PDA

View Full Version : Enough Dynasty Talk



Maynard the Hammer
02-07-2005, 01:32 AM
3 Super Bowls in four years is impressive, but lets put it into context. first off, parity has shifted the balance of power from the players to the coaches. in reality, bellichek should have 3 Super Bowl MVP's. Second, on ESPN, Shawn Salisbury was saying the Pats are a dynasty and could beat the 90's Cowboys. :fire: What!?!? :fire: I thought M. Irvin was gonna punch him in the face. there is no way in hell they'd beat them. the teams arent even close. example: we see Brady sitting in the pocket untouched for unnaturally long periods of time. great Off. Line right? Remember the Dallas O-Line? the way they pulled their guards seemed almost unfair or even illegal. emmit routinely ran 5 yards before even being touched. Aikman, Irvin, Novacek, even Alvin Harper made great plays. they also had a dominate D with dominate players: Dion, Woodsen, a young Marion, Ken Norton, Haley, Jeffcoat and about 7 other D-Lineman in an impressive rotation. Not even close. want more? how about the early-to-mid 90's 49ers? HAHAHA!!! they were almost as talented as the Cowboys and had a better QB and WR. i dare say there isnt a SB winning team in the 90's that the Pat's could beat except maybe the '99 Rams...
Anyway, this is my first post and i promise the next ones won't be as long-winded. thanks for reading

Predaphin
02-07-2005, 01:34 AM
3 Superbowls won by 3 pts each....Dynasty? I think not.

The Pats may have a good coaching staff but the players suck.

archi
02-07-2005, 01:37 AM
i hate to say it but their pretty close - i mean they dont win by alot - but they dont loose much either - i still hate them - but have they lost in their new stadium yet - mabye when we get a roof and have all the revovation - along with a good coach - well be able to turn this season around - still the pats have had a number of very good seasons recentally - god i think im going to have to hurt myself for having said this

Danny
02-07-2005, 01:37 AM
3 Superbowls won by 3 pts each....Dynasty? I think not.

The Pats may have a good coaching staff but the players suck.
I wish we had players that"suck" their way to 3 superbowls!!

Ozzy rules!!

Predaphin
02-07-2005, 01:39 AM
I wish we had players that"suck" their way to 3 superbowls!!

Ozzy rules!!


you dont need players that suck, you just need the good coaching staff they have.

Phin19
02-07-2005, 01:40 AM
the pats are the new dynasty but just not as impressive as the cowboys, the 49ers or the steelers

Omaha_Dolfan
02-07-2005, 01:42 AM
Coaches ... players ... doesnt matter ... 3 bowls in 4 years is excellent ... if it was us everyone on here would be screaming dynasty.

Megatron
02-07-2005, 01:44 AM
If it walks like a dynasty, and talks like a dynasty, then it's a dynasty.

Prime Time
02-07-2005, 01:45 AM
Wow...some people's hatred for teams blinds them big time. Unbelievable. New England is a good team, with good players and a good coaching staff. The Pats are a DYNASTY (in this new era of Football) whether you like it or not. 3 SB wins in 4 years...and back to back wins. In this day and age it is pretty difficult to get back to back appearances in the SB let alone win them both. New England is a Dynasty.

Surferosa
02-07-2005, 01:46 AM
This is a modern dynasty folks. They may not be as dominating as the 49ers of the 80's, but they have definitely preserved their place in history. Unless another team runs off three in a row, the Pats will be remembered as the team of the decade.

L.T.21
02-07-2005, 01:46 AM
I hate the Pats just as much as the next person. But respect is due when needed, and they have earned mine. 3 SB's in 4 years (PERIOD). Dynasty, yes.

Yes, they have good coaches, but they have PLAYERS that can play the game. Put it this way, put the coaching staff on the Fins in 2004, would they win the SB?

As said, I hate the pats just as much as the next person, but you have to give 'em credit- 3 in 4! That's pretty good, anyone else who says otherwise is just sour grapes.
Gosh, I wouldnt mind players that "suck" either.

Prime Time
02-07-2005, 01:46 AM
Also........how many crucial injuries died New England have? Look at their CBs. Enough Said. Dynasty.

FireWrongstedt
02-07-2005, 01:50 AM
3 Superbowls won by 3 pts each....Dynasty? I think not.

The Pats may have a good coaching staff but the players suck.



