Patriots dynasty over?

[Kodos]

This should be entertaining...


I think that, perhaps, with the Patriots' defense getting long in the tooth, and player defections like Samuel to Philly, that maybe, just maybe, the Patriots' dynasty has run its course. Thoughts?

[MikeVic]

I don't think they're done, but I wanted to bring forth a similar question... if they take a year or two to re-tool, and then come back to win a Super Bowl... is that the current dynasty, or a whole new one?

[DaddyTorgo]

I disagree. I think that's a knee-jerk reaction to a loss where the team as a whole looked pretty crappy. However there is ZERO question in my mind that with a healthy Tom Brady this Patriots team would have flipped the score in that game and been the one scoring 38pts.

I don't think they'll have a successful year without Brady. I was one of the first on this board saying 6-10 for the year. Because the fact of the matter is that with Brady last year and essentially an identical offense this team AVERAGED a shade under 37ppg. Highest scoring offense of all time. This defense was built for this year on the assumption that it wouldn't have to hold other teams below 10ppg to win. They were "expecting" to be able to give up 20-25ppg and still cruise to victory in every game. All of a sudden you remove Brady and you insert a QB who can't move the ball effectively and keep the defense off the field to let them rest, let alone put points on the board (gee...1st and goal from the 8...how about sack, sack, INT to a DT), and of course you're going to have a poor season. I honestly think this team will win 8...MAYBE 9 games tops at this point unless something drastically changes.

And yes, there is no question that the defense is looking a bit ragged. But the front-3 are the best in the league, no doubt. Mayo has been exceptional at MLB though - he's played virtually every snap of the season so far. But Bruschi/Vrabel are getting older, I fully concde that. And the secondary is nothing to write home about at the moment (although we do have a couple of young, high draftpicks back there developing).

But I don't think it's at all fair to say it's the "end of the dynasty" even if they finish 3-13 this year. Because if you take any of the other dynasties of any era and remove their QB, the team wouldn't be worth squat.

[DaddyTorgo]

dola

Ronnie's right - starting in the SB the O-line has looked PATHETIC. They badly need help there.

The D-line and Mayo + the kids in the secondary I am okay with.

[Galaxy]

Just curious, do you think Brady is that good and that the rest of the team and coaches are lifted by him? I do think that AFC East is much improved this year in comparison to previous years as well.

[Kodos]

I disagree. I think that's a knee-jerk reaction to a loss where the team as a whole looked pretty crappy. However there is ZERO question in my mind that with a healthy Tom Brady this Patriots team would have flipped the score in that game and been the one scoring 38pts.


"We're only going to score 17 points?" Tom Brady said, scoffing at Plaxico Burress's 23-17 prediction for the Super Bowl. :p

[larrymcg421]

I don't understand how the score would have been flipped. Why would the Patriots suddenly be able to defend the direct snap? It wasn't just lack of emotion or energy. They were simply confused and in the wrong places all game long. I don't see how Brady would help in that area, unless he's a secret Genius DC as well.

[Deattribution]

I disagree. I think that's a knee-jerk reaction to a loss where the team as a whole looked pretty crappy. However there is ZERO question in my mind that with a healthy Tom Brady this Patriots team would have flipped the score in that game and been the one scoring 38pts.


But I don't think it's at all fair to say it's the "end of the dynasty" even if they finish 3-13 this year. Because if you take any of the other dynasties of any era and remove their QB, the team wouldn't be worth squat.

First part, Matt Cassell didn't give up 38 points, nor would of Tom Brady stopped the D from giving up 38 unless he plays both sides of the ball. There is no way anyone was flipping that score.

The bolded part is wrong on so many levels, and really only could be said about Montana, and maybe Elway. I don't think the Pats finish 3-13 anyway, more like 6-10 at worse but you seem to think the entire dynasty is based on Brady. No dynasty has been without a great defense, which the Pats no longer have. It's over with.

[DaddyTorgo]

"We're only going to score 17 points?" Tom Brady said, scoffing at Plaxico Burress's 23-17 prediction for the Super Bowl. :p

as discussed, the Pats O-line laid a turd against the Giants D-line during the SB (and yes credit the Giants d-line a bit too, they're not scrubs, but the o-line definately was subpar)

[Galaxy]

And yes, there is no question that the defense is looking a bit ragged. But the front-3 are the best in the league, no doubt. Mayo has been exceptional at MLB though - he's played virtually every snap of the season so far. But Bruschi/Vrabel are getting older, I fully concde that. And the secondary is nothing to write home about at the moment (although we do have a couple of young, high draftpicks back there developing).



