Dynasty?

[Vern Gagne 0]

Let me expand the thread. What in your opinion is the most impressive dynasty in all of sports?

 

Montreal from 76-79. Won 4 Stanly Cups.

 

1975-76 58-11-11

1976-77 60-8-12

1977-78 59-10-11

1978-79 52-17-11

[Prime Time Andrew Doyle 0]

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.

 

Get your hand off it. They have an extra $800,000-$1,000,000 than other teams on their cap. 2001 they got lucky playing an Essendon team that played its Grand Final the week before against Hawthorn. In 2002, Collingwood took it's mind of the game for 10 minutes and it cost them the game. And in 2003, their players were doped to the sky with painkillers, in addition to Anthony Rocca being out of the game. They were the most overrated team in modern history, watch this year as they decend way down the ladder, and not make the finals.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Let me expand the thread. What in your opinion is the most impressive dynasty in all of sports?

First thought were those Boston Celtics teams back in the day. (EDIT: Or perhaps those Bill Walton UCLA teams)

 

And yes, I'd consider the Pats to be the "D" word. It'll be interesting to see how Bill B's two assistants fare on their own...

[The Man in Blak 0]

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.

It feels really icky to say so, but I'm in the Skip Bayless camp on the Patriots, especially with last night's win. The Patriots are a great team who've built a dynasty on the virtue of the rest of the competition being remarkably stupid. Donovan McNabb, John Kasay, and Mike Martz (and others) have all had a fair hand in choking away the games for their respective teams, which the Patriots still barely won by a field goal.

 

They're a dynasty and a well-coached machine but, while I think they'd make a game out of it, I don't think they'd win against any of the other "dynasty teams" of NFL's past.

[iggymcfly 0]

I don't really get where this idea comes from that the Patriots are less popular than other dynasties. Talking to people while I was watching the Super Bowl yesterday, I'd say that more than half of them wanted the Patriots to win.

 

I remember hating the Bulls with a passion, and I think everyone hated the Yankees when they were winning multiple World Series. However, I've kinda liked the Patriots throughout, and I think most people are right there with me.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Let me expand the thread. What in your opinion is the most impressive dynasty in all of sports?

 

Montreal from 76-79. Won 4 Stanly Cups.

 

1975-76 58-11-11

1976-77 60-8-12

1977-78 59-10-11

1978-79 52-17-11

The NY Yankees of 1936-39 won four straight World Series, and led the league in runs scored AND least runs allowed EVERY SINGLE YEAR.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

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.

It feels really icky to say so, but I'm in the Skip Bayless camp on the Patriots, especially with last night's win. The Patriots are a great team who've built a dynasty on the virtue of the rest of the competition being remarkably stupid. Donovan McNabb, John Kasay, and Mike Martz (and others) have all had a fair hand in choking away the games for their respective teams, which the Patriots still barely won by a field goal.

 

They're a dynasty and a well-coached machine but, while I think they'd make a game out of it, I don't think they'd win against any of the other "dynasty teams" of NFL's past.

I'm sorry, but I can't buy the idea that the Patriots only won three because of their competition. You could make an argument that the NFC is a weak conference and easier to beat in the Super Bowl, but that's moot because the Patriots had to beat the best teams to get there anyway. Having watched the game, I can't say McNabb played stupidly. He threw three interceptions, but he also threw three touchdown passes. He was pressured by a very tough defensive line. Meanwhile, the Pat's offensive line let almost nothing through, and I don't think it was because the Eagles' defensive line was stupid.

 

As for the Michael Irvin comment earlier, Irvin was right. That the Cowboys blew out their opponents is an indication of dominance.

[smh810 0]

The Patriots ARE this decades dynasty without question. When you win 3 Super Bowls in 4 years it doesnt matter how you win youre a dynasty, end of story. Personally, I dont even like comparing different eras cause it was a different game in each decade. I think the Patriots feat is even more impressive under a capped system. Skip "scumbag" Bayless could shove it for all I care, I dont care how "stupid" your team is you still have to win the games and the Patriots do that. Maybe he could start gay rumors about Tom Brady now.

[MARTYEWR 0]

BTW, since some people have mentioned next year, here are the Patriots' free agents for this offseason. (ERFA = Exclusive Rights, RFA = Restricted, UFA = Unrestricted). May be interesting to see what happens with Adam Vinatieri.

