominated the 90 and 91 seasons. Dallas then took over 92, and only SF had that better year than the Cowboys in 94. Then after 95, you had teams like Green Bay, Denver, and St. Louis showing dominance before NE.

It's true that the NE dynasty isn't officially over. Even if they don't win a SB this year it's not exactly over. But if they don't win it the year after that, you can consider it over with the end of the 2004 season. Or if they miss the playoffs this year, it's over. The 3 teams before them made the playoffs every year in their dynasty years.

[b e L I E v e]

::nods::

the pats will make the playoffs.....but thats about it....they'll fall apart the 06-07 season, guarenteed

[still_life]

Actually for the 90's Bills and 00's Eagles, if a few more plays would have went their way, I think they would be the ones people were calling dynasties, not Dallas and NE.

[Piece of Mind]

The Steelers win percentage is very close, and that was over the course of 6 seasons, not 4. Also that was when seasons were 14 games, not 16. So you can say there were two more games in a year that they could have won, but didn't have a chance to.
whos to say they would of won those 2 extra games?

im not takin anything from the steelers im just sayin. luck can only take you so far and the pats have won alot of games and we'll see how they do next year. to call the pats lucky is just crazy. they are a well coached team and get the job done so i think they deserve the dynasty label

[still_life]

whos to say they would of won those 2 extra games?

Well there's about an 80% chance that they would have, so I think it's ok to rule in their favor. Winning .780 in 6 seasons is more impressive than .803 in 4 seasons.

im not takin anything from the steelers im just sayin. luck can only take you so far and the pats have won alot of games and we'll see how they do next year. to call the pats lucky is just crazy. they are a well coached team and get the job done so i think they deserve the dynasty label

I think there are some pretty obvious differences there that separate this team from the rest of the dynasties. Of course it's impossible for them to have any hall of famer's yet, but I expect Dallas to get more, and NE won't have more than SF and Pittsburgh. Then you can see NE ranked worse than 10th in scoring rankings 3 times, while Pittsburgh only did once, and Dallas and SF never. The disparity in Pro Bowlers is huge too. Pittsburgh completely kills that stat. A good quarter of NE's Pro Bowlers have been special teams guy too. And NE is the only team there with no league MVP awards, but you can say that's because of their teamwork aspect.

[asianxcore]

I think the 80 niners are the best dynasty ever...Victories of 10+ points (regular season): 50 that says it all

[b e L I E v e]

the '80 niners was the best dynasty, and unless some team wins 10 super bowls stragiht, your not gonna convince me otherwise

anyway....

pats are overrated and thats the end of the story

[asianxcore]

the '80 niners was the best dynasty, and unless some team wins 10 super bowls stragiht, your not gonna convince me otherwise

anyway....

pats are overrated and thats the end of the story
not over rated, a win is a win. You cant fight it, when they win three superbowls in 4 years you cant say their a fluke.

[b e L I E v e]

three super bowl wins by under three points each?

and thats SKILL?

give me a break

[takingback98]

the '80 niners was the best dynasty, and unless some team wins 10 super bowls stragiht, your not gonna convince me otherwise

anyway....

pats are overrated and thats the end of the story

They are overrated. Yes they're a good team, but people put way too much hype into them.

oh and same with the niners part.

[still_life]

If you're going to look at the whole decade, then I think the 70's Steelers beat the 49ers. The number of Pro Bowl players the Steelers had was crazy. Not to mention the 76 defense was probably the best ever. Steel Curtain defense would beat the west coast offense

[takingback98]

If you're going to look at the whole decade, then I think the 70's Steelers beat the 49ers. The number of Pro Bowl players the Steelers had was crazy. Not to mention the 76 defense was probably the best ever. Steel Curtain defense would beat the west coast offense

can i change my answer?

everyone is so persuasive.

[mat1419]

a dynasty is "a group that sustains power over a series of generations"...in terms of football, that would be years (typically broken up into decades). the Pats have unarguably sustained power more than any other team in the 2000's. They've won three Super Bowls in the first four full years of this decade. That makes them a young dynasty (its impossibel to gauge how great a dynasty until it's reached its end). You can argue that they weren't the most persuasive or impressive dynasty in terms of flashiness or statistics, but that's basically like saying my 12 million dollar house is better than yours.

[b e L I E v e]

a dynasty is "a group that sustains power over a series of generations"...in terms of football, that would be years (typically broken up into decades). the Pats have unarguably sustained power more than any other team in the 2000's. They've won three Super Bowls in the first four full years of this decade. That makes them a young dynasty (its impossibel to gauge how great a dynasty until it's reached its end). You can argue that they weren't the most persuasive or impressive dynasty in terms of flashiness or statistics, but that's basically like saying my 12 million dollar house is better than yours.

(check spelling, first of all)

anyway....your saying in the 2000;s...well buddy thats only 5 years....three of which they won superbowls...and let me say it agian, by three or less points each....let me see them win 13+ games in a season, 7 of them by over ten points, get to the superbowl, and completely murder their opponents by 14+ or host a comback of 14+

then thats a dynasty...as the niners and steelers did

as for now....luck is the word that comes to mind....

[mat1419]

i appriciate good football arguing a lot, but if you're saying three superbowls in 4 years is luck, you're an idiot. i mentioned that it's been half a decade, and their legacy is still being written. maybe you should factor in the fact that parity and free agency is supposed to end the age of dynasties. They've managed to do this while staying under the cap, filling in role players at key positions and winning the championship with that. Do you think the steelers with all that talent would stay together for a full decade nowadays? It's a different time, and whether or not they blow a team out or not is irrelavent unless you're simply comparing them to other dynasties. As far as them actually being a dynasty, all you have to look at is the rings that they keep getting and 31 other teams can't get.

[still_life]

You can argue that they weren't the most persuasive or impressive dynasty

That's the point of this thread. They are nowhere near as good as the teams that are definitely NFL dynasties.

[b e L I E v e]

They are nowhere near as good as the teams that are definitely NFL dynasties.

EXACTLY my point

so mat....to be kind, shut the fuck up and dont call me an idiot :animateds

[Piece of Mind]

its nice to see so many niner fans :)

[Trainsaw]

Actually for the 90's Bills and 00's Eagles, if a few more plays would have went their way, I think they would be the ones people were calling dynasties, not Dallas and NE.