:roflmao: :roflmao: Yeah, man- they're horrible. I wish our players sucked that much.:rolleyes:

AquaAssasin
02-07-2005, 01:50 AM
3 Super Bowls in four years is impressive, but lets put it into context. first off, parity has shifted the balance of power from the players to the coaches. in reality, bellichek should have 3 Super Bowl MVP's. Second, on ESPN, Shawn Salisbury was saying the Pats are a dynasty and could beat the 90's Cowboys. :fire: What!?!? :fire: I thought M. Irvin was gonna punch him in the face. there is no way in hell they'd beat them. the teams arent even close. example: we see Brady sitting in the pocket untouched for unnaturally long periods of time. great Off. Line right? Remember the Dallas O-Line? the way they pulled their guards seemed almost unfair or even illegal. emmit routinely ran 5 yards before even being touched. Aikman, Irvin, Novacek, even Alvin Harper made great plays. they also had a dominate D with dominate players: Dion, Woodsen, a young Marion, Ken Norton, Haley, Jeffcoat and about 7 other D-Lineman in an impressive rotation. Not even close. want more? how about the early-to-mid 90's 49ers? HAHAHA!!! they were almost as talented as the Cowboys and had a better QB and WR. i dare say there isnt a SB winning team in the 90's that the Pat's could beat except maybe the '99 Rams...
Anyway, this is my first post and i promise the next ones won't be as long-winded. thanks for reading
Actually they are a dynasty but to they couldnt compete with the likes of the cowboys, 49ers , dolphins, Steelers of the past...

Too much parity and that team is got good coaching not superstar players...

L.T.21
02-07-2005, 01:50 AM
Also........how many crucial injuries died New England have? Look at their CBs. Enough Said. Dynasty.
Couldnt agree with you more!! Dynasty: 3 out of 4! And you know what else to add, the AFC was that much tougher this year! Also take into account who they beat to get there....I hate 'em, but RESPECT to the pats.

FireWrongstedt
02-07-2005, 01:51 AM
Also........how many crucial injuries died New England have? Look at their CBs. Enough Said. Dynasty.


No doubt. Dynasty all the way. I hate them, but you gotta give credit where it's due.

L.T.21
02-07-2005, 01:52 AM
:roflmao: :roflmao: Yeah, man- they're horrible. I wish our players sucked that much.:rolleyes:
I want "sucky" players too Fire! If they'll get us 3 out of 4, "sucky" come on down! :shakeno:

Muck
02-07-2005, 01:54 AM
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here (that they're not a dynasty or that they're not one of the best teams ever).

Anyone really think Belichick wouldn't have a dominating, superstar-laden team if this were the pre-salary cap days of the Cowboys?? That's what makes the Pats so great. They're largely a bunch of nobodies. They aren't flashy. They just get the job done. Heck, if the dynasty playing field was level, you wouldn't have those Cowboy, Steeler and Niner teams because they would have been broken up after one or two championships. IMO, it's HARDER to construct a dynasty these days because the system is designed to prevent such a thing.

A dynasty is a dynasty regardless of era. It doesn't matter how you do it or by how many points. All that matters is the final score. Style points don't count.

Prime Time
02-07-2005, 01:54 AM
Actually they are a dynasty but to they couldnt compete with the likes of the cowboys, 49ers , dolphins, Steelers of the past...

Too much parity and that team is got good coaching not superstar players...


:lol: I am as a Die hard of a Dol-Fan as you will find BUT this comment is ridiculous. Dolphins are definately not a Dynasty and never have been.

L.T.21
02-07-2005, 01:56 AM
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here (that they're not a dynasty or that they're not one of the best teams ever).

Anyone really think Belichick wouldn't have a dominating, superstar-laden team if this were the pre-salary cap days of the Cowboys?? That's what makes the Pats so great. They're largely a bunch of nobodies. They aren't flashy. They just get the job done. Heck, if the dynasty playing field was level, you wouldn't have those Cowboy, Steeler and Niner teams because they would have been broken up after one or two championships. IMO, it's HARDER to construct a dynasty these days because the system is designed to prevent such a thing.

A dynasty is a dynasty regardless of era. It doesn't matter how you do it or by how many points. All that matters is the final score. Style points don't count.
Great points Muck, I didnt think about that (yet)...;-) But so true! We all know how the 9ers acquired their teams right....This makes the Pats DYNASTY that more impressive!

Like the Chargers starting next year;-) Hey, come on, one can dream right! As of today, were all 0-0! Here's to playing you guys next year, and "squishing the fish!" Aint that right FireWrongstedt;-)
:roflmao:

AquaAssasin
02-07-2005, 02:09 AM
:lol: I am as a Die hard of a Dol-Fan as you will find BUT this comment is ridiculous. Dolphins are definately not a Dynasty and never have been.
Early 70's with zonka...They won two out of three superbowls and would of won more if Zonka and KIck wouldnt have left....

Surferosa
02-07-2005, 02:11 AM
Anyone really think Belichick wouldn't have a dominating, superstar-laden team if this were the pre-salary cap days of the Cowboys?? That's what makes the Pats so great. They're largely a bunch of nobodies. They aren't flashy. They just get the job done. Heck, if the dynasty playing field was level, you wouldn't have those Cowboy, Steeler and Niner teams because they would have been broken up after one or two championships. IMO, it's HARDER to construct a dynasty these days because the system is designed to prevent such a thing.