 

Eric Alexander LB ERFA

Kory Chapman RB ERFA

Scott Farley S ERFA

Cedric James WR ERFA

Ethan Kelley DT ERFA

Justin Kurpeikia LB ERFA

Gene Mruczkowski C/OG ERFA

Buck Rasmussen DL ERFA

Billy Yates OG ERFA

Tom Ashworth OT RFA

David Givens WR RFA

Brandon Gorin OT RFA

Jarvis Green DL RFA

Kevin Kasper WR RFA

Earthwind Moreland CB RFA

Stephen Neal OG RFA

Rabih Abdullah RB UFA

Joe Andruzzi OG UFA

Rodney Bailey DL UFA

Je'Rod Cherry S UFA

Don Davis LB UFA

Adrian Klemm OT UFA

Jim Miller QB UFA

Patrick Pass FB UFA

David Patten WR UFA

Adam Vinatieri PK UFA

[2GOLD 0]

Givens, Green and Adam are the only ones who are must signs and even Givens isn't a must sign. He might fall back into the liked to see signed catergory with Andruzzi, Patten and Gorin.

 

Pass is a good fullback, but that is a position that can be filled in if he wants too much money.

 

If these are the only guys the Patriots have to worry about, they are in better shape than I originally thought. Considering the release of Law will free up more than enough cap room to resign a few of the key players, I'm not seeing anything bad from that list.

[The Man in Blak 0]

The Patriots ARE this decades dynasty without question.  When you win 3 Super Bowls in 4 years it doesnt matter how you win youre a dynasty, end of story.  Personally, I dont even like comparing different eras cause it was a different game in each decade.  I think the Patriots feat is even more impressive under a capped system.  Skip "scumbag" Bayless could shove it for all I care, I dont care how "stupid" your team is you still have to win the games and the Patriots do that.

Fair enough - comparisons against teams in different eras is probably a fruitless point, so I'll give you that.

 

I won't budge, however, on the intelligence gap between the Patriots and the rest of the league. Now, some of that undeniably has to be credited to the Patriots staff, from the personnel director to the head coach - this team is the best coached team of the decade, and they're so far ahead of everybody in the league that it's almost laughable.

 

But you can't deny that part of that gap lies in the fact that the other coaches in the league have been pretty lousy in critical situations. If the Patriots are smarter than everybody else, then that means that everybody else has to be dumber than the Patriots, and it's been very evident in clock management (hello, Mike Martz) and other facets of the game.

 

The best win that the Patriots had came last year because the Panthers gave them an absolute ride all the way to the finish. With Philadelphia and St. Louis, the opposing teams' effort was marred by terrible mistakes in judgement - inexplicable turnovers in the red zone, the first ever Six Minute Drill, etc. With Kasay's blown kickoff, it was a simple mistake and, while it was still an inexcusable one, it wasn't necessarily a coaching blunder. For Rams and Eagles fans, it's a sore forehead and scratchy throats, all wounds from openly wondering how exactly they could piss away a game so efficiently.

 

The Patriots are a dynasty, no argument there. Their legacy, however, lies in their coaching and their organization's brilliance (and the lack thereof in their competition).

 

They weren't faster, stronger, or bigger than any other team in the league. They were just smarter.

 

The Patriots are smarter than everybody else in the league and, three Super Bowl rings later, any argument to the contrary should really be put to rest.

[Slayer 0]

Let me expand the thread. What in your opinion is the most impressive dynasty in all of sports?

Celtics 11 titles (with 8 in a row) in 13 seasons or UCLA 10 titles (with 7 in a row) in 12 seasons

 

Nothing else comes close

 

Also of historic note: In UCLA's 10 title games, they never played the same team twice. In the Celtics 11 titles, they played the (then St Louis) Hawks 3 times and the Lakers 7 times

[2GOLD 0]

In terms of NFL dynasty, I'd have to say the Patriots are still behind the Steel Curtain and would need at least one more in the next two years to even tie them.

 

I think they are even with the 49ers since the Niners have been placed into a situation where they had to win a close Super Bowl. Hell, with a comeback no less. Maybe the Niners still hold the slight edge, but not by much.

 

Ahead of the Cowboys but not by much.

 

And Skip Bayless is a moron. When players from the greatest dynasties are a) calling the Patriots a dynasty equal to their teams (Bradshaw) and b) better than their dynasty teams (Jimmy Johnson and Troy Aikman) then I don't buy it. Skip Bayless is ahead of Stephen A Smith in the "please be quiet" department. When has Skip said one intelligient thing about ANY sport?

[Precious Roy 0]

Yes, and I'm confident that head to head we could beat the great Cowboys, Niners, Steelers or Packers teams. IMO this team is on even footing with any championship team from any era.

[HarleyQuinn 0]

They weren't faster, stronger, or bigger than any other team in the league. They were just smarter.

 

The Patriots are smarter than everybody else in the league and, three Super Bowl rings later, any argument to the contrary should really be put to rest.