I think they need to change their philosophy a bit in using free agency and the draft. It seems like they need to get youth and speed in the defense, and I think that drafting Mayo is right step in the direction.

[DaddyTorgo]

First part, Matt Cassell didn't give up 38 points, nor would of Tom Brady stopped the D from giving up 38 unless he plays both sides of the ball. There is no way anyone was flipping that score.

The bolded part is wrong on so many levels, and really only could be said about Montana, and maybe Elway. I don't think the Pats finish 3-13 anyway, more like 6-10 at worse but you seem to think the entire dynasty is based on Brady. No dynasty has been without a great defense, which the Pats no longer have. It's over with.

Cassel's inability to move the football and keep the defense off the field (let alone put points on the board) resulted in the defense being forced to "play from behind." (disclaimer: i didn't look at time of possession stats or avg starting field position at all, but i'm assuming).

The bolded part is absolutely not wrong. Take Aikman off the Cowboys and replace him with his backup and I bet you that team falls apart too. It could certainly be said about Montana and Elway too. Any other dynasties you want to bring up that we can apply that to?

I don't disagree that no dynasty has been without a great defense, but with the exception of that Ravens defense for that very brief window, no defense has carried a subpar-QB.

I also think the results of a single game are not fair basis to conclude that the Pats defense has completely lost it. They may not be as good as they were 7 years ago, but they're not the swiss-cheese defense they were yesterday.

[Subby]

The dynasty was over after they cut Lawyer Milloy and lost 35-0 that same week to the team that signed Milloy (BUF).

Oh wait.

[RendeR]

The patriots will not win another Super Bowl prior to the 2020 season.

There, that's your answer.

[Galaxy]

The bolded part is absolutely not wrong. Take Aikman off the Cowboys and replace him with his backup and I bet you that team falls apart too. It could certainly be said about Montana and Elway too. Any other dynasties you want to bring up that we can apply that to?

I would argue that in terms of the depth and arsenal that Aikman and Montana had were superior to Brady's. Moss is an All-Pro, and they have solid skill positions, but those teams were just deep at all positions. Of course, it was in the pre-cap era.

[DaddyTorgo]

but you had to see this kind of thread/reaction coming. the team has been so good for so long that "America" has just been waiting for a crack so that they could tear it down and dance on the proverbial grave.

[flere-imsaho]

This should be entertaining...

It's a welcome break from the political threads. :)

I think that, perhaps, with the Patriots' defense getting long in the tooth,

The well-known names are getting older, sure, but the Pats have enough youth on the team to keep going. Since I think Pioli thinks that this is a year-by-year thing, and that you always have to get better by cycling in youth and cycling out players who are too old, I'd say this is more like business as usual.

and player defections like Samuel to Philly,

The Pats have never had a problem letting guys go for big money, so this didn't surprise me. There's only one player on the team that they won't let go, and that's Brady.

that maybe, just maybe, the Patriots' dynasty has run its course.

1. A few more games are needed to determine how badly the Patriots have regressed. We should also keep in mind the hit to morale Brady's injury must have caused to the whole team.

2. If "dynasty" is defined as getting to the Super Bowl every couple of years and being in contention almost every year, then as long as Brady comes back next year, I'd say they're still well within their "dynasty" years.

[DaddyTorgo]

I would argue that in terms of the depth and arsenal that Aikman and Montana had were superior to Brady's. Moss is an All-Pro, and they have solid skill positions, but those teams were just deep at all positions. Of course, it was in the pre-cap era.

right - so look in the salary cap era (given the pool of potential choices is a lot smaller then)

[larrymcg421]

Time of possession was 32:27 (MIA) to 27:27 (NE). I think it's hard to blame the offense for the poor defensive play. I mean, the 2nd Brown TD came when it was only 7-3 and it was a simple off tackle run that went 15 yards. If they were already winded by that point, then the Pats really do have something to be concerned about.

[Deattribution]

Cassel's inability to move the football and keep the defense off the field (let alone put points on the board) resulted in the defense being forced to "play from behind." (disclaimer: i didn't look at time of possession stats at all, but i'm assuming).

The bolded part is absolutely not wrong. Take Aikman off the Cowboys and replace him with his backup and I bet you that team falls apart too. It could certainly be said about Montana and Elway too. Any other dynasties you want to bring up that we can apply that to?

You're doing ALOT of assuming with everything. The time of possession was only about 5 minutes difference.

