Dynasty?

[EVIL~! alkeiper 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.

 

Perhaps, but if you take a look at those old rosters, you will still see a surprising amount of Scrappy McScrubbersons on the rosters. Look at it this way. Imagine reducing the NBA to eight teams, an evaluate such an imaginary team. I find it difficult to think a team from the 1960, eight team NBA could compare with such a team.

[Ripper 0]

You know why people hate the Patriots. Its not because of this Dynasty(yes it is one)

 

Its because of articles like the one on MSN right now about how they are the "greatest team EVER" and people will still say, New England just doesnt' get any respect...moments after calling them the GREATEST TEAM EVER and Tom Brady THE GREATEST QB EVER.

[The Czech Republic 0]

The number of teams is a reflection of the talent available, and the interest in the product.

[NoCalMike 0]

Had it not been for the Redskins' teams of the 80's, the 49ers quite possibly would have about 3 more Superbowl titles. I believe the Redskins were 4-2 against the 49ers in the playoffs during the 80's. The 49ers get Team of the 80's because they won four, but the Redskins were surely right behind them, winning 3 superbowls, while appearing in 4, and actually appeared in the playoffs more then the 49ers during that span. Of course winning the titles is what counts the most, EOS. Had the Skins beat the Raiders in 83, which would have given them back to back SB wins, and four SB wins during their run, they would have probably at least had to been considered equals to the 49ers-Walsh dynasty. Although the Skins 3rd was in '92 though, I look at dyansties more in the respect of the length of their run, moreso then a "decade" consideration. The Pats have won 3 of 4, but in today's league it is reasonably expected that they don't win anymore for awhile and even miss the playoffs next season. Dynasties of old, lasted a decade. Dominance over the period of a decade, that produced titles in the process.

 

It is also reasonable to look at the current NFL and say a single GREAT team can have an easier time winning because of the overall metiocrity of the NFL. I mean in the 80's there were a LOT of GREAT TEAMS that either didn't make the playoffs and/or lost in the playoffs. These days, merely "good" teams make it to the NFC Championship.

[Some Guy 0]

You know why people hate the Patriots. Its not because of this Dynasty(yes it is one)

 

Its because of articles like the one on MSN right now about how they are the "greatest team EVER" and people will still say, New England just doesnt' get any respect...moments after calling them the GREATEST TEAM EVER and Tom Brady THE GREATEST QB EVER.

I agree with you to a point. This year the "no respect" and "no one thought we could do it" routine was pretty far fetched. Very few people picked the Eagles or the Panthers to win. That's two years in a row where they have gone into the game as the favorites. Hell they were favored over the Steelers in the playoffs and the Steelers kicked the shit out of them durign the season. I think the Pats should drop the "no respect" deal. It was true in 2001/02 against the Rams. Virtually no one saw that coming, but in the last two years it hasn't been.

 

They are a dynasty. There is no question about it. They've only lost 4 games in two years. Going 34 and 4 is pretty dominate. As far as them not being dominate, ask Peyton Manning and the Steelers D-line about that. Frankly I prefer that they win the way they do, if they just went out and demolished people there would be no reason to watch.

 

I don't know if I would call them the best team ever but they certainly are the best right now. And they are a dynasty. No one has mentioned that prior to the Pats knocking off the Rams, that the Rams were on the verge of being a dynasty or at leats that was the talk at the time. So they knocked off the best team in football at the time and took that title from them.

[The Man in Blak 0]

You know why people hate the Patriots. Its not because of this Dynasty(yes it is one)

 

Its because of articles like the one on MSN right now about how they are the "greatest team EVER" and people will still say, New England just doesnt' get any respect...moments after calling them the GREATEST TEAM EVER and Tom Brady THE GREATEST QB EVER.

Blame the Yankee fans for constantly chest-thumping about the Yankees and Babe Ruth to Red Sox fans and giving them a collective inferiority complex in the process.

[2GOLD 0]

You know the way a team can beat the Patriots before gameday?

DON'T TALK!

 

Shut your mouth and just do your talking on the field.

 

Look at the playoffs:

Indy, kicker talks.

Pittsburgh, Burress I think it was talked which wouldn't be a shock

Eagles, Mitchell talked.

 

Don't disrespect them cause THAT is where they feel the "No Respect" tag from, and they are right. The critics and fans may give it to them but until every player in the league does, the Patriots can and will always say no one respects us.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

and the Steelers D-line about that

 

?! Corey Dillon had like 70 yards rushing.

[Guest Failed Mascot]

and the Steelers D-line about that

 

?! Corey Dillon had like 70 yards rushing.

and a TD

 

Also I believe Kevin Faulk had 30+ yards rushing as well.

 

I think you have to cheer for the Lions though until you get your name changed.

[Guest Vitamin X]

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.