I'd go so far as to say that what the Pats have done is made greater by the fact that they were able to take advantage(with the exception of the Eagles last drive where they killed themselves) of the opposition's mistakes.

 

I wouldn't argue that they are faster/stronger/bigger than some of the other teams in the league however I would say that they execute better than any other team in the league. When you look at past teams like the 49ers, Cowboys, and Steelers they were the same way. They may not have been the biggest, fastest, or strongest teams in the league but they executed in a way that couldn't be matched.

[Damaramu 0]

Ok well it's just 2005. What happens if The Eagles go nuts and win a couple or 3 Super Bowls before 2011? Or if some other team gets hot and comes out of nowhere(didn't the pats just pop up out of nowhere)?

Then who would be the team of the 00's?

[Matt Young 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".

That's exactly what I was going to say. They're the cloests thing to a dynasty in today's National Football League, but missing the playoffs that year disqualifies them automatically. Now, if they win next year... That'll qualify as a dynasty.

 

As for the best dynasty teams ever, the old school Celtics would probably be the best, but I wasn't around for their run.

 

I'd go with my Chicago Bulls in the early-mid '90s. That was a great time to be a basketball fan in Illinois. They had 2 three-peats and probably would've equaled the Celtics' 8 straight titles if Jordan hadn't retired before the 1993-94 season.

[smh810 0]

The Patriots ARE this decades dynasty without question.  When you win 3 Super Bowls in 4 years it doesnt matter how you win youre a dynasty, end of story.  Personally, I dont even like comparing different eras cause it was a different game in each decade.  I think the Patriots feat is even more impressive under a capped system.  Skip "scumbag" Bayless could shove it for all I care, I dont care how "stupid" your team is you still have to win the games and the Patriots do that.

Fair enough - comparisons against teams in different eras is probably a fruitless point, so I'll give you that.

 

I won't budge, however, on the intelligence gap between the Patriots and the rest of the league. Now, some of that undeniably has to be credited to the Patriots staff, from the personnel director to the head coach - this team is the best coached team of the decade, and they're so far ahead of everybody in the league that it's almost laughable.

 

But you can't deny that part of that gap lies in the fact that the other coaches in the league have been pretty lousy in critical situations. If the Patriots are smarter than everybody else, then that means that everybody else has to be dumber than the Patriots, and it's been very evident in clock management (hello, Mike Martz) and other facets of the game.

 

The best win that the Patriots had came last year because the Panthers gave them an absolute ride all the way to the finish. With Philadelphia and St. Louis, the opposing teams' effort was marred by terrible mistakes in judgement - inexplicable turnovers in the red zone, the first ever Six Minute Drill, etc. With Kasay's blown kickoff, it was a simple mistake and, while it was still an inexcusable one, it wasn't necessarily a coaching blunder. For Rams and Eagles fans, it's a sore forehead and scratchy throats, all wounds from openly wondering how exactly they could piss away a game so efficiently.

 

The Patriots are a dynasty, no argument there. Their legacy, however, lies in their coaching and their organization's brilliance (and the lack thereof in their competition).

 

They weren't faster, stronger, or bigger than any other team in the league. They were just smarter.

 

The Patriots are smarter than everybody else in the league and, three Super Bowl rings later, any argument to the contrary should really be put to rest.

 

I dont disagree with that but it doesnt take away from their accomplishments as a team. They still had to execute after the mistakes and they did. As far as others making the "they missed the playoffs" arguement, spare me! The 49ers missed the playoffs with a 3-6 record in the 1982 strike shortened season and I dont see anyone taking their dynasty tag away. The Pats were 9-7 and lost out on tiebreakers. 48-16 + 9-0 in the playoffs since 2001= Dynasty, bottom line.

[2GOLD 0]

Yeah, going 21-0 and winning three Super Bowls in four years pretty much nails their case.

 

And saying they must win next season...three Super Bowl wins in a row doesn't make you a dynasty, it would make you the greatest franchise in the history of the NFL.

 

Nevermind, I missed 1985. But how the Niners are a better dynasty of the 80's than the Patriots are of the 90's is confusing.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

And saying they must win next season...three Super Bowl wins in a row doesn't make you a dynasty, it would make you the greatest franchise in the history of the NFL.

 

The Packers of the 60s would have done it had the Super Bowl come in a year earlier. They still stand as the only team to ever win three consecutive World Championships. These Pats have to get to 5 to match them. If they don't, then Green Bay will still be the greatest team in NFL history. In terms of franchises they have a real long way to go. New England has 3 titles, Green Bay has 12.

[2GOLD 0]

I go by Super Bowl era.

In the Super Bowl era, rather the Packers like it or not they have three and are even with the Patriots and Cowboys.

