|
REAL Fact or Fiction: Are the Patriots a Dynasty?
This is a real question for this game.
Arguments for Yes: 2 Superbowls in 3 years 18 Game Winning Streak Arguments for No: They missed the playoffs inbetween Superbowls Adding last seasons games to this seasons record doesn't mean shit I know I am going to upset the Bostoners here, and the politically correct national media, but the Patriots ARE NOT A DYNASTY. A dynasty is a team that is good year in year out for many years, not everyother year for three years. I think they are probably the best team in football today, but they aren't a dynasty until they at least make the AFC Title Game and add another Super Bowl in the next two years. |
Sure they've got a pretty good team the past two years. But a dynasty? No. I agree with you on a dynasty being a team that is good year in and year out for many years. I mean.. look at their records from the 90s til now.
1990 - W 1 L 15 Win% .063 1991 - W 6 L 10 Win% .375 1992 - W 2 L 14 Win% .125 1993 - W 5 L 11 Win% .313 1994 - W 10 L 6 Win% .625 1995 - W 6 L 10 Win% .375 1996 - W 11 L 5 Win% .688 1997 - W 10 L 6 Win% .625 1998 - W 9 L 7 Win% .563 1999 - W 8 L 8 Win% .500 2000 - W 5 L 11 Win% .312 2001 - W 11 L 5 Win% .688 2002 - W 9 L 7 Win% .563 2003 - W 14 L 2 Win% .875 I mean.. 7 of 14 were losing records. Lol.. and before those were losing records too. Even though I don't care much for the Dolphins.. if any Football team are to be measured up as a "dynasty" I would say it'd be them. (Despite their poor season this year). |
no. and i'm a pats fan. If they win this year, then maybe.
THE DOLPHINS HAVEN"T WON A SUPER BOWL SINCE 1972! HOW CAN THEY BE A DYNASTY, YOU DUMBASS! |
The Cowboys were a dynasty. The Steelers were a dynasty. The Patriots are not (yet) a dynasty.
|
I'm a pats fan and no... not now, or yet... Need another superbowl win, or at least a few more AFC championship apperances.
In this day and age of the NFL w/ the cap and free agency, it takes less to be a dynasty, another suprbowl win either this year or next. As for the "record" which is a different subject, it does mean something, it's a consecutive win record including playoffs. Now, the NFL doesn't reconise it, they reconise I think a 1930's Bears team, because they only count regular season, but what that means is you can win your last 10, lose in round 1 of the playoffs and then win your next 10 the next season and have a record even though you lost. So yeah, the Pats have a few records to go for... I doubt you'll ever see a undefeated season again like the Phins, the league has too much parity now for that. |
I'm a pats fan and no... not now, or yet... Need another superbowl win, or at least a few more AFC championship apperances.
In this day and age of the NFL w/ the cap and free agency, it takes less to be a dynasty, another suprbowl win either this year or next. As for the "record" which is a different subject, it does mean something, it's a consecutive win record including playoffs. Now, the NFL doesn't reconise it, they reconise I think a 1930's Bears team, because they only count regular season, but what that means is you can win your last 10, lose in round 1 of the playoffs and then win your next 10 the next season and have a record even though you lost. So yeah, the Pats have a few records to go for... I doubt you'll ever see a undefeated season again like the Phins, the league has too much parity now for that. |
Rams = Dynasty
Pats = Not I'm just kidding about the Rams, you assholes. |
Personally I don't really consider the Rams a dynasty. They had the one year when they were unstoppable, and then they were still good for a while but were barred down with injuries, and only made the Superbowl once a few years later.
|
Black font, BCWWF.
|
lol the rams are about as much a dynasty as the Cardinals.
|
Lol, Dave got me.