Did you actually watch the Cowpies play? I won't say they're better than any of the Pats teams but they were drastically more dynamic than the Pats with Emmitt, the o-line and their defense. The Steelers without Bradshaw still had the best defenses, offensive lines, WR corps in the entire league. The Redskins were just fine without whatever QB they decided to plug in that year. None of these teams were 'squat' without their QBs.

[Galaxy]

Do you think that part of it, is, that teams are getting better as well as they are starting to figure out ways to beat the Patriots?

[DaddyTorgo]

Time of possession was 32:27 (MIA) to 27:27 (NE). I think it's hard to blame the offense for the poor defensive play. I mean, the 2nd Brown TD came when it was only 7-3 and it was a simple off tackle run that went 15 yards. If they were already winded by that point, then the Pats really do have something to be concerned about.

fair enough. didn't know time of possession was that close. be curious to see what average starting field position and the like were.

i don't think you can lay the blame for all of the poor defensive play on the offense's door for sure -- by the third time they ran that same play and the Pats stood there i bet everyone in NE wanted to kill someone. there's certainly more than enough blame to go around on the defensive side of the ball.

but from a morale perspective, and from a perspective of having a game-changing weapon at the QB position, the offense has certainly been changed. Quite different having to defend against Brady throwing to those receivers than Cassel, and Brady's ability to score quickly and often versus Cassel's inability. If Brady was healthy and the Pats score on their first 2 drives it's a different ballgame -- Miami is forced to play catchup more, Pats can key on the pass, etc. Assumptions yes, but not unreasonable ones.

[Anthony]

i have the Pats D on my fantasy team, so everyone other than Bill Belicheck please don't read the following:


Bill, GO BACK TO FILMING THE OTHER TEAM.

[sabotai]

2. If "dynasty" is defined as getting to the Super Bowl every couple of years and being in contention almost every year, then as long as Brady comes back next year, I'd say they're still well within their "dynasty" years.

If this is how "dynasty" is defined, than I think the word has lost all of its meaning. "Dynasty" should not mean a team that's really good for a long time, it should mean a team that is dominant for a long time.

In my mind, the "Patriots Dynasty" was from Feb 2nd, 2002 to Feb 6th, 2005. Even then, I'm a bit uncomfortable with the dynasty tag considering how they didn't make the playoffs on their off-year during that time.

But that's just me. It seems most people are not as strict as I am in applying the "dynasty" tag to a team.

[Galaril]

Cassel's inability to move the football and keep the defense off the field (let alone put points on the board) resulted in the defense being forced to "play from behind." (disclaimer: i didn't look at time of possession stats or avg starting field position at all, but i'm assuming).

The bolded part is absolutely not wrong. Take Aikman off the Cowboys and replace him with his backup and I bet you that team falls apart too. It could certainly be said about Montana and Elway too. Any other dynasties you want to bring up that we can apply that to?

I don't disagree that no dynasty has been without a great defense, but with the exception of that Ravens defense for that very brief window, no defense has carried a subpar-QB.

I also think the results of a single game are not fair basis to conclude that the Pats defense has completely lost it. They may not be as good as they were 7 years ago, but they're not the swiss-cheese defense they were yesterday.

TIME OF POSSESSION -Mia-32:33 NE-27:27

So, the time the defense was on the field was negligible.

[DaddyTorgo]

TIME OF POSSESSION -Mia-32:33 NE-27:27

So, the time the defense was on the field was negligible.

surprising based on what i saw, but okay.

[Draft Dodger]

The dynasty was over after they cut Lawyer Milloy and lost 35-0 that same week to the team that cut Milloy (BUF).

Oh wait.

thanks for that.

geez, you lose for the 2nd time in 20something games and suddenly it's game over. no question, the Pats defense and OLine looked terrible on Sunday and Randy Moss looked completely disinterested. But they also were facing a team that executed perfectly.

Bottom line, it's one game.

[ISiddiqui]

The bolded part is wrong on so many levels, and really only could be said about Montana, and maybe Elway.

Well, recall that when Montana went down with injury during the 80s, the 49ers still tended to do fairly well (of course Steve Young was the backup for a good deal of it, but there were some times were he got injured and the third stringer played very well... there is actually a portion of "The Blind Side" by Michael Lewis that goes into this, but I can't recall the exactness).

[FrogMan]

geez, you lose for the 2nd time in 20something games and suddenly it's game over. no question, the Pats defense and OLine looked terrible on Sunday and Randy Moss looked completely disinterested. But they also were facing a team that executed perfectly.

Bottom line, it's one game.

exactly. The same way nobody was calling them a dynasty after they won their first SB against the Rams, the same way, one game cannot simply end the whole thing.

