Dynasty?

[BigPoppaKev 0]

The Patriots have won 3 out of 4 Super Bowls, in this current day and age are they a Dynasty?

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Absolutely. Not many teams have 3 titles in 4 years in ANY era.

[Cuban Linx 0]

Three Superbowls in four years is a dynasty to me, and the team is still intact heading into next season so there's no reason they can't keep adding to their current run.

[Cartman 0]

Definitely, and despite losing both coordinators this offseason they will most likely be back in the playoffs next year as well.

[Guest Vitamin X]

I'm content with the Pats being the team of the 00's.

 

Pack of the 60's

Steelers of the 70's

Niners of the 80's

Cowboys of the 90's

 

Meet your successor.

[strummer 0]

Yes, definitely, and you have to factor in the salary cap, and how incredibly tough the AFC is. They are the dynasty of the so called "parity" era in the NFL

 

 

And given how terrible the NFC is right now, the Eagles should dominate the conference in the near future. The question is can they win the last game of the season. They are the Minnesota Vikings of the 1970s.

[MARTYEWR 0]

I think they're a dynasty, in spite of the one year they missed the playoffs. In fact, they right now, as well as the Lakers' recent run, are solid arguments that a salary cap does not necessarily generate parity nor competitive balance.

 

Nonetheless, congrats to the Patriots.

[Cartman 0]

Really sad that they were only a tiebreaker away from the playoffs in 2002.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Yes, definitely, and you have to factor in the salary cap, and how incredibly tough the AFC is. They are the dynasty of the so called "parity" era in the NFL

 

 

And given how terrible the NFC is right now, the Eagles should dominate the conference in the near future. The question is can they win the last game of the season. They are the Minnesota Vikings of the 1970s.

They need to lose 3 more Super Bowls to be the Vikings. A more fair comparision might be the LA Rams of the 70's. They lost 3 straight NFC title games, 2 at home. Before making the Super Bowl in 1979. Know the Eagles will be continue to be a contender, but I'm refering to up to the moment.

[Guest The Shadow Behind You]

Without question they are a dynasty. Honestly; it's even more impressive then the Packers, Steelers, 49ers and Cowboys were. It's a completely different world today and the league is designed to prevent a dynasty yet they have dismantled that notion that the NFL is complete parity. Maybe for most part it is; but at the top it's one king that continues to reign above the rest in the kingdom.

 

However; I can't stand the negative connocation that comes to the Patriots. People look back almost warmingly to the Packers, Steelers, Niners and for the most part the cowboys. Yet outside of New England; people despise the New England Patriots and you often hear from the non/casual fans "Them again?". I'll admit i felt that way about the Lakers of the 00's but not about the Bulls of the 90's.

 

Perhaps it's a personality thing. People by the whole seem to HATE New England's "We are a Family. We are boring. We dont care". It was "cute" against St. Louis but now apprently the "gimmick" is old and tired for most people.

 

Well for the Patriot haters; stuck it up because they'll be back here next year because they simply get better. They will only improve and get younger. As long as Belachick reigns in N. England, they'll continue this run.

 

I think we strongly can already slide Belachick into the "elite" realm of NFL coaches meaning top 5 all time.

[strummer 0]

That is true, in the 1980s no one was bashing the 49ers after they made it to Superbowl after Superbowl. People like dominant teams and the Pats don't blow people out, that is a big reason for the hate IMO.

[Vern Gagne 0]

In the same sense the NFL made it harder to have dynasty, wasn't it harder for Pitt. San Fran. and Dallas to be dominate since they had better teams to compete against?

[Vern Gagne 0]

Salisbury and Irvin where having a discussion about how was better NE or Dallas of the 90's. Salisbury's reasoning for NE being better was they proved they could win close games. Irvin of course said, we didn't have to win close games.

[2GOLD 0]

In the same sense the NFL made it harder to have dynasty, wasn't it harder for Pitt. San Fran. and Dallas to be dominate since they had better teams to compete against?

 

Yes and No.

They could keep their players since they didn't have much to worry about in terms of money spent.

 

The Patriots have it harder just a touch since it's basically fill in the blanks football now.

 

The style though was harder for the 49ers and Steelers, no doubt about it. That was some brutal smashmouth, kill the quarterback style football back then.

[2GOLD 0]

Salisbury and Irvin where having a discussion about how was better NE or Dallas of the 90's. Salisbury's reasoning for NE being better was they proved they could win close games. Irvin of course said, we didn't have to win close games.