I don't think a few plays could have helped the bills from the Thrashing they recieved from the Cowboys in the first of the two superbowls they played

[still_life]

I don't think a few plays could have helped the bills from the Thrashing they recieved from the Cowboys in the first of the two superbowls they played

Yeah, but they still could have won 3 out of 4, while appearing in 4 straight.

[Trainsaw]

they should have beat the giants, i don't remember too much about the redskins game they played, and they lead the cowboys the first half of the 2nd game they played but cowboys killed in the 2nd half of that game. The Bills were a good team they'll just be forgotten

[still_life]

Kelly had some terrible interceptions in the Redskins game.

Bills were good enough for Marv Levy to get into the HOF, even though he lost 4 Super Bowls.

[Trainsaw]

Did Levy play football himself or just coach?

[still_life]

I don't think he played. Makes me think Bill Cowher might get into the HOF, as long as he reaches a few more SB's. Even if he loses them, that should be good enough.

[asianxcore]

three super bowl wins by under three points each?

and thats SKILL?

give me a break
its skill that adam vinetari is the most clutch kicker in the nfl and the pats gm had the state of mind to pick him up when he did.

[still_life]

Adam Vinatieri, now there's some luck, not skill. Undrafted NFL Europe project that's the reason this "dynasty" exists.

[b e L I E v e]

Adam Vinatieri, now there's some luck, not skill. Undrafted NFL Europe project that's the reason this "dynasty" exists.

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!

hes okay....and a little clutch, but 75 percent of that is being in the right place at the right time

its BS to say that the gm knew to pick him up because he was gonna win them three superbowls

[mat1419]

EXACTLY my point

so mat....to be kind, shut the fuck up and dont call me an idiot :animateds
first off, go cry about me calling you an idiot somewhere else, you're the one who told me to check my spelling when it looked pretty ok to me, and you're the one who said the patriots have gotten what they have based on luck because they won their super bowls by only 3 points, that makes you a huge idiot in my eyes.

first a team has to get to a super bowl, which means they have to play 16 football games just to qualify for a chance. then, if a team is good enough to do that, they have to play the top teams that make the playoffs with them. then if they are able to beat the best in their conference, they have to play the best in the other conference. the patriots did all of this 3 times in four years, if you seriously can suggest that they did this because of luck, then you don't even deserve to talk about this any more. this isn't a boxing match, you can't land one punch and win the title, it's a long process. go ask peyton if the patriots are ruining his decade based solely on luck.

the degree of how great this patriots franchise is makes a great arguement. i personally like what they're doing and love trying to convince other people that their up there. it's fun. but what's the point when someone doesn't even know enough to realize that you can't exactly stumble on a championship.

and as far as kickers go, maybe the gm didn't know what vinatieri was capable of when he picked him up, but the pats front office has made a science of picking up people that no one else notices who step in and do their job as well as anyone else. sometimes you hit and sometimes you miss...but they've been hitting quite a bit over the past few years.

[BigD]

The key to the Patriots being considered a dynasty is the day and age they are doing it in. This current system that the NFL has in place blows away the other leagues, especially the MLB. Parity is a great thing. And the fact that they have won 3 in 4 years during this period of history is remarkable.

A win is a win, whether its by a point, or by twenty. Statistically the Pats or Tom Brady arent the greatest, but they get the job done, which is all that matters. Yes luck is involved, but then again it was for those other dynasties as well, the Immaculate Reception anyone?

[still_life]

The key to the Patriots being considered a dynasty is the day and age they are doing it in. This current system that the NFL has in place blows away the other leagues, especially the MLB. Parity is a great thing. And the fact that they have won 3 in 4 years during this period of history is remarkable.

This argument is so flawed and overused. It'd work if the Patriots actually had superstar players and kept superstar-esque players on their team. They buy other team's garbage, coach it up and use it. Then they throw away players that want too much money. You're not going to see 10 Hall Of Famers (shit, Belichick is the only person absolutely deserving of going to the HOF) or 50 Pro Bowl appearances from this team, because they are not great players individually. Putting them together is what works for this team.

[mat1419]

I think what he's saying is somewhat valid...restated, the reason the patriots run the past few years is impressive is because of the day and age they're doing it in. While these other dynasties have locked up superstar players and maintain the same face of the team, the Pats are able to do this in an age where it was supposed to be impossible. Their dynasty isn't impressive statistically, they don't win every game by 20, the greatness of what they're doing is simply because with all the moving around, big heads and egos, blockbuster salaries, and high profile college players entering the league, the Pats have been able to move pieces around and make them work. What will really prove this teams worth is if no one else can do what they're doing in years to come.

[b e L I E v e]

**yawns**...you spelled impossible wrong in your other post, therefore being my point of reasoning

anyway...

im not saying the pats suck and i could beat them myself, im just saying (and supporting), as still life had said, that they are not dynasty-worthy. Yes, Brady will go to the Hall Of Fame beause he's way overrated. However, in twenty years you look back and not one of the pats players will be recognizable. My point being, all those other REAL dynastys were called thus because of not only their dominating style on the football field, they were also given the title because their players will go down in history as the best to play the game

[still_life]

I think what he's saying is somewhat valid...restated, the reason the patriots run the past few years is impressive is because of the day and age they're doing it in. While these other dynasties have locked up superstar players and maintain the same face of the team, the Pats are able to do this in an age where it was supposed to be impossible. Their dynasty isn't impressive statistically, they don't win every game by 20, the greatness of what they're doing is simply because with all the moving around, big heads and egos, blockbuster salaries, and high profile college players entering the league, the Pats have been able to move pieces around and make them work. What will really prove this teams worth is if no one else can do what they're doing in years to come.

It's not impressive. They're playing as a team and winning. It's not a new concept. Detroit Pistons did it last year, and perhaps this year. There's no one on NE that is the best player in the league at their position.

[mat1419]

**yawns**...you spelled impossible wrong in your other post, therefore being my point of reasoning

anyway...

im not saying the pats suck and i could beat them myself, im just saying (and supporting), as still life had said, that they are not dynasty-worthy. Yes, Brady will go to the Hall Of Fame beause he's way overrated. However, in twenty years you look back and not one of the pats players will be recognizable. My point being, all those other REAL dynastys were called thus because of not only their dominating style on the football field, they were also given the title because their players will go down in history as the best to play the game
you spelled dynasties wrong...we're 1-1...and this is a decent arguement, i have no problem debating tom brady's legend or the pats place in football history, i just had a problem with people totally taking all credit away from them (like when you said it was luck)...and as far as my opinion on where they'll fall in history when it all comes down to it...i think that if the future of football goes as people have thought it would for the past few years, and the pats become the last team to take 2 in a row or 3 out of 4, it will show how special what they are doing is. if it happens again, they'll be known as just a very good team. it's hard to measure a teams legacy when they're not even through making it.