That being said, it was dang tough to watch yesterday. Seeing them pretty much clueless everytime that Pennington lined up as a wideout. I mean, it certainly wasn't because they were old all of a sudden that they couldn't adjust to it, was it? Add bad coaching to the list of things mentionned by DD...

FM

[Kodos]

Keep in mind, this was a terrible Dolphins team that ripped them a new one yesterday.

[jeheinz72]

I don't think it's over at all. The Fins just completely flipped the script on Pats and BeliCheat. Fins played well, Pats played poorly. Not the end of the road for NE by any stretch. The Pats are still likely winning this division. I mean let's keep in mind that the Bills nearly lost to the Raiders at home. So it's not like the East is any kind of amazing this season.

I think even Cassell can guide them to 10-6. The schedule is cupcake filled still. They'll regroup this bye week, throttle the Niners then probably split with Chargers/Broncs. That puts them at 5-2 after they lay waste to the Rams.

Let's also not forget that my lowly 4-12 Fins upended the 14-2 Pats on MNF in 2004. It's just a familiarity factor of playing within the division, new regime or not, the Fins for whatever reason seem to generally play the Pats tougher than record would suggest. Heck, even last year the Fins lost by 21 points twice. Well the Pats won 8 games other than those by 21+, and the Fins were abysmal.

[BishopMVP]

I feel like this conversation has happened before. We lost 31-0 to Buffalo Week 1, Belichick had "lost the team" then they reeled off like 14 straight wins and a Super Bowl. 2 years ago, the defense was getting old, the offense couldn't get a first down when they needed to after giving up a 20-pt 2nd half lead to Indy in the AFC Title Game. Then we added Moss, Thomas, Welker etc and went 16-0 the next year.

I don't think there's any question the Pats aren't a SB contender this year, but would be with Brady at QB. Even with all the problems at OL, LB (although we still have 3 really good players there in Vrabel, Thomas and Mayo) and particularly the secondary the offense of last year would have masked them. And if we consider this year a wash because of one injury, that gives a year of development to Mayo, Meriwether and the CB's, and more importantly, an entire offseason of drafting/free agency to retool.

Overall, while this will certainly be a down year for NE, I think people are overreacting way too much to one game, and NE will still probably get 8-10 wins and be in contention for the AFC East and wild-card berths. (People saying the AFC East has improved dramatically - it's not true. Miami certainly is better than the epic failure of last season, but they're still not a .500 team, the Jets are still a bad team and the Bills, while 3-0, needed a comeback to sneak out a home win against the Raiders.)

[Kodos]

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

[molson]

I'm just shocked Kodos admits that it's a dynasty.

The keys are Bellichick and Brady. Yes, the defense is older but it's not like this is the same defense they've had in place since '01. They've loaded and re-loaded several times over this run. The defense was pretty old at the start of the dynasty (Anthony Pleasant, Bobby Hamilton, Otis Smith, Roman Phifer), and all those guys are long gone.

Really, almost the entire roster has turned over since the first Super Bowl - except for Brady, Kevin Faulk, Vrabel, and Bruschi. So it's very much a Brady/Bellichick dynasty.

[FrogMan]

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

the Germans?

[gstelmack]

I need to start the parody thread asking if the 1-2 Indianapolis Colts dynasty is over, and they've still got their marquee QB...

[gstelmack]

the Germans?

It's a movie quote...

[SirFozzie]

The question is..was yesterday's game an aberration, or how you deal with the Patriots now. Out innovate the innovators..

[FrogMan]

Is it innovation when you run the same play (successfully) four times?

that's what depressed me most. Saw them line up the same way the second time and thought "oh, sure, they will kill that play now" and boom, TD again, and again, and again. heh...

FM

[FrogMan]

It's a movie quote...

oh, okay then.

[DaddyTorgo]

that's right. I forgot Adalius Thomas who's a fucking tank (when i was mentioning the pluses on defense)

[rowech]

Never was a dynasty to begin with.

Only true dynasties are: Yankees, Celtics, Canadiens, UCLA mens' basketball and all of them are long ago.

[DaddyTorgo]

that's what depressed me most. Saw them line up the same way the second time and thought "oh, sure, they will kill that play now" and boom, TD again, and again, and again. heh...

FM

seriously, if that kept happening you think even if they didn't talk about fixing it on the sideline they'd call a TO when they saw it.

[sabotai]

Never was a dynasty to begin with.

Only true dynasties are: Yankees, Celtics, Canadiens, UCLA mens' basketball and all of them are long ago.

No NY Islanders or Edmonton Oilers?