Sorry dude, apparently you forget that the Cowboys had a pretty damn good team of their own during the 70's and won two Super Bowls (while losing a couple more as well). This was during the days of "Captain Comeback" Roger Staubach and the Doomsday Defense.

[KingPK 0]

Pats rushed for 128 total, well above Pittsburgh's season average, so yeah, I think you could say they pushed the Pitt line around a bit.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Don't disrespect them cause THAT is where they feel the "No Respect" tag from, and they are right. The critics and fans may give it to them but until every player in the league does, the Patriots can and will always say no one respects us.

Um.

[2GOLD 0]

Don't disrespect them cause THAT is where they feel the "No Respect" tag from, and they are right. The critics and fans may give it to them but until every player in the league does, the Patriots can and will always say no one respects us.

Um.

 

I didn't say it made sense.

I said they would be right that not everyone in the league respects them.

 

Notice how McNabb and many others were extremely respectful and then Mitchell says something incredibly stupid and suddenly the Patriots feel disrespected?

 

It's so simple, just shut up and they don't feel disrespected.

[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

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.

I wasn't even implying those Candians where the best ones. Their W-L record during the stretch is awesome. That's huge imo to not only win but to dominate. The Yankees did the same during that 4 year stretch.

 

The Yankees from 1936-1964. A 29 year stretch 16 Titles, 22 W.S. Appearances in 29 years.

[Guest Vitamin X]

I was just thinking right now about the "forgotten dynasties" of the NFL. Everyone usually assigns a decade a certain team (Packers of the 60's, Steelers of the 70's, Niners of the 80's, Cowboys of the 90's), but what about the teams that were also constantly up there and never quite finished the job the whole time? Sure we think of the 90's Bills or the 70's Vikings, whose records of futility in championship games is well-documented, but how about the 70's Dolphins? This was the only team in NFL history to have gone undefeated, and won back to back Super Bowls on top of it. They were the team to beat until the Steelers came around, not to mention the 70's Cowboys and the 70's Raiders were very good teams as well.

 

There's also the late 80's Giants with the most dominating linebacker of the modern era until Ray Lewis came around, a HOF coach in Bill Parcells, and this defensive coordinator whose name I can't seem to remember right now... And of course the 90's Packers who made back to back Super Bowl appearance (with 3 straight NFC Title games) and a win. Can't forget about the 50-60's Colts and Giants, either.

[Positively Kanyon 0]

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.

I'm sorry to go off topic in a NFL Dynasty thread, but that post is the most absurd thing I have ever read in my entire life!

 

1. The Lions get an extra $1 million, WTF?! They actually got an extra $600,000 over the course of 5 years, which ended in 2004... So get your facts straight first mate.

 

2. Essendon were odds on favourites to win the Grand Final in 2001, and if I recall correctly, James Hird wasn't too pleased with the loss if you go by his after game speech... Bloody sore losers!

 

3. Collingwood in 2002 and 2003 just lived up to their reputation as the "Colliwobbles" basically choking in big games. Ironically, the last time Collingwood won a premiership, they were coached by Leigh Matthews... Think about that...

 

4. Goes to show the skill and courage the Lions have, an injured team that was probably 80% fit compared to a fully fit Collingwood side... Like I said above, just living up to their reputation...

 

5. Yeah, blame Collingwood's 2003 loss on Rocca, that's a real great excuse... How many other forwards did you have? Tarrant, Didak, Buckley, Fraser?

 

6. The most overrated team in AFL history? Last time I checked, 4 grand finals in a row isn't overrated, it's downright unbelievable!

 

7. I'm pretty sure the Lions will be in the finals hunt again this year, we have got some real potential young stars coming up...

[NoCalMike 0]

I was just thinking right now about the "forgotten dynasties" of the NFL. Everyone usually assigns a decade a certain team (Packers of the 60's, Steelers of the 70's, Niners of the 80's, Cowboys of the 90's), but what about the teams that were also constantly up there and never quite finished the job the whole time? Sure we think of the 90's Bills or the 70's Vikings, whose records of futility in championship games is well-documented, but how about the 70's Dolphins? This was the only team in NFL history to have gone undefeated, and won back to back Super Bowls on top of it. They were the team to beat until the Steelers came around, not to mention the 70's Cowboys and the 70's Raiders were very good teams as well.

 

There's also the late 80's Giants with the most dominating linebacker of the modern era until Ray Lewis came around, a HOF coach in Bill Parcells, and this defensive coordinator whose name I can't seem to remember right now... And of course the 90's Packers who made back to back Super Bowl appearance (with 3 straight NFC Title games) and a win. Can't forget about the 50-60's Colts and Giants, either.

Don't forget about Gibbs' Redskins of the 80's & very early 90's. Still among a mere handful of coaches to have 3 rings. The Redskins teams of that era were consistant winners in probably the toughest division in the history of football, until the present time.