It's not impressive. They're playing as a team and winning. It's not a new concept. Detroit Pistons did it last year, and perhaps this year. There's no one on NE that is the best player in the league at their position.
what's impressive is that it is supposed to be impossible to have a championship caliber team together this long, it is impressive that they are doing it with no one who is the best in their position...and sadly, as easy as the concept of team play should be, few teams do it anymore, and almost none do it over a stretch of years. again, if it turns out that another team duplicates this, the pats will be just another good team. if what they're doing right now can't be done for a long time, it will be thought of as a great feat. we'll see.

[still_life]

"the pats become the last team to take 2 in a row or 3 out of 4"

They won't be. It happened twice in the last decade, it will happen again.

what's impressive is that it is supposed to be impossible to have a championship caliber team together this long, it is impressive that they are doing it with no one who is the best in their position...and sadly, as easy as the concept of team play should be, few teams do it anymore, and almost none do it over a stretch of years. again, if it turns out that another team duplicates this, the pats will be just another good team. if what they're doing right now can't be done for a long time, it will be thought of as a great feat. we'll see.

Anyone can slap together a faceless team of nobodies and say they're the next NE. The difference is the coaching staff that prepared these players. And that coaching staff doesn't exist anymore there.

[BigD]

This argument is so flawed and overused. It'd work if the Patriots actually had superstar players and kept superstar-esque players on their team. They buy other team's garbage, coach it up and use it. Then they throw away players that want too much money. You're not going to see 10 Hall Of Famers (shit, Belichick is the only person absolutely deserving of going to the HOF) or 50 Pro Bowl appearances from this team, because they are not great players individually. Putting them together is what works for this team.
If your arguement is that the Patriots dont have many hall of famers, or faces on their team. I am not going to argue with that. However, I stand by my arguement that they rank up their with the most impressive teams ever. Parity didnt exist back then like it does now. Teams dont stay good for long, their best players generally look for the payday and the recognition of being a superstar on some other team. Yes their coaching staff does an amazing job, and so does their front office...but they are parts of the team too in my opinion.

[still_life]

How can they rank up there with teams that had domination over the league? Patriots have barely escaped with victory in so many of their games, including playoff ones. They don't fit in with the current NFL, because they don't go for superstar players. They had that same coaching staff together the last 4 years, which is possibly the biggest part of their success. Now you cut away two thirds of that and you see what happens. How much you want to bet that you see some improvement in Notre Dame and Cleveland this season? Those were top-class coaches. When you put top class coaching with an opportunistic defense of blue collared guys, that's a blueprint for success. The Patriot's defense is not great, it's bend, but don't break, and kill the other team with huge turnovers. The offense, it's pretty simple actually, but similar to the defense. They spread the ball around to about 10 different no-namers every year. They didn't even have anyone catch 60 balls last year. Tell teams with great receivers that you're going to lead the team in catches with 56 this year. They'd be pissed. There's a whole different ideology going on in NE than the rest of the NFL, and it's worked for them so far.

[BigD]

How can they rank up there with teams that had domination over the league? Patriots have barely escaped with victory in so many of their games, including playoff ones. They don't fit in with the current NFL, because they don't go for superstar players. They had that same coaching staff together the last 4 years, which is possibly the biggest part of their success. Now you cut away two thirds of that and you see what happens. How much you want to bet that you see some improvement in Notre Dame and Cleveland this season? Those were top-class coaches. When you put top class coaching with an opportunistic defense of blue collared guys, that's a blueprint for success. The Patriot's defense is not great, it's bend, but don't break, and kill the other team with huge turnovers. The offense, it's pretty simple actually, but similar to the defense. They spread the ball around to about 10 different no-namers every year. They didn't even have anyone catch 60 balls last year. Tell teams with great receivers that you're going to lead the team in catches with 56 this year. They'd be pissed. There's a whole different ideology going on in NE than the rest of the NFL, and it's worked for them so far.
whales vagina

Agree to disagree

[still_life]

Or you just never had much to argue with in the first place.

[BigD]

Or you just never had much to argue with in the first place.
or not.

This arguement has run its course, there is not much more to say. You are entitled to your own opinion as I am to mine.

[still_life]

You've made like 3 replies in this. It didn't run it's course, you ran out of things to say. The only thing that NE has in common with the other teams is the titles and wins. It was a completely different way of doing it, and a weaker way.

[BigD]

You've made like 3 replies in this. It didn't run it's course, you ran out of things to say. The only thing that NE has in common with the other teams is the titles and wins. It was a completely different way of doing it, and a weaker way.
Is that not how an arguement runs its course? When their is nothing left to say, and no opinions have been altered?

[still_life]

"When their is nothing left to say"

My point is you never had much to say in the first place.

[BigD]

You're right, there isn't much to say...Parity.

[still_life]

That's such a poor excuse. Maybe if NE was like the rest of the teams in the NFL, and they were still winning Super Bowls, there'd be parity.

[mat1419]

they're impressive because when the steelers and packers and 49ers did their thing, they were able to keep teams in tact. players didn't move around much and teams could be built and maintained. it was easy to run up dominant numbers because there was no balance of power. the bad teams were much worse back then. there were no free agent pick ups for the lower teams. college football and the draft was less of an immediate impact on the league. so the great teams were able to stay great through not losing the superstars and other teams never getting the superstars.

the patriots are winning superbowls through a great front office, great coaching, and great teamwork. they found the loophole in parity that says a great team oriented system will beat individual great talents when it counts. that's impressive because it was thought impossible to build that system and mentality in a league with so much money and so much ego. you see flashes of it in sports, the red sox, the pistons, etc...but not to the extent of the patriots who don't have near the star power of either team, and are doing it longer and better.

and i think the arguement has pretty much run its course because there aren't many new points being thrown out, its a good argument but impossible to prove until we can look back at this from a different time to see exactly how impressive history will remember what they're doing.