[rowech]

No NY Islanders or Edmonton Oilers? I'd put them in my great run category.....you might be able to correct me because I will admit hockey isn't my strong point, but for me, I think a dynasty should go through two distinct core group of players to be considered a dynasty. Just going through one cycle of great players, just doesn't cut it for me to be a dynasty.

For the Yankees, it was Ruth/Gerhig's guys, DiMaggio's guys followed by Mantle's guys. Three distinct cycles of players.

UCLA it was Alcindor and then Walton

Boston is close in my book simply because the core group produced a lot of titles, and then a small gap, and then some more titles. I believe they won two in the 70s...not sure on that...before kicking it back on in the 80s.

Canadiens....I must admit I've always made an assumption they went through two cycles of players in winning all of their titles.



I don't know enough about hockey to say for sure about Edmonton but I think they might be in the same class as the 90s Bulls for me. As much as I might think the Bulls are a dynasty, having Jordan and Pippen for both runs, despite the turnover, is enough to keep them as just a great run.

Like I said, I think dynasty gets thrown out there way too often. I think to be a true sports dynasty, you've got to go through distinct cycles of players in a short span (I'm willing to give you a small gap before kicking it on again) though.

[DaddyTorgo]

I'd put them in my great run category.....you might be able to correct me because I will admit hockey isn't my strong point, but for me, I think a dynasty should go through two distinct core group of players to be considered a dynasty. Just going through one cycle of great players, just doesn't cut it for me to be a dynasty.

For the Yankees, it was Ruth/Gerhig's guys, DiMaggio's guys followed by Mantle's guys. Three distinct cycles of players.

UCLA it was Alcindor and then Walton

Boston is close in my book simply because the core group produced a lot of titles, and then a small gap, and then some more titles. I believe they won two in the 70s...not sure on that...before kicking it back on in the 80s.

Canadiens....I must admit I've always made an assumption they went through two cycles of players in winning all of their titles.



I don't know enough about hockey to say for sure about Edmonton but I think they might be in the same class as the 90s Bulls for me. As much as I might think the Bulls are a dynasty, having Jordan and Pippen for both runs, despite the turnover, is enough to keep them as just a great run.

Like I said, I think dynasty gets thrown out there way too often. I think to be a true sports dynasty, you've got to go through distinct cycles of players in a short span (I'm willing to give you a small gap before kicking it on again) though.

i think your standards are way too high - but that's just my opinion. to each their own of course

[MikeVic]

I think the definition of a dynasty is hard... but I do think the Bulls and Oilers should be considered. I'm not very familiar with the Islanders. I believe the Oilers' last Cup was without Gretzky, no?

[MikeVic]

Dola,

the Bulls had Jordan and Pippen for all six, true... but I felt the teams were different enough between the first three and second three. Cartwright, B.J., Paxson, etc... and then Rodman, Longley, Harper, Kukoc, Kerr, etc.

[sabotai]

I'd put them in my great run category.....you might be able to correct me because I will admit hockey isn't my strong point, but for me, I think a dynasty should go through two distinct core group of players to be considered a dynasty. Just going through one cycle of great players, just doesn't cut it for me to be a dynasty.

I get what you're saying. Kinda like asking if it's a "dynasty" if a king rules a country, but his children don't take over when he dies. It seems like you want a clear lineage of great players from one era to the next to be a "dynasty".

[Draft Dodger]

I also don't think it's a given that the Pats are going to miss the SB. A lot of the good AFC teams from the last few years seem to be on the decline. There doesn't seem to be any clear cut favorite (Tennessee? Denver?) and I could easily see the Patriots being in the mix at the end of the year.

[stevew]

I'd consider it more of a dynasty if they rolled teams in the superbowl like the 90s cowboys did. That was a friggin dynasty. 3-3 point wins is not exactly awe inspiring.

(now if they had pulled the 19-0 thing, I'd probably be more impressed).

[Subby]

the Germans?
Don't stop him. He's on a roll.

[Oilers9911]

I thought a dynasty was a string of championships in a row, not just a good run? Like 4 in a row or 5 in a row...or heck, even 3 in a row. Does 5 in 10 years make a dynasty? 3 in 6? Who knows but I think any Patriots dynasty, if there is one, is over if they don't win for the second year in a row.

[molson]

I thought a dynasty was a string of championships in a row, not just a good run? Like 4 in a row or 5 in a row...or heck, even 3 in a row. Does 5 in 10 years make a dynasty? 3 in 6? Who knows but I think any Patriots dynasty, if there is one, is over if they don't win for the second year in a row.