 

Poor Michael.

Maybe no one told him his coach and quarterback already called New England a dynasty and better than the Cowboys of the 90's.

[The Czech Republic 0]

In the same sense the NFL made it harder to have dynasty, wasn't it harder for Pitt. San Fran. and Dallas to be dominate since they had better teams to compete against?

Excellent point.

 

 

That is true, in the 1980s no one was bashing the 49ers after they made it to Superbowl after Superbowl. People like dominant teams and the Pats don't blow people out, that is a big reason for the hate IMO.

Field goals don't capture the heart.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Irvin said NE was a dynasty. He thought the Cowboys were just better than NE.

[2GOLD 0]

Irvin said NE was a dynasty. He thought the Cowboys were just better than NE.

 

Yeah, just pointing out his coach and quarterback disagree with him. And when your coach and quarterback disagree with you, you've lost your legs.

[Guest Vitamin X]

I think people have a harder time relating to Boston/NYC/Philly teams because their fans are so ferverent about their teams that it's hard to even say you like them without getting ragged on for "not being a true fan" or whatever. The Packers, Niners, Steelers, and Cowboys didn't have this problem as much since they hail from much less, I guess the word I'm looking for is "exclusive" cities, if that makes any sense.

 

Field goals don't capture the heart.

Tell that to Scott Norwood!

[The Czech Republic 0]

I think people have a harder time relating to Boston/NYC/Philly teams because their fans are so ferverent about their teams that it's hard to even say you like them without getting ragged on for "not being a true fan" or whatever. The Packers, Niners, Steelers, and Cowboys didn't have this problem as much since they hail from much less, I guess the word I'm looking for is "exclusive" cities, if that makes any sense.

Packer fans are still plenty fervent. I think it's that midwestern mentality of inclusiveness and good-naturedness as opposed to east coast elitism.

[therealworldschampion 0]

Definitley a dynasty. Anytime a team wins 3 titles in 4 years, it's definitely a dynasty.

 

The Packers, Niners, Steelers, and Cowboys didn't have this problem as much since they hail from much less, I guess the word I'm looking for is "exclusive" cities, if that makes any sense.

 

I'm going to disagree about the Cowboys, I'd say people hated them, ESPECIALLY on the East Coast (Philly and Washington).

[Damaramu 0]

Everyone hated the Cowboys I think b/c the players seemed irritating and annoying on that team. Plus Jimmy Johnson was a dick.

[Fökai 0]

To me, though the Patriots deserve the title of "dynasty", they are not on the same level as the Steelers, Niners and Cowboys of their respective eras.

 

The Irvin quote sums it up to me - dynasty should be a term for domination, which each "dynasty" has done before that. No one had SHIT on the Niners in their championship years -- the last two were essentially over before the game had even started. The Cowboys, although a tougher case, would seal their fate in the NFC Championship games, which were the tougher tests in those two decades of NFC dominance.

 

The Patriots squeaking out three Superbowl wins (against three different opponents) clearly indicates the parity around the league. With that, the NFL may have effectively squashed any chances of a true dynasty for the near future.

[nogoodnick 0]

I dont see them as being as good as the other Dynasties. Its not that they arent talented but... the Patriots are such a boring team. They dont have any of those players who seem bigger than the game. Legends like Aikman, Montana, and Emmit. They have very good players but no one who stands out. They arent fun to root for and they have no personality.

[Vern Gagne 0]

To me, though the Patriots deserve the title of "dynasty", they are not on the same level as the Steelers, Niners and Cowboys of their respective eras.

 

The Irvin quote sums it up to me - dynasty should be a term for domination, which each "dynasty" has done before that. No one had SHIT on the Niners in their championship years -- the last two were essentially over before the game had even started. The Cowboys, although a tougher case, would seal their fate in the NFC Championship games, which were the tougher tests in those two decades of NFC dominance.

 

The Patriots squeaking out three Superbowl wins (against three different opponents) clearly indicates the parity around the league. With that, the NFL may have effectively squashed any chances of a true dynasty for the near future.

NE at this point is a short term dynasty. Doesn't mean it's any less of less of a dynasty.Pittsburgh and San Fran. did it over longer periods.

 

 

Pittsburgh from 72-79. Won 4 Super Bowl and appeared in 6 AFC title games and won 8 straight AFC Central titles.

 

San Fran. from 81-94 won 5 Super Bowls, appeared in 9 NFC championship games and won the NFC West 10 times.