[b e L I E v e]

let me first say taht Big D, you need to shut your mouth, if you think the arguement is over, then take your fat ass self away from this section of the board, because apparently, you have nothing to say, not us

Anway....

mat, i see your point, and beg to disagree that the arguement is over

let me make it a point that the reason for the Pats wins is 75 percent of what the coaches do...I think we can all agree on that, and I believe you said yourself that NE had a bad team, and they shifted them into the right direction. However, back in the REAL dynasty days, the niners went through coaching changes also...From Marriuci (spelt that wrong probably) to Walsh, we still won superbowls with those future hall of famers

This then supports my statement that NE is not winning at all by the players in full, yet by the coaches who are leading them to success

[mat1419]

all i can say to that, is the coaches are as much a part of the team as the players, bill walshes west coast offence is a damn big part of them winning in the 80's...the 49ers dynasty does not involve steve mariucci, i believe it was seifert that won the last super bowl for them anyway...and that was years after the end of the meat of their dominence. lombardi innovated the game as much as anyone since walter camp, bill walsh laid out the offense that is responsible for putting most of the 49ers in the hall. chuck noll was hired when the steelers were 1-13 and drafted the greatest defense ever in the early 70's. jimmy johnson...well, he was ok. point is, all of these dynasties, relied on great, great coaching to get them in the right place. do the pats? absolultey, probably more than any of these, but does the ucla basketball dynasty lose credibility because of john wooden? the team is a whole and extends onto the sidelines. i don't think that hurts their case at all.

[NetNerdsRevenge]

That's such a poor excuse. Maybe if NE was like the rest of the teams in the NFL, and they were still winning Super Bowls, there'd be parity.
Why do they have to be like every other team? Their different style of playing the game is what give them their success. They accomplishments shouldn't be devalued because they play and win a different way than most teams in the NFL. It just shows their coaching staff is smarter.

This argument is so flawed and overused. It'd work if the Patriots actually had superstar players and kept superstar-esque players on their team. They buy other team's garbage, coach it up and use it. Then they throw away players that want too much money. You're not going to see 10 Hall Of Famers (shit, Belichick is the only person absolutely deserving of going to the HOF) or 50 Pro Bowl appearances from this team, because they are not great players individually. Putting them together is what works for this team.
Since when did super-stars make or break a dynasty? Thats ridiculous. Its about team play and how you win as a team.

[b e L I E v e]

nope, actaully your almost completely wrong

superstars almost DEFINE a dynasty

name one team from a dynasty that you can honestly say you know no players from....didnt think so

20 years later...

oh wait, theres that Patriot team?
Ah, they had no one good

[mat1419]

nope, actaully your almost completely wrong

superstars almost DEFINE a dynasty

name one team from a dynasty that you can honestly say you know no players from....didnt think so

20 years later...

oh wait, theres that Patriot team?
Ah, they had no one good
usually superstars are the face of a dynasty, but they don't 'define it', but in 20 years, law, bruschi, brady, vinatieri, dillon won't exactly be forgotten either...and i'll go back to the greatest sports dynasty of all for me, ucla basketball, aside from ucla fans, most can't name more than walton or alcinder and they won 10 championships. the definition of dynasty is "a group that maintains power over a span of time", not "the superstars that stood on on a group that maintained power over a span of time"

[NetNerdsRevenge]

nope, actaully your almost completely wrong

superstars almost DEFINE a dynasty

name one team from a dynasty that you can honestly say you know no players from....didnt think so

20 years later...

oh wait, theres that Patriot team?
Ah, they had no one good
The patriots will have a face. His name is Belichick. Even then, one or more players should not make a dynasty that is based off of a team effort.

[b e L I E v e]

The patriots will have a face. His name is Belichick. Even then, one or more players should not make a dynasty that is based off of a team effort.

will all due respect, if your going to be a part of an arguement or discussion, make sure you know what the arguement is about...Bilichick...as you spelled it...is a coach, not a player, as we are talking about

anyway

Let me say that in order for this discussion to go on, mat, you need to stop mentioning the college leagues, etc...those are not the majors...their fun to watch, but the adjectives just stop at fun....all those players you mentioned for the pats...they might be mentioned...but remembered?...maybe for a second or two....but not after that..

players like joe montana, brett farve, john elway, etc will all be remembered for a LEGACY...ohh another territory we are going to enjoy debating about?

[BigD]

will all due respect, if your going to be a part of an arguement or discussion, make sure you know what the arguement is about...Bilichick...as you spelled it...is a coach, not a player, as we are talking about

anyway

Let me say that in order for this discussion to go on, mat, you need to stop mentioning the college leagues, etc...those are not the majors...their fun to watch, but the adjectives just stop at fun....all those players you mentioned for the pats...they might be mentioned...but remembered?...maybe for a second or two....but not after that..

players like joe montana, brett farve, john elway, etc will all be remembered for a LEGACY...ohh another territory we are going to enjoy debating about?
And I thought I was done with this thread.

Are you kidding me? Are you really correcting someone on the spelling of a persons Name. Good grief, spelling errors or typo's are irrelevant, especially with some of the dribble you are spewing.

College Athletics are more than just "fun". They are what make and break some universities. It appears that NCAA basketball is more popular than NBA. And the NFL only has a slight leg up on College Football. UCLA was a dynasty. In fact, their is a comparison to be made between UCLA and the Pats of today. College players come and go, in today's NFL players dont stay put for long. Winning titles in NCAA helps your recruiting prestige, winning Super Bowls makes you appealing to mid level free agents who are looking for a winning team rather than a pay day.

In fact, even more than that...this arguement is not about players. Its about a team. The coach is a major part of the team. You have to face the fact that Free Agency and major dollars have changed the shape of the NFL forever. It is so unlikely that a team will be stocked with "Superstars" like it was possible in the past.

[b e L I E v e]

i think your still missing the point

i agreed that the coach was a great coach, one of the best....

however, i fail to recognize how the pats can even be a whisper in the talks of dynasties, which i now correct myself for spelling wrong in a previous post....

their TEAM is decent...but their PLAYERS are no where near legacy-worthy

[BigD]

No, I get your point. I just think differently about the word "Dynasty" than you do. Like I said, this arguement for me had run its course.

[mat1419]

Let me say that in order for this discussion to go on, mat, you need to stop mentioning the college leagues, etc...those are not the majors...their fun to watch, but the adjectives just stop at fun....all those players you mentioned for the pats...they might be mentioned...but remembered?...maybe for a second or two....but not after that..

players like joe montana, brett farve, john elway, etc will all be remembered for a LEGACY...ohh another territory we are going to enjoy debating about?
the ucla dynasty is easily comparable to the nfl dynasties because college basketball and football are just as popular as any pro sport. your only argument is that tom brady won't be remembered in 20 years as anything but a footnote and i disagree, but i agree with bigd, that is a pointless debate since that is something that can't be proven no matter how argued. i believe that in 20 years, we won't see another franchise like this that can keep it together, and it will make people remember what the accomplished.

