The pats are obviously the best team in the NFl this year, their no dynasty... maybe when you compare them to other NFL "dynasties", but IMO, there hasnt been a dynasty in a while in the NFL.
You wanna talk dynasties, look up the Montreal Canadiens (yea i said it) from 56-60, or if there wasnt enough teams then, even 65-79. Theres a dynasty. How about the Boston Celtics, winning something like 8 in a row, 10 outta 12?
There have been a bunch of 3 outta 4 teams throughout sports, and thats a damn good team and one to be remembered. If youre gonna call it a dynasty, then the word "dynasty" has lost its meaning. I dont care how many teams, i dont care how harsh the salary cap is, 3 championships over a 4 year span cant be a dynasty.
As far as football goes, I would reluctantly call the Patriots a dynasty. However, out of the five debateable dynasties (Packers, Steelers, Niners, Cowboys, Patriots) I would say they are the weakest. True, this may be due to the salary cap.. but still, Brady to Branch is definitely not as awe-inspiring as Montana to Rice.
Their non-playoff appearance in 2002 is a glaring hole in their run so far, so if they can repeat success in the next few years it would help their place in history.
goleafsgo96 wrote: I dont care how many teams, i dont care how harsh the salary cap is, 3 championships over a 4 year span cant be a dynasty.
It's not just the salary cap, though. It's the draft, the schedule, free agency and the salary cap. The whole league is designed to prevent teams from winning year after year. Yet the Patriots have done it.
I think it's naive to look at the team's success without taking the era into consideration.
It's like comparing Bond's steroid-induced records to Ruth's. In a vacuum, sure Bonds is the better player. But we're not living in a vacuum.
Last edited by Transmogrifier on Tue Feb 08, 2005 10:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Brady: a "very mediocre QB" - no1cowboysfan
Mitchell: "To me, the Patriots are not that good. ... We're the better team... A good team crushes that Patriot team. I'm telling you, they're not that good.'
goleafsgo96 wrote: I dont care how many teams, i dont care how harsh the salary cap is, 3 championships over a 4 year span cant be a dynasty.
It's not just the salary cap, though. It's the draft, the schedule, free agency and the salary cap. The whole league is designed to prevent teams from winning year after year. Yet the Patriots have done it.
I think it's naive to look at the team's success without taking the era into consideration.
It's like comparing Bond's steroid-induced records to Ruth's. In a vacuum, sure Bonds is the better player. But we're not living in a vacuum.
No the patriots have not won year after year.. well theyve done it once, and if winning back to back superbowls is good enough to be a dynasty, then like i said, dynasty has lost its meaning. Well they did win another, but not in sequence, and the year in between was quite mediocre. Thats rite, you like that word right?
You seem like an older guy, i mean an adult, so you should know the teams im talking about. The canadiens, winners of 5 cups in a row and 10 of 15, and the celtics, winner of 8 in a row and 10 of 12 (think those are the numbers) are dynasties.. to try and put the patriots in their class is disgraceful. Unless theres about 100 teams in the league, 3 outta 4 (with a mediocre year in between) isnt a dynasty. not yet.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Baseball
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by eaglesrule » Tue Feb 08, 2005 3:49 pm 