[Fökai 0]

NE at this point is a short term dynasty.

Exactly.

 

The Patriots won't be able to dominate for the amount of time the earlier dynasties did - the NFL has made sure of that. Their fan should just relish in the victories and call them the "team of the 00's", because they won't be looked at so lovingly as Bradhaw's Steelers, Montana's Niners and Aikman's Cowboys.

 

Doesn't mean it's any less of less of a dynasty. Pittsburgh and San Fran. did it over longer periods.

 

It's arguable -- people like to argue about the length of a dynasty -- every other Google'd definition of dynasty precedes with the phrase "over a considerable length of time".

 

 

An article I found on Google about the cap.

 

  CBA: The critics' view of a salary cap

Sunday, October 03, 2004

 

CBA Home

 

When former Vancouver Canucks GM Brian Burke offered his luxury tax plan for a solution to the NHL's CBA stalemate, he said he was still in favor of a salary cap.

 

"I'm not coming off the idea of a salary cap; I think it's the best system in pro sports. I think it has worked miracles in the National Football League. But if you have to go to something else, this might work," he said while outlining his plans on CBC.

 

But critics of the NFL style hard cap say it's not quite the miracle worker that Burke and others claim. Critics also say it may not produce some of the results that NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman argues will result from his term for a cap -- cost certainty.

 

The NFL has profited enormously under the salary cap. All the teams make a profit. Franchise values have shot up. It's television ratings are high. The NFL is king among the professional sports leagues.

 

So what's wrong with a salary cap? Critics have their reasons. There are a lot of arguments that are often made. In the NFL teams can front load contracts with big bonuses. Those bonuses are still figured into the cap system, but they are spread out over the length of the contract.

 

Even the NFL players' union admits the league's cap is not rock hard.

 

"If you total up the actual dollars paid to players since the cap came in with the 1994 season, the total is $2 billion greater than the sum of all the salary caps," M.J. Duberstein, who is research director for the National Football League Players Association, told USA Today.

 

But critics say there is more than just finding ways around the cap that troubles them.

 

Profitability with a cost

 

Everyone agrees a salary cap will increase profitability. Teams will make more money because the amount teams can spend on player salaries will be limited to a set amount. That may sound fine and dandy on the surface, but some argue there are underlying costs.

 

"Things need to be done to permit well run teams to make money. The problem is the salary cap guarantees all teams, well run and poorly run . .  . will make money," Stephen Ross, an Illinois University law professor told the Canadian Press. "Yes, it does protect owners in advance from making really stupid decisions.

 

"But what it also protects the owners against is an owner who could spend wisely on a new free agent who will put his team over the top. If a team has not been a contender recently, and they can spend more money to make more money, there should be no limit on their ability to do so."

 

In other words, you are placing limits on good business owners and propping up poor ones. Others say there is only one group that can be a possible winner in a cap system and that is a team owner.

 

"An effective salary cap is too Draconian and unreasonable. If you're going to use a cap to drive down player salaries, you're just padding owners' pockets," economist Andrew Zimbalist was quoted as saying by USA Today.

 

The players and fans end up on the losing side of the equation.

 

The players get hurt by seeing their earning power diminished. Although Bettman sounds generous when offering players an average salary of $1.3 million per year, critics say what is really happening is that all the competitors for the players' services are joining together to manipulate the market.

 

As Joe Sheehan of the Baseball Prospectus explained it, the goal of the salary cap, which he says should be actually called a payroll cap, is "to restrict the amount of money management can spend on labor. It's an agreement among competitors to inhibit the labor market, lowering salaries."

 

That would be an antitrust violation. The only way the league can avoid that issue is to get the union to agree to it in the collective bargaining process. That is why the NHLPA is so reluctant to agree to a cap.

 

The argument has been made that implementing a cap would benefit fans by lowering ticket prices. This argument has been made by Bettman and several team executives. Critics say that is misleading because ticket prices are driven by demand, not by not player salaries.

 

"Prices are set by teams to maximize revenue, and are based on anticipated demand. They are not set to "make up" whatever rise in payroll is anticipated, no matter how many teams send out letters to season-ticket holders claiming this to be the case. Rising player salaries do not drive ticket-price increases," Sheehan wrote in a column for the Baseball Prospectus.

 

Toronto Sun columnist Al Strachan once put it this way: "As for ticket prices, they reflect what the market will bear. The Maple Leafs have the highest prices in the league for one simple reason. People will buy them at that price. Surely you don't think that ticket prices will go down if salaries are reduced, do you? If you're that stupid, you could become a judge in this country."