[BuriedAlive]

usually superstars are the face of a dynasty, but they don't 'define it', but in 20 years, law, bruschi, brady, vinatieri, dillon won't exactly be forgotten either...and i'll go back to the greatest sports dynasty of all for me, ucla basketball, aside from ucla fans, most can't name more than walton or alcinder and they won 10 championships. the definition of dynasty is "a group that maintains power over a span of time", not "the superstars that stood on on a group that maintained power over a span of time"
DIllion made a name for himself for the Bengals. Not the Patriots. Also, the Patriots haven't, they missed the playoffs once already in their so called dynasty.. none of the others did that.

[the rog]

but the general statement is "are the patriots a dynasty" i would argue "yes"

obviously they're not the greatest dynasty ever. anyone who says that is probably under the age of 10 or retarded.

[BuriedAlive]

And I thought I was done with this thread.

Are you kidding me? Are you really correcting someone on the spelling of a persons Name. Good grief, spelling errors or typo's are irrelevant, especially with some of the dribble you are spewing.

College Athletics are more than just "fun". They are what make and break some universities. It appears that NCAA basketball is more popular than NBA. And the NFL only has a slight leg up on College Football. UCLA was a dynasty. In fact, their is a comparison to be made between UCLA and the Pats of today. College players come and go, in today's NFL players dont stay put for long. Winning titles in NCAA helps your recruiting prestige, winning Super Bowls makes you appealing to mid level free agents who are looking for a winning team rather than a pay day.

In fact, even more than that...this arguement is not about players. Its about a team. The coach is a major part of the team. You have to face the fact that Free Agency and major dollars have changed the shape of the NFL forever. It is so unlikely that a team will be stocked with "Superstars" like it was possible in the past.
I think it's tougher to become a dynasty in College then in the Pros. One reason... you can't really control if someone wants to move to the nba/nfl whatever or if they want to stay the full 4 years. It is tough to also convince them once they make strong decisions into going. It is also hard to recruit even if you've won the championship. Look at Sarycuse (spellings way off) they won the championship and now they have a hard time winning because Anthony (and others) left. Most kids (if they can) leave after a championship is won... why? because that is when they are at their peak value. Why do you think the whole? starting 5 of NC are leaving for the pros. because they are at their peak value. This has the same effect in football. (even though you can't leave unless you are atleast a junior).

If you can get anything out of that great.. if not sorry, hehe, i just kind of began rambling.

[the rog]

college dynasties are completely different. the strength of a college team is entirely dependent upon the performance of the team and the abilities of the recruiting coaches. obviously the best HS QB isn't going to go to east bumfuck university that went 0 for the last 5 years, whether or not east bumfuck has a good coach.

[BuriedAlive]

college dynasties are completely different. the strength of a college team is entirely dependent upon the performance of the team and the abilities of the recruiting coaches. obviously the best HS QB isn't going to go to east bumfuck university that went 0 for the last 5 years, whether or not east bumfuck has a good coach.
You never know, if that place has a great program in what he wants to learn I'm sure they have a better chance. Of course, unless they pay him under the table.

[the rog]

trust me, i know east bumfuck, they don't have much of a program.

[still_life]

Damn I missed a lot

they're impressive because when the steelers and packers and 49ers did their thing, they were able to keep teams in tact. players didn't move around much and teams could be built and maintained. it was easy to run up dominant numbers because there was no balance of power. the bad teams were much worse back then. there were no free agent pick ups for the lower teams. college football and the draft was less of an immediate impact on the league. so the great teams were able to stay great through not losing the superstars and other teams never getting the superstars.

The Steelers built their team up through the draft, and they were just picking great player after great player. It's not like every player back then was demanding a huge contract like today, and there was no cap to say no. That's not how it went for them. It's not fair to say the 70's didn't have any dominant teams to compete with the Steelers. If there wasn't much player movement or no cap, then that means everyone that's willing to spend the money can be good right? Teams like the Dolphins, Raiders, Cowboys, Rams and Vikings were all very good teams in the 70's. That's 5 teams right there. There were hardly 5 teams in the 2004 season that you could say could have beat Pittsburgh's 2004 team. And any of these 70's teams had the chance to beat the Steelers for the title of best team of the decade. They just didn't, because the Steelers built the better team, which is why they have so many in the HOF.

the patriots are winning superbowls through a great front office, great coaching, and great teamwork. they found the loophole in parity that says a great team oriented system will beat individual great talents when it counts. that's impressive because it was thought impossible to build that system and mentality in a league with so much money and so much ego. you see flashes of it in sports, the red sox, the pistons, etc...but not to the extent of the patriots who don't have near the star power of either team, and are doing it longer and better.

Ego is always known to break down a great player and his team. I don't exactly agree with what you're saying there. And you see more than a little of it with the Pistons. Tonight should be enough proof of that. No team ever won game 6 when they were in that situation, but they played together and pulled it out. No single player dominated the game for them, they played as a team.

Why do they have to be like every other team? Their different style of playing the game is what give them their success. They accomplishments shouldn't be devalued because they play and win a different way than most teams in the NFL. It just shows their coaching staff is smarter.

When the hell did I say they have to be like every other team? Their style of playing sucks to me, which is why I think it involves so much luck. Their defense often gives up 400 yards to good teams, yet they come away with a cheap turnover or two at a crucial moment, then they get a field goal or a TD because of good field position, and it's another escape with victory. It's nothing like any real dynasty.

Since when did super-stars make or break a dynasty? Thats ridiculous. Its about team play and how you win as a team.

Since when? Try about 1960-1995, at least. I'll be surprised if any average NFL fan can name a member of NE's secondary or offensive line 15-20 years from now. When people go to talk about this team, they'll be remembered as a team, not as so many great players. That's what separates them from GB, Pittsburgh, SF, and Dallas. And it's what puts them on a lower pedestal.

usually superstars are the face of a dynasty, but they don't 'define it', but in 20 years, law, bruschi, brady, vinatieri, dillon won't exactly be forgotten either...and i'll go back to the greatest sports dynasty of all for me, ucla basketball, aside from ucla fans, most can't name more than walton or alcinder and they won 10 championships. the definition of dynasty is "a group that maintains power over a span of time", not "the superstars that stood on on a group that maintained power over a span of time"

Law's career is in the twilight zone already, he'll be forgotten. Sure he had a great career, but he's not going to be remembered like a Mel Blount or even a Deion Sanders. Bruschi might be done too, no one will remember him specifically. Brady will be remembered, because he's a QB. That's common sense. Vinatieri will be remembered, because of big kicks. Corey Dillon should be remembered as that gangsta with down syndrome from Cincy that bitched for all the years he was there. I hate him, and he is overrated. I will be so pissed if he passes Bettis on the all-time rushing list.