There's obviously no shared meaning, but the other question is whether the "definition" changes over time. The Montreal Canadians won 5 straight Stanley Cups in the 50s - but is that really more impressive than what the Patriots have done considering there were only 6 teams in the NHL at the time? The Celtics won 8 straight championship in the 50s-60s, but there were only 8-9 teams in the league back then. The Yanks won 5 in a row in the 50s, in a 16 team league with no playoffs before the world series, with same team pretty much every year.

The Pats have done what they've done in a 32-team league, with free agency, a salary cap, revenue sharing, and a recent league trend of competitive balance, with pretty much the entire roster turning over outside of Brady. Whatever you want to call it, it's ridiculous.

[RendeR]

There's obviously no shared meaning, but the other question is whether the "definition" changes over time. The Montreal Canadians won 5 straight Stanley Cups in the 50s - but is that really more impressive than what the Patriots have done considering there were only 6 teams in the NHL at the time? The Celtics won 8 straight championship in the 50s-60s, but there were only 8-9 teams in the league back then. The Yanks won 5 in a row in the 50s, in a 16 team league with no playoffs before the world series, with same team pretty much every year.

The Pats have done what they've done in a 32-team league, with free agency, a salary cap, revenue sharing, and a recent league trend of competitive balance, with pretty much the entire roster turning over outside of Brady. Whatever you want to call it, it's ridiculous.


The bolded part is utter and complete bunk. The Defensive front and the Oline have been pretty stable for most of that time. Brady and Faulk added in to that gives you about 50% of the starting players being around for most of the run. Not even close to the entire roster. Good lord.

[molson]

The bolded part is utter and complete bunk. The Defensive front and the Oline have been pretty stable for most of that time. Brady and Faulk added in to that gives you about 50% of the starting players being around for most of the run. Not even close to the entire roster. Good lord.

There's 2 offensive players and 2 defensive players left from the 2001 Super Bowl Team. Go look up that roster, most of those guys were gone 2 years later.

Yes, the next two Super Bowl teams were pretty similar (not shocking considering they were in consecutive years). But a lot of new blood (much of it major contributors) since the last super bowl team.

The real spirit of your post of course, is just finding the absolute least important part of my point. If it's faster just to concede that they had the exact same 53-man roster every single year, fine, it's still more impressive than winning some stanley cups in a 6-team league (which is only slightly more impressive than winning an AFC East Championship).

[Travis]

I know I'm a bit late to the party, but how could you not consider the Oilers a dynasty? 5 Cups in 7 years with the year prior to their first Cup win being a loss in the Cup finals then the two years following their last Cup, they made it to the Conference finals (one step away from the Cup finals).

So in 10 seasons they appeared in the Cup finals 6 times, won it 5 times and lost twice in the conference finals. They went 452-258-90 over the regular season during that stretch and 115-50 in the playoffs. If you cut it off after their last Cup win their records were 379-187-74 and 98-33 over 8 seasons with 5 cups wins and 6 appearances.

[RendeR]

Dynasty is such a hard term to define when it comes to sports. you also have to look at each sport individually to really define what makes a dynasty in that sport.

Teams I consider Dynasties:

NHL
The Montreal Canadiens from '55-'60 (5 straight)
The montreal Canadiens from '64-'79 (10 titles in 15 years)
The NY Islanders from '79-;82 (4 straight titles)
The Edmonton Oilers from '83-'89 (5 in 7 years)

NBA
the Mineapolis Lakers from '48-'53 (5 titles in 6 years)
The Boston Celtics from '56-'68 (11 titles in 15 years *my vote for ultimate dynasty ever)
Los Angelas Lakers from '79-'87 (5 in 9 years)
Chicago Bulls from '90-'97 (6 in 8 years)

MLB
Boston Red Sox from '12-'18 (5 titles in 7 years)
New York Yankees from '36-'43 (7 appearences and 6 titles in 8 years)
New York Yankees from '47-'64 (15 appearences and 10 titles in 18 years)
New York Yankees from '96-'03 (6 appearences and 4 titles in 8 years)

NFL
Green Bay Packers '61-'67 (5 titles in 7 years)
Pittsburgh Steelers '74-'78 (4 titles in 6 years)
Dallas Cowboys '92-95 (3 titles in 4 years)
New England Patriots '01-'04 (3 titles in 4 years)


Notable missing teams:
1920's yankees: amazing teams with superhero-like players, however they only won 2 world series during those years. great team, not a dynasty.

1990's Buffalo Bills: made it into 4 straight Super Bowls, unfortunately they lost all 4. Had they even won 1 of those I'd have included them. Geting to the big game 4 straight years is insane.