|
When i think of Dynasty, i think of the Steelers the Bears and the Cowboys, If the Pats get another super bowl this year MAYBE id consider them a dynasty. Fiction
|
If they win this year I'd say yes. Especially if they go undefeated
|
Quote:
I think of since I've been watching, the 49'ers, Cowboys, you could possible even make an argument for the Broncos and Bills since they made it so many times in a row. I put the Giants a rung below, kind where the Pats are now. Now, before my time, you have the steelers, but that was a different era, before free agency and the additional teams. |
I honestly haven't heard one guy on an NFL show say "no" when asked if they are a dynasty, which is why I made this thread. A dynasty is something special though, they're on their way, but I say not yet.
|
Frankly I am surprised nobody has said that the Patriots are a dynasty already.
|
They will soon be.!
|
You rep is getting better big boy!
|
lol for now. still 69 points away from it being positive.
|
Definitely not a dynasty.
As much as I enjoy the Pats, there's no way... Win 2 more SuperBowls in the next 4 years and then you'll be talking dynasty. |
Quote:
Just looked. 1. Pittsburg had 4 in 6 years. So, I think 4 SB wins in 7 years is a little much to be a dynasty, especially in todays nfl. |
the Pats are nowhere near a dynasty. Woo hoo they won two straight superbowls. they have an 18 game winning streak. that does not signify a dynasty. It constitutes that there maybe one in the works but they are yet to even come close to claimin such a title as "dynasty."
|
Quote:
Very few teams in the NFL have won two straight, heck few teams have won more then 1... or even 1... So, my question is this... now I agree there not a dynasty yet... but to those like you who say they're no where close, what is your defition of an NFL dynasty? |
well there really isn't a clear cut definition of what a "NFL dynasty" is but what can be said is that when there is a dynasty it will be known.
and bout the superbowl thing I knew I made a mistake in there somewhere.. thanks for clearin that up. But anyway you can't just put a clear cut specific defnition to the term dynasty for an NFL team. I mean anybody can say, to have ten winning seasons with at lesat 2 superbowl wins or somethin like that. So well I'm just sayin that I can't give you a clear defninition on what I think an NFL dynasty but I can say that while lookin at the Pats now and their previous seasons they are not a dynasty for sure. You will know a dynasty when you see one and they are not one. They are just on a streak right now. |
LOL what are you talking about SuperSlim, your post made like no sense at all
Anyways, I dunno. I'd say they kinda are, not simply because of the two Superbowls. To me, it's more about HOW they won them, and how they are still being run. They're a team that has more emphasis on team merits, rather than individual stars. They've had that philosophy for the past couple years, and while they don't have all the same players, they still have that "same team" type feeling. They've been using the same formula to be successful, and given a bit more time I don't see why they shouldn't be considered a dynasty. |
Quote:
|
They are definitely on the road to becoming a dynasty.
I would say they are also on the road to be the team of this decade like the Cowboys of the 90's, Niners of the 80's and the Steelers of the 70's. |
Quote:
Gertner "Metrosexual" |
Didn't TO use "Uncle Tom" a few weeks ago? :yawn:
|
I don't think they are a dynasty and if they win the Super Bowl this year, I'd still be hesitant to call them a dynasty. They would need to go deep into the playoffs and look good for a few more years on top of atleast one more Super Bowl. Not making the playoffs at all in 2002 despite not losing their marquee guy to injury or anything really hurt the whole "dynasty" thing.
|
The Pats are the closest thing to a dynasty in the NFL at this time.
|
I dunno, just playing devils advocate a little here, but you could call the Packers somewhat of a dynasty. I don't think they've had a losing season or missed the playoffs in forever, so you could argue that.
|
The Packers missed the playoffs a few years ago. The year Ray Rhodes was head coach.
Besides, I think by anyone's definition of a dynasty, atleast ONE Super Bowl Championship is needed. It would be stretching it to go back 8 years and count that as part of a dynasty. |
So just about everybody here agrees that the Pats aren't yet a dynasty, how come every single football analyst keeps saying they are? Its annoying as all hell
|
Quote:
win 3 in 5 years, in todays NFL... that's a dynasty. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:59 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®