The patriots will have a face. His name is Belichick. Even then, one or more players should not make a dynasty that is based off of a team effort.

When the coach is your only sure hall of famer, you know your team isn't full of great players.

Also, the Patriots haven't, they missed the playoffs once already in their so called dynasty.. none of the others did that.

Exactly. Like I said before, the only thing NE has in common with these other legendary teams is the wins and championships. The look, the faces, the build-up, the style of play, the legacy is all different, and just not as good. When your whole dynasty is built on an atrocious call by a referee, I think that says something for where you should stand on the list of the greatest teams.

[NetNerdsRevenge]

will all due respect, if your going to be a part of an arguement or discussion, make sure you know what the arguement is about...Bilichick...as you spelled it...is a coach, not a player, as we are talking about
Its bElichick....and he can still be the face of a team. He is a great coach and thats what people will remember. How he was able to coach a team with relatively no super stars and won 3 out of 4 superbowls.

When the hell did I say they have to be like every other team?
What did you mean by this?
Maybe if NE was like the rest of the teams in the NFL, and they were still winning Super Bowls, there'd be parity.

Since when? Try about 1960-1995, at least. I'll be surprised if any average NFL fan can name a member of NE's secondary or offensive line 15-20 years from now. When people go to talk about this team, they'll be remembered as a team, not as so many great players. That's what separates them from GB, Pittsburgh, SF, and Dallas. And it's what puts them on a lower pedestal.
You said so yourself that a team wins championships. But why when we talk about dynasties do we have to talk about the great players and not the great team?

[still_life]

What did you mean by this?

I meant exactly what I said, and have already said here. What's so hard to understand? They don't go for big money contracts or superstar players in NE, unlike the rest of the league. They'll take a shitty Randal Gay over Ty Law, a move I don't think anyone else would do.

You said so yourself that a team wins championships. But why when we talk about dynasties do we have to talk about the great players and not the great team?

Because those dynasties were teams full of great players. NE is just a great team of players.

[the rog]

someone else already made the point, though. we need to have the dynasty officially "end" for you to even start making this argument. what if (highly unlikely) the patriots win the next three superbowls [god that would be boring.] this really isn't something that can be fairly evaluated until the patriots suck again.

[still_life]

I know, but it's a way to pass the days before the season starts. I just think it's highly unlikely they can win it this year.

[b e L I E v e]

Because those dynasties were teams full of great players. NE is just a great team of players.

The greatest statement of this thread so far...

And I believe you said, also, that no one would remember any of their players also in 15-20 years, as I stated....looks like we are on the same side

As for the Brady being remembered thing...of course he will be....the media has a field day with the guy ...ladies think hes hott and guys who really dont know football think hes the greatest....in such a way, yeah, he will be remembered,

BUT, i heard comparisons to Joe Montana a couple months back.....let me get this straight right now...Tom Brady is no where near as good of a quarterback Montana will be....EVER...

the only two people that have a chance getting near Montana's greatness are Steve Young and Brett Farve, which in the three, I believe, make up the greatest QBs of all time

[still_life]

The Montana comparisons were starting over a year ago even. I think they're ridiculous.

the only two people that have a chance getting near Montana's greatness are Steve Young and Brett Farve, which in the three, I believe, make up the greatest QBs of all time

Montana and Young are two of the top three ever? Damn, you have way too much 49ers bias. What about Unitas, Bradshaw, Marino, Elway?

[b e L I E v e]

Ok, so i got a little over the top in the moment

haha...

Top Quarterbacks (in order)

1. Montana
2. Farve
3. Elway
4. Young
5. Marino (no ring)

Unitas and Bradshaw, with respect, dont quite make it up there

[still_life]

Even though Unitas was well before our time, he has to be mentioned. First player to pass for 40,000 yards. Threw a TD in 47 straight games. Try breaking that one, Peyton. League championships, Super Bowl wins. Player of the year 3 times, 10 Pro Bowls. Impressive stuff. And his story kills anything Tom Brady has done. This guy was taken in the 9th round of the draft, and he was cut right away (stupid fucking Steelers).

Marino doesn't need a ring to be better than Elway and Young. He's right up there with them on winning games, and he's 2nd in 4th quarter comebacks. Being 1st all time in attempts, completions, yards, and TDs, while holding about 20-30 other records says it all. Best release ever seen in the game. Really, the most prolific passer in history. Young would have had a terrible career if he stayed in Tampa Bay. He was lucky enough to stand in Montana's shadow for years, learn the west coast system from the best, and play with the best WR ever.

[b e L I E v e]

just because young strived off of Montana for a few years doesnt downplay his seasons with the niners

and for the unitas thing...i still think those guys are better...although unitas may take that sixth spot

and marino will stay where he is, regardless

[still_life]

Young was my favorite QB for most of the 90's, and I like him more than Montana, but he is not top 3 or 5 all time material. Manning crushed his passer rating record last year. That's another QB that will be ahead of Young. And he'll be ahead after this season, when he passes him in pretty much every passing stat. Young has the rushing advantage over most QB's ever though.

[b e L I E v e]

wow, i completely forgot about manning, haha

im moving marino the sixth, manning to fourth, young to fifth

[the rog]

I know, but it's a way to pass the days before the season starts.

that's what baseball is for.

[still_life]

I turn on baseball, but I usually fall asleep. Regular season is too boring for me.

[mat1419]

same here...this is my 5 minute an hour stress relief from work...

[b e L I E v e]

baseball...now thats a boring sport

[mat1419]

baseball's a great sport, especially to play, it's just the season is so long that getting into a game right now is almost pointless...the only games i watch are when the phils get on tv down here

[NetNerdsRevenge]

I meant exactly what I said, and have already said here. What's so hard to understand? They don't go for big money contracts or superstar players in NE, unlike the rest of the league. They'll take a shitty Randal Gay over Ty Law, a move I don't think anyone else would do.
Maybe I just dont understand why you complain about this....