And that will be their legacy 20 years from now. The Pats won three SB's in four years in a salary cap era with a bunch of "nobody's". If the 70's Steelers had the best defense, and the 80's 49ers had the best offense, then the 2000 Pats will be remembered as one of the best coached teams in history (together with those old Lomardi coached Packers teams). THAT will be their legacy, and one they should be very proud of.

AquaAssasin
02-07-2005, 02:14 AM
And that will be their legacy 20 years from now. The Pats won three SB's in four years in a salary cap era with a bunch of "nobody's". If the 70's Steelers had the best defense, and the 80's 49ers had the best offense, then the 2000 Pats will be remembered as one of the best coached teams in history (together with those old Lomardi coached Packers teams). THAT will be their legacy, and one they should be very proud of.
i agree....

Prime Time
02-07-2005, 02:28 AM
Early 70's with zonka...They won two out of three superbowls and would of won more if Zonka and KIck wouldnt have left....


Won two out of three...thats it. You could say the same about the Boys, 9ers and Steelers but all their key players stayed in tact for the most part. Miami is not a dynasty...not yet.

Maynard the Hammer
02-07-2005, 05:48 AM
most of my anger

ohall
02-07-2005, 05:57 AM
I think they are a dynasty. In fact I think what they've done is much harder than any team that has won 3 out of 4 Super Bowls in the past. They have a salary cap in place something that none in the past had.

The Pats are an impressive franchise now, one of the all time GREAT franchises in the history of the NFL and we are looking up at them. I don't see why that is so hard to admit. They've more than earned it.

Maynard the Hammer
02-07-2005, 05:58 AM
whoops sorry... anyway, most of my anger is directed toward ESPN, esp. Salisbury saying they could beat Irvin's Cowboys. i just wish SOMEONE in the media would step up say that the 70's,80's and 90's teams (esp.the 90's teams) would stomp on the Pats. you wanna say Bellicek is the best of all time? fine, i can live with that. but to suggest they are as good or could even beat those teams is idiodic. winning 3 of 4 in FA era is amazing, but put it the context of the FA era and dont go back any further. We all know its superior coaching and scheming. ex. Deon Branch is now in the record books. HAHAHA. he tied Jerry Rice for receptions. yeah they're about equal...deon branch will go down as one one of the greats...HAHAHA

ohall
02-07-2005, 05:59 AM
Also........how many crucial injuries died New England have? Look at their CBs. Enough Said. Dynasty.

TWO years in a row they have been hit hard with injuries and they won back to back titles. If that is not a dynasty I don't know what it then.

ohall
02-07-2005, 06:00 AM
:lol: I am as a Die hard of a Dol-Fan as you will find BUT this comment is ridiculous. Dolphins are definately not a Dynasty and never have been.

Yea they were. There were TWO in the 70's. The Dolphins and the Steelers.

Maynard the Hammer
02-07-2005, 06:11 AM
ohall wrote:
" In fact I think what they've done is much harder than any team that has won 3 out of 4 Super Bowls in the past"
true but remember this, the '94 49ers had to beat the two-time defending Cowboys in the NFC Championship game. all of the NFC championship games of that span of five or six years (dont forget the Packers with Farve at his absolute best) had downright amazing teams. from the Cowboys perspective, their path to win a championship was harder, cause the had to get through a 49ers team that had Hall of Famers and had great talent on both sides of the ball. how many teams like that did the Pats beat? the rams? no defense. the colts? no defense. they missed the playoffs the year the ravens won...

nyjunc
02-07-2005, 11:01 AM
Winning 3 SBs in 4 years in today's game is the most impressive dynasty BUT that doesn't mean they are the best team b/c they aren't close to that. They are not as good as the 90s Cowboys, 80s Niners, 70s Steelers and other great teams.

Gator Mike
02-07-2005, 12:16 PM
That Rams defense the Pats beat in 2001 was actually a Top 5 defense that year, I believe.

The fact that the cap exists means that the talent is spread out more and even the best teams in the league this year aren't likely to be quite as dominant as the teams of the 60's, 70's, 80's or even 90's. It was nothing for Packers, Steelers or 49ers to keep their group of Hall of Famers together. On the other hand, in the salary cap era, the Patriots have made a conscious effort to create a deep roster. They have very few "stars" by choice. What they do have is depth, flexability, and versatility... in spades.

Maybe not quite as good (...although 34-4 over the past two seasons is pretty dominant in my book) as the great teams of years past, but maybe more impressive.

AquaAssasin
02-07-2005, 01:56 PM
Won two out of three...thats it. You could say the same about the Boys, 9ers and Steelers but all their key players stayed in tact for the most part. Miami is not a dynasty...not yet.
There still considered one of the best teams played.