1980-90's San Francisco 49ers: Amazing football teams lead by an amazing coach, however well they always played they only won titles sporadically. 1 here 2 there with some major down years in between. Great stuff, legendary players. Not a Dynasty.


So there you have it. RendeR's Dynasty Definition index. Compare your teams to that and see where you stand.

[RendeR]

There's 2 offensive players and 2 defensive players left from the 2001 Super Bowl Team. Go look up that roster, most of those guys were gone 2 years later.

Yes, the next two Super Bowl teams were pretty similar (not shocking considering they were in consecutive years). But a lot of new blood (much of it major contributors) since the last super bowl team.

The real spirit of your post of course, is just finding the absolute least important part of my point. If it's faster just to concede that they had the exact same 53-man roster every single year, fine, it's still more impressive than winning some stanley cups in a 6-team league (which is only slightly more impressive than winning an AFC East Championship).


The fact remains that you're exaggerating intensely with that statement and it makes them sound a LOT better than they were. yes there was turnover, it wasn't as bone cuttingly huge as you make it out to be and it was spread over the years between them.

Its NOT more impressive than winning a championship 5 or 6 straight years, its not even close. no matter how many teams there are, in fact I'd suggest that the fewer teams there are the TOUGHER the competition becomes, therefore that works against the Pats. They're good, but they're not even in the top 10 of all time dynasties in sports.

[molson]

The fact remains that you're exaggerating intensely with that statement and it makes them sound a LOT better than they were. yes there was turnover, it wasn't as bone cuttingly huge as you make it out to be and it was spread over the years between them.

Its NOT more impressive than winning a championship 5 or 6 straight years, its not even close. no matter how many teams there are, in fact I'd suggest that the fewer teams there are the TOUGHER the competition becomes, therefore that works against the Pats. They're good, but they're not even in the top 10 of all time dynasties in sports.

I wouldn't put them in the top 10 all time either, in terms of pure dominance over a league.

But I think you're overlooking the league size thing. Do you really think it's more difficult to win a championship in a 6 team league NHL, 8-team NBA, or 16-team MLB v. a 32 team NFL? The odds just aren't in your favor to do it year after year in the latter, especially with the crapshoot of expanded playoffs.

If the Yankees of the 50s, for example, had to deal with a 5-game divisional playoff, then a 7-game league championship series before going to the playoffs, they would have won a hell of a lot fewer championships. If the Celtics or the Canadians of the 50s had to get through 3 series before the finals, they wouldn't have won all the titles they did.

[st.cronin]

Meet your 2009 Super Bowl MVP: Kevin O'Connell

[Radii]

The Patriots dynasty is long over, well before last week. How in the world can a team not win a championship for 3 years running and have this question even up for debate? Just because you are the most feared team in the league doesn't mean you have to automatically attach the vaunted "dynasty" term to it. There is no dynasty in the NFL currently.

HOWEVER, that really seems irrelevant to me. The NFL in the super bowl era has been nicely divided by decades. It would take an unbelievable run(say Dallas running off the next 3 super bowls or something like that) for New England to not be remembered as the best team of this decade. Whether you call it a dynasty or not seems pretty irrelevant... Steelers in the 70s, 49ers in the 80s, Cowboys in the 90s, Patriots this decade, is how I'll end up remembering my NFL history.

[RendeR]

I wouldn't put them in the top 10 all time either, in terms of pure dominance over a league.

But I think you're overlooking the league size thing. Do you really think it's more difficult to win a championship in a 6 team league NHL, 8-team NBA, or 16-team MLB v. a 32 team NFL? The odds just aren't in your favor to do it year after year in the latter, especially with the crapshoot of expanded playoffs.


To the question in bold: Absolutely. As i said above, the team number might be low, but the talent pool remains about the same, so your talent is condensed making each team that much stronger, far higher competition levels, quality of teams than having the talent pool spread of 32 teams.

Even if i conceded that point as a point of disagreement, the fact remains that 4 or 5 in a ROW has been done so few times as to make it a huge benchmark for such considerations.

Look at hockey baseball and basketball where you're playing playoff SERIES against each team, not one game playoffs but 5 and 7 game series and teams are still winning them 5-6 even 8 years in a row? I definitely rate taking the title consecutively as a huge mark in any teams favor over a sport where its 1 and done at each playoff bracket. 2 in a row? been done, lots of teams. 3 in a row? far far fewer, 4 in a row? thats fucking impressive, no matter how big your league is. anything beyond that is beyond questioning. IMHO.