Because those dynasties were teams full of great players. NE is just a great team of players.
And that reason makes them less of a dynasty?



Baseball is a great sport. You have to watch your own team this early to stay into the game, but when trade deadline hits it gets exciting; when the races start it gets really exciting.

[the rog]

I turn on baseball, but I usually fall asleep. Regular season is too boring for me.

i'll accept that it's boring if you don't really have a team that you're following.

[still_life]

And that reason makes them less of a dynasty?

Yes. NFL Dynasties were made full of star players, NE's isn't. They're not on the same level as those older teams.

Baseball is a great sport. You have to watch your own team this early to stay into the game, but when trade deadline hits it gets exciting; when the races start it gets really exciting.

I have to watch Pirate games. I haven't been treated to a winning season, like ever. Playoffs are the only thing I find exciting.

[b e L I E v e]

Yes. NFL Dynasties were made full of star players, NE's isn't. They're not on the same level as those older teams.

Without a doubt...that just about sums up the whole arguement in favor that NE is not a dynasty unless they win the next superbowl...that would make up for not having star players

[NetNerdsRevenge]

Yes. NFL Dynasties were made full of star players, NE's isn't. They're not on the same level as those older teams.
That logic makes no sense to me. As you said so yourself, a team wins games, not individual players, but to make a dynasty you have to have star players....

I understand that other dynasties have set precedent for future teams, but that doesnt mean it always has to be that way.



I have to watch Pirate games. I haven't been treated to a winning season, like ever. Playoffs are the only thing I find exciting.
The Pirates are having a good season. If they dont sell at the deadline they could challenge the East pretty soon.

[still_life]

That logic makes no sense to me. As you said so yourself, a team wins games, not individual players, but to make a dynasty you have to have star players....

I understand that other dynasties have set precedent for future teams, but that doesnt mean it always has to be that way.

What does a team winning a game have to do with having greatness to be a dynasty like the older teams did? If you're going to be a NFL dynasty, you should have to match up to these former dynasties, which the Patriots don't.

Pirates always have the same season every year. They win some exciting games against teams that should crush them, then they get spanked by the shitty teams, finish with a losing record, then cut their best players.

[fluke182]

You kids are so silly. Still Life, what a heckava character! GO STEELERS!!! Am I rite? Am I rite? Do I win guys?
Btw, note what team of the four had the highest winning percentage? Hmmm interesting.

[still_life]

Go Steelers? I drop more facts, stats, and logic than any of you moronic Patriots fans on here.

Let's see how good their winning percentage is after the next two seasons. Only then would it be relevant. Their winning percentage really helped in 2002, when they missed the playoffs, unlike any of the real dynasties.

[NetNerdsRevenge]

What does a team winning a game have to do with having greatness to be a dynasty like the older teams did? If you're going to be a NFL dynasty, you should have to match up to these former dynasties, which the Patriots don't.
Which has nothing to do with star players.

Pirates always have the same season every year. They win some exciting games against teams that should crush them, then they get spanked by the shitty teams, finish with a losing record, then cut their best players.
With baseball the way it is right now thats how a team like the Pirates has to do it. Its a building process. Hang in there, they will contend in the coming years.

[still_life]

Which has nothing to do with star players.

What? Those dynasties are all about the star players and legends of the game. Dynasty in the NFL has been defined as more than just what the dictionary says. The Patriots just don't fit in with those teams, never will either.

12 straight losing seasons for the Pirates. It's hard to keep your head up for this team year after year. They finally beat the Cards tonight for the first time in a while though

[b e L I E v e]

Dynasty in the NFL has been defined as more than just what the dictionary says. The Patriots just don't fit in with those teams, never will either.

:ditto:

so stop saying the dictionary defintions...last time i check...John Madden didnt pick up Websters to call the niners the best team that ever played in the NFL...

[the rog]

i'm surprised that (as far as i've read) no one has mentioned that all of the other dynasties listed in the first post played (most of their years) prior to the 1994 salary cap restrictions. that's one of the reasons why people are more lenient in giving the pats "dynasty" status. they've managed to maintain a winning team despite, as still life said over and over again, letting go of great players like Lawyer Milloy, etc. etc. until the 2001 superbowl, the SBs since the cap had basically been a toss up.

but i guess that arguments like "THE PATRIOTS ARE TOO DUMB TO PAY FOR GREAT PLAYERS AND WILL TAKE RANDALL GAY INSTEAD" are more logical than that. of course the patriots want to have stars, but they'd rather have a well rounded team.

[still_life]

Why should the salary cap matter? If all teams got to play without one, it was even. Now all teams get to play with one, so it's still even. You still had to manage your team correctly. There were still great teams and bad teams like there are today. The only difference is that some teams were able to be better a little longer. San Francisco made the playoffs like 15 out of 16 seasons from 83 to 98, and won at least 10 games in all 16 years. The Titans recently had that stretch of 4 out of 5 years in the playoffs. They were able to do it by keeping their best players during that time, and they just had to cut a lot of them this past season. The Colts have been able to keep their big 3 together for 7 seasons so far. It's still possible for teams to have superstar players and keep them for years. You're just going to have to pay for it some day soon. The 49ers paid for it the past few years. Though I think a lot of their problems were no more Young to Rice, but instead Garcia to TO.

they've managed to maintain a winning team despite,

There are multiple teams so far in this decade that have a winning record.

until the 2001 superbowl, the SBs since the cap had basically been a toss up.

What? When isn't the SB a toss up?

[the rog]

the thing is, it's not even without a salary cap. that's why there has been such disparity in MLB in the recent moneyball era. the good players will flock to the good teams, good teams will get higher revenue (more lucrative tv/video game contracts/endorsements) which creates a cycle in which teams that are good are able to put more money into their team.

[still_life]

Football was never as lopsided as baseball. You never had a team that costs $200 million playing one that costs $30 million. You still can't tell me there weren't great teams that existed pre-cap that could beat anyone in the league, including these dynasties.

[the rog]

i'm just laying out an argument as to why the patriots haven't been able to maintain any superstar status.

[still_life]

And I've already given you multiple teams that have been able to have those players for years. They just didn't have all the luck, bounces, and calls the Pats have received in the playoffs. They still were winning clubs.