 

Team building

 

When Bettman announced the NHL lockout on September 15 he outlined his objectives for a cost certainty system. One of them involved team building.

 

"We need an enforceable, definable relationship between revenues and expenses," he said. "We need a system that will eliminate the disparities in payrolls, so that a team's ability to compete depends on its team building skills, not on its ability to pay."

 

Critics say a cap would do anything but encourage team building. In the NFL teams are often forced to make decisions where staying under the cap takes priority over building or keeping together a competitive team. Teams that draft well could eventually have to part with their players if they could not fit them under the team's salary cap.

 

"[A cap] punishes success, forcing well-built, winning teams to shed talent on a near-constant basis," said Sheehan.

 

Larry Brooks of the New York Post said a cap "would destroy team-building, would destroy the ability of a successful club to maintain its nucleus. It would base every personnel decision on an ability to pay while remaining under a prohibitive cap."

 

That, in a way, benefits teams who makes poor decisions. They'll have an excuse for not being able to put together a competitive team because their hands are tied by the cap.

 

"No matter what the level of the salary cap, there are going to be a lot of teams who have lousy teams because they have overpaid, underachieving players and now they are at the cap level," Ross, the law professor, told the Canadian Press. "If you are an owner, that's exactly what you want. You want to be able to tell your fans 'I'm sorry there is nothing I can do to improve the product because of the cap.' The fans are stuck with another year of a lousy team."

 

Parity & competitive balance

 

"I want the fans in every market to think, at the beginning of the season, that their team has a chance," Bettman once told the Edmonton Journal. "I don't want fans -- you pick the market -- to think, well, this team over there is spending three times as much, how can we compete with them?"

 

Proponents of the NFL's cap system say it has helped bring parity and competitive balance to the league. Some will argue that it has also eliminated greatness from the game by making the ability to build great teams impossible. There are no more great dynasties under the NFL's current system. No Green Bay Packers of the 1960's, Pittsburgh Steelers of the 1970's, San Francisco 49ers of the 1980's or Dallas Cowboys of the 1990's.

 

Others will point out that their is more to the NFL's parity than just the cap. There are other elements as well, such as the way the league gives weaker teams easier schedules the following season. There is also the NFL's revenue sharing, which many argue is the cornerstone of the league's parity.

 

When it comes to revenue sharing, the NFL is unique because it's of huge national television contracts. The revenues from those deals are split equally among the league's teams.

 

The NHL has no big national TV contracts. Most of the revenues are locally generated and much of that comes through gate receipts. Although the NHL could do more to share revenues among the 30 teams, there is no way the league could come close to reaching the level of revenue sharing that exists in the National Football League.

 

And even in the case of the NFL there are still disparities in revenues between the teams because some teams are better at generating money on a local level. Those local revenues can give teams advantages in when it comes to paying out those big cash bonuses that teams use to front load contracts.

 

Parity can be argued either way, and so can the era without the salary cap.

[Fökai 0]

As for the future, I don't see the Patriots changing much next year, even with the coaching changes under Belichick. Two years from now, Brady's contract will be up. That's where the real challenge will lay...what will the team be willing to shed to keep him aboard?

[Positively Kanyon 0]

I think if the Patrots can win 3 in a row, then they can be considered a dynasty... Here in Australia, the Brisbane Lions (my team!) won 3 premierships in a row, and made a fourth successive grand final, only to lose to Port Adelaide, with salary cap restrictions that try to prevent one team from dominating, but the Lions managed to achieve the impossible...

 

Current thinking is that the Brisbane Lions of 2001-2004 are considered to be one of the greatest teams in AFL history... 4 grand finals in a row is unheard of in the modern game here in Australia.

[UZI Suicide 0]

I've said all along the fact that the Pats missed the playoffs in 2002 makes them not a dynasty, in my eyes. You must AT THE VERY LEAST make the playoffs every year of your "Dynasty".

[Vern Gagne 0]

For those wondering. Attempts at a 3 peat.

 

Green Bay missed the playoffs in 1968.

 

Miami lost to Oakland in the 1st round in 1974.

 

Pittsburgh lost to Oakland in AFC title game in 1976, and missed the playoffs in 1980.

 

San Fran. lost to New York in the NFC title game in 1990.

 

Dallas lost to San Fran. in the NFC title game in 1994.

 

Denver missed the playoffs in 1999.