[Guest Vitamin X]

I knew the moment NoCalMike posted in this thread, I had forgotten to mention the Gibbs Redskins, one of those teams had held the record (and are currently #2, just above the `99 Rams and below the `98 Vikings) for most points scored in a season, the `83 Skins.

 

That was another great forgotten dynasty, probably right around the same as the the 70's Dolphins.

[Guest goodhelmet]

I don't consider the Pats a dynasty. Not even close. One of the key components of the term "dynasty" is longevity.

 

The term "dynasty" should be reserved for those teams that dominate for so long like the Yankees, the Celtics, the Bruins and even the 90's Bulls. Those are dynasties. Hell, even throw the 80s Lakers into that group.

 

I guess it is the "in" term to use these days but I think it does a huge disservice to teams that actually deserve that distinction.

[MrRant 0]

I agree with goodhelmet. A dynasty is a consistently good team throughout at least a decade.

[2GOLD 0]

By that definition, there has never been a dynasty in the NFL in the Super Bowl era.

 

You are NOT going to see a team win four straight Super Bowls EVER. It's just never going to happen.

 

Listing NBA, NHL and MLB dynasties in the same breath with the NFL is just pointless. In terms of the NFL use of dynasty, the Patriots are one. The Niners of the 80's were one. The Cowboys of the 90's proved they are one. The Steelers of the 70's and of course I'll give it up for the Packers of the 60's.

 

Compared to other sports, the NFL has never had a dynasty in the Super Bowl era.

[Guest goodhelmet]

Aha... but you have had teams such as the Steelers or 49ers who were dominant for an entire decade. That shit is hard to beat.

[NoCalMike 0]

Consistent Dominance over a decade trumps 3 titles in 4 years, IMO. The 49ers won four titles in the 80's but were also in the hunt just about every year they didn't actually win it. Just like the Skins were as well, coming away with 3 titles, and one loss in the Superbowl title, over a 12 year period. The Pats on the otherhand failed to make the playoffs in their non-SB winning season, and with FA, could get dismantled relatively soon. It also stands to be recognized that the competition was a lot more fierce in the 80's and early 90's, as often 10-6 didn't even get you into the playoffs a lot of the time, and the teams themselves were just better overall. Watching playoff football was watching greatness with two great teams battling it out, not the best of a sorry bunch which the NFC has become lately.

[smh810 0]

Aha... but you have had teams such as the Steelers or 49ers who were dominant for an entire decade. That shit is hard to beat.

 

Thats not necessarilly true in the 49ers case. They won two Super Bowls in four years and while they were in the playoffs every year, they were pretty much a non-entity in the mid-80s compared to one year dominant teams like the Bears and Giants. The Steelers were more dominant since they got to the Championship Game in 76 lost to Denver in the Divisional round the following year and then won again in 78 and 79. I'm not diminishing what SF did and they ARE a dynasty. but to say they were dominant every year is a misnomer.

[KingPK 0]

I don't think they will totally collapse, as Belichick has no problem letting players that want too much go and getting someone to replace them. I don't think Brady will demand some ludicrous $100M contract or anything, anyway. He'll get a good payday, but he doesn't seem the type to be a cash hog.

 

And I agree that this isn't quite a dynasty yet, a really good run, but not a dynasty. Consistently winning 10 games and making noise in the playoffs over the next 5 years would make them a dynasty.

[Precious Roy 0]

I didn't say it made sense.

I said they would be right that not everyone in the league respects them.

 

Notice how McNabb and many others were extremely respectful and then Mitchell says something incredibly stupid and suddenly the Patriots feel disrespected?

 

It's so simple, just shut up and they don't feel disrespected.

 

It's true. That's just the collective personality of the team, fueled by Belichick's coaching philosophy, where they believe that they must work harder than everyone else to be successful rather than simply relying on god-given talent. This is why belichick drafts the way he does, going for smart, hard-working players rather than the guys with the best combine stats. He's building a system, and that system is predicated on the underdog mindset and the hunger to prove themselves to the world.

 

Does it make sense? Three super bowls says, "yes!"

[bob_barron 0]

I don't consider the Pats a dynasty. Not even close. One of the key components of the term "dynasty" is longevity.

 

The term "dynasty" should be reserved for those teams that dominate for so long like the Yankees, the Celtics, the Bruins and even the 90's Bulls. Those are dynasties. Hell, even throw the 80s Lakers into that group.

 

I guess it is the "in" term to use these days but I think it does a huge disservice to teams that actually deserve that distinction.

3 Super Bowls in 4 years in the era of the salary cap is a dynasty. It really isn't even close

[Guest fanofcoils]

NBA also has a salary cap, yet there may be much less parity, if so why?

[Guest Failed Mascot]

That's due to the NBA having a soft salary cap. The cap is something around $46mill yet the Knicks roster costs over $100mill to put out.

 

I never cared enough to look into how their cap really works. Alf probably knows though.

[bob_barron 0]

In the NBA you can resign your own players as much as you want and it doesn't count against the cap