[NetNerdsRevenge]

What? Those dynasties are all about the star players and legends of the game. Dynasty in the NFL has been defined as more than just what the dictionary says. The Patriots just don't fit in with those teams, never will either.
The game has changed as well. A dynasty team doesn't have to automatically hold super stars. Even then, the patriots (like it or not) have their own (semi) super stars now. Every football fan knows Brady, Belichick, Vinatieri, and im sure others. They have had legendary games and have the legendary win streak.

And if you wont give them the star-players side of the argument, maybe its their lack of them that makes them special.

:ditto:

so stop saying the dictionary defintions...last time i check...John Madden didnt pick up Websters to call the niners the best team that ever played in the NFL...
please show me where I used a dictionary definition

[still_life]

A dynasty team doesn't have to automatically hold super stars.

Says who? It's always been that way in sports. We already mentioned football. Basketball had the Celtics with Russell and Bird, the Bulls with Jordan and Pippen, Lakers with Magic, Kareem, Shaq, Kobe. All those great Yankee teams in history had legendary players.

Even then, the patriots (like it or not) have their own (semi) super stars now. Every football fan knows Brady, Belichick, Vinatieri, and im sure others. They have had legendary games and have the legendary win streak.

Aside from maybe their coach, those guys are nowhere near on the same level as what football used to have.

And if you wont give them the star-players side of the argument, maybe its their lack of them that makes them special.

It might make them special if it didn't show so much each season. They have been very lucky to win a lot of their games, especially when teams have outplayed them so many times. Dallas never needed luck in the playoffs, they dominated the scoreboard every game.

[NetNerdsRevenge]

Says who? It's always been that way in sports. We already mentioned football. Basketball had the Celtics with Russell and Bird, the Bulls with Jordan and Pippen, Lakers with Magic, Kareem, Shaq, Kobe. All those great Yankee teams in history had legendary players.
Who says it has to be that way? Times are changing. Look at the past championships in all 3 major sports.



Aside from maybe their coach, those guys are nowhere near on the same level as what football used to have.
Never the less, star players in their own right.



It might make them special if it didn't show so much each season. They have been very lucky to win a lot of their games, especially when teams have outplayed them so many times. Dallas never needed luck in the playoffs, they dominated the scoreboard every game.
Get off the luck, Only one call could be called luck and that was a ruled a forward pass. The first superbowl run you have a case, but the last two they won on good coaching and execution.

[still_life]

"Who says it has to be that way? Times are changing. Look at the past championships in all 3 major sports."

The Red Sox? Isn't their payroll right behind the Yank's? And San Antonio has Duncan, huge star, and Ginobli is well on his way to being a superstar if he's already not one. As for the Pats, I just can't see calling any kicker a superstar. Brady, yeah because he's a QB, and women think he's hot. Other than that, they just don't have it.

Get off the luck, Only one call could be called luck and that was a ruled a forward pass. The first superbowl run you have a case, but the last two they won on good coaching and execution

But man, you're not seeing how huge that call was. That gets called right as a fumble, game over, no dynasty ever starts. They would have been one and done that year, then missed the playoffs the next year. Tom Brady would be a nobody like a Patrick Ramsey or Rex Grossman, and Drew Bledsoe would possibly still be on the team and fight for the starting position. Maybe they still make the playoffs in 03 and 04, but they don't have the experience of winning a SB that they got in 01, and they still wouldn't be considered a dynasty at all unless they win one in 05 or 06.

[NetNerdsRevenge]

"Who says it has to be that way? Times are changing. Look at the past championships in all 3 major sports."

The Red Sox? Isn't their payroll right behind the Yank's? And San Antonio has Duncan, huge star, and Ginobli is well on his way to being a superstar if he's already not one. As for the Pats, I just can't see calling any kicker a superstar. Brady, yeah because he's a QB, and women think he's hot. Other than that, they just don't have it.
Im talking more about how they played as a team. The Red Sox, yes had a huge payroll, but they played as a true team. The FO for the red sox did an amazing job at judging talent. They got guys who would be great team players and also produce. Same goes for SA and Detriot. They play basketball the way it should be. I think youre seeing a transformation in sports from big stars to team players.

[still_life]

I think youre seeing a transformation in sports from big stars to team players.

Hopefully it's just a trend. Like I said before in this thread, it's a damn shame the day a kid says he wants to grow up to be a shooting guard for the Bulls rather than the next Jordan.

[NetNerdsRevenge]

I would like the see it. Not that there wont be stars, There always will be in every sport, but maybe not as money driven and selfish as a lot seem to be today.

[still_life]

I don't want to see a lot of the TO type situations, but I want the star players at every position in the league. They make the games exciting to watch.

[b e L I E v e]

please show me where I used a dictionary definition

No one said it was you


Oh, and still life, you get my vote for the next john madden/steven a smith

haha

[still_life]

I'm very insulted by that.

[still_life]

I was thinking some more about this when I was trying to fall asleep this morning, and it hit me, the Patriots should not yet be considered a dynasty. They missed the playoffs in 02, and there were 10 teams with a better record that year, and 5 with a equal record. Now if they win the SB this year or the next, then fine. But if they fade away this season like past dynasties, they should never get the distinction as one since they were nobodies in 2002. Plenty of teams have won the SB two years in a row, and none of them get the dynasty tag.

[b e L I E v e]

I was thinking some more about this when I was trying to fall asleep this morning, and it hit me, the Patriots should not yet be considered a dynasty. They missed the playoffs in 02, and there were 10 teams with a better record that year, and 5 with a equal record. Now if they win the SB this year or the next, then fine. But if they fade away this season like past dynasties, they should never get the distinction as one since they were nobodies in 2002. Plenty of teams have won the SB two years in a row, and none of them get the dynasty tag.

**hands you a million dollars**

[BuriedAlive]

I was thinking some more about this when I was trying to fall asleep this morning, and it hit me, the Patriots should not yet be considered a dynasty. They missed the playoffs in 02, and there were 10 teams with a better record that year, and 5 with a equal record. Now if they win the SB this year or the next, then fine. But if they fade away this season like past dynasties, they should never get the distinction as one since they were nobodies in 2002. Plenty of teams have won the SB two years in a row, and none of them get the dynasty tag.
Heh, I paraphrased that when ya first did this, but yes. I do not think they will make the playoffs once again this year. But we will see.

[still_life]

It was actually just brought to my attention that I had the wrong numbers for the Patriots team record. I had Brady's record, not the team's. They're 57-16 (.781), putting them behind the Cowboys in winning percentage. So the point about them having the highest is invalid.