 

In the Super Bowl era, number 1 is the San Fran with five Super Bowls.

 

And for those saying how "dominate" the Niners were...they won one Super Bowl in the 80's by more than five points.

 

Before the Super Bowl era, there is no question the Packers control the league. In the Super Bowl era, they aren't the top of the heap.

[The Czech Republic 0]

I don't really get where this idea comes from that the Patriots are less popular than other dynasties. Talking to people while I was watching the Super Bowl yesterday, I'd say that more than half of them wanted the Patriots to win.

 

I remember hating the Bulls with a passion, and I think everyone hated the Yankees when they were winning multiple World Series. However, I've kinda liked the Patriots throughout, and I think most people are right there with me.

Where in the country are you again? Last night, my WHOLE dorm was rooting for the Eagles, it was odd. (And of course, the Bulls were not hated with a passion in the Chicago area. Personally I think the Bulls are the most likable of the dynasties.)

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

And saying they must win next season...three Super Bowl wins in a row doesn't make you a dynasty, it would make you the greatest franchise in the history of the NFL.

 

The Packers of the 60s would have done it had the Super Bowl come in a year earlier. They still stand as the only team to ever win three consecutive World Championships. These Pats have to get to 5 to match them. If they don't, then Green Bay will still be the greatest team in NFL history. In terms of franchises they have a real long way to go. New England has 3 titles, Green Bay has 12.

However, the Packers' first of those World Championships came when they only needed to win a fourteen team league. Pre-Super Bowl championships were easier to garner, and it also needs to be remembered that the AFL was probably not of the caliber of the NFL just yet, when the Super Bowl was first played.

[Guest Failed Mascot]

Between his sports logic and taste in music I think Matt Young has proven himself to have the intelligence of a rock.

[The Czech Republic 0]

I don't get the number of teams argument. With Stanley Cups, it seems that the ones that Montreal won in a league of anywhere from six to twenty-four are more valued than say, Detroit and New Jersey's in a league of thirty.

[sfaJack 0]

I go by Super Bowl era.

In the Super Bowl era, rather the Packers like it or not they have three and are even with the Patriots and Cowboys.

Wrong. They are NOT even with the Cowboys.

 

In the Super Bowl era, number 1 is the San Fran with five Super Bowls.

Ahem. Are you not aware that the Cowboys have five Super Bowl wins as well?

 

In fact, if you look strictly at number of Super Bowls, the Cowboys are the greatest franchise of the Super Bowl era because they've been to nine of them. I don't believe any other team is even close to that.

[sfaJack 0]

I don't get the number of teams argument. With Stanley Cups, it seems that the ones that Montreal won in a league of anywhere from six to twenty-four are more valued than say, Detroit and New Jersey's in a league of thirty.

I agree. If anything, wouldn't it be harder to win with fewer teams in a league simply because the collective talent of each team would be much stronger and thus the level of competition higher?

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

I don't get the number of teams argument. With Stanley Cups, it seems that the ones that Montreal won in a league of anywhere from six to twenty-four are more valued than say, Detroit and New Jersey's in a league of thirty.

It's just an inherant matter-of-fact that it is harder to win a league with more competition, and when the competition is more refined. Many people point to the Boston Celtics as basketball's greatest dynasty. They have a great record, sure. But they won many titles in an eight team league, and in a league that does not have as many mechanisms as they do now to identify and draft the best players available.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

I don't get the number of teams argument. With Stanley Cups, it seems that the ones that Montreal won in a league of anywhere from six to twenty-four are more valued than say, Detroit and New Jersey's in a league of thirty.

I agree. If anything, wouldn't it be harder to win with fewer teams in a league simply because the collective talent of each team would be much stronger and thus the level of competition higher?

Not really. The number of teams is a reflection of the talent available, and the interest in the product. An eight team league is an indication of an infant league, where there is not as much general interest for the public, and thus less kids dream of being NBA players as they would other sports (generally baseball in that period). Now, as interest increases, a league adds teams to meet the demand, and there are more athletes attempting to play basketball because of the interest in the league. So it actually works in a linear fashion, so to speak. In 1960, there were simply less NBA caliber players available than there is today. This holds true for almost any sport.

[The Man in Blak 0]

I think that, even if you want to argue diminished talent level, you can counter that by saying that the smaller amount of teams cancels out the lower talent level by reducing the amount of jobs available for the Scrappy McScrubberson's of the world.

 

Though, ultimately, it's hard to compare coaches from different eras, even harder than players, in my opinion. It's impossible to say how Vince Lombardi would have managed in the salary cap era, just like it's hard to tell how Bill Walsh would have fared in the pre-Super Bowl era of football.