[RendeR]

The Patriots dynasty is long over, well before last week. How in the world can a team not win a championship for 3 years running and have this question even up for debate? Just because you are the most feared team in the league doesn't mean you have to automatically attach the vaunted "dynasty" term to it. There is no dynasty in the NFL currently.

HOWEVER, that really seems irrelevant to me. The NFL in the super bowl era has been nicely divided by decades. It would take an unbelievable run(say Dallas running off the next 3 super bowls or something like that) for New England to not be remembered as the best team of this decade. Whether you call it a dynasty or not seems pretty irrelevant... Steelers in the 70s, 49ers in the 80s, Cowboys in the 90s, Patriots this decade, is how I'll end up remembering my NFL history.

That is indeed how the NFL generally is considered, unfortunately the people at NFL films and some network (NFL and ESPN) people have used the word dynasty way too much in regards to those eras.

Like I noted about the Niners above, great teams, fantasticly long period of consistant winning for an NFL franchise, but its not a dynasty.

[Suburban Rhythm]

As i said above, the team number might be low, but the talent pool remains about the same, so your talent is condensed making each team that much stronger, far higher competition levels

:+1:

Those Montreal teams had loads of HOF players, in any era.

And I always wonder, why do people use the excuse of free agency for propping up current era teams? I mean, it works both ways, correct? The Patriots got Vrabel, Thomas, Seau, Harrison, and I'd argue Welker (yeah, it was a trade, but he was a RFA. They were prepared to make an offer sheet, but making the trade worked up better in Miami's favor) just off the top of my head. Who have they lost-- Samuel and Randall Gay this season, Damien Woody, Vinatieri...I am sure I'm missing others.

Point is, they are using FA the same as other teams to bring in players.

[molson]

Look at hockey baseball and basketball where you're playing playoff SERIES against each team, not one game playoffs but 5 and 7 game series and teams are still winning them 5-6 even 8 years in a row? I definitely rate taking the title consecutively as a huge mark in any teams favor over a sport where its 1 and done at each playoff bracket. 2 in a row? been done, lots of teams. 3 in a row? far far fewer, 4 in a row? thats fucking impressive, no matter how big your league is. anything beyond that is beyond questioning. IMHO.

Winning a series, in a way, is a more "impressive" accomplishment than winning a single game, of course.

But the law of averages tells you that it's easier to win a bunch of series than a bunch of individual games. There's margin for error in a series. You can play like shit up to 3 times and still win the series. In football, you have to win every single time or you're not winning the championship that year.

It's not necessarily more difficult to win the individual games, but the odds are definitely against you winning multiple championships v. a series situation. What if the Pats had 7 shots against the Giants? What if the Rams had 7 shots against the Pats in the 2002 Super Bowl?

[Radii]

But the law of averages tells you that it's easier to win a bunch of series than a bunch of individual games. There's margin for error in a series. You can play like shit up to 3 times and still win the series. In football, you have to win every single time or you're not winning the championship that year.


Yep. i don't understand how the argument that a team had to go through 7 game series makes an accomplishment more impressive. Winning a super bowl where you have to be immune to the upset and off days since its one-and-done is a much more meaningful accomplishment IMO.

[molson]

Like the Yankees in the 50s-60s. Ya, those championships were damn impressive, but they had the best team. If you had the best team then, the odds were you'd win the championship. The best team is going to lead in the standings over a 154-game season. And while a best-of-seven world series leaves somewhat more room for uncertainty, it pales in comparison to the insanity of a 7-game ALCS series AND a ridiculous 5-game divisional series, which is basically a coin flip.

[adubroff]

I think there are two things at work:
1) Chances for elimination - How many times do you advance in the postseason to net a championship.
2) Period of elimination - How many losses/bad results does it take to get you knocked out. A football team can not lose, a baseball team can lose 3 times in 7 days and be fine.

If you make the assumption that any team that would potentially be considered a dynasty would be the most talented team in its league, then they would prefer few opporunities to be knocked out and high number of individual games in order to actually be knocked out. If you compare the Pats accomplishment to the Packers accomplishment in the 60s, both faced single game elimination scenarios, except the Pats faced 3 (or possibly 4) of them in their victories and the Pack faced one and only one. It was much more likely in my mind that the Pats would have lost in any one of those years than the Pack would have. If you compare the Pats to the 50s Yankees, the Pats were even more disadvantaged. In fact, I believe that a modern football team faces the hardest challenge in being a dynasty relative to any other sport, with the exception of a modern college basketball team, who has to walk 5 tight ropes.

[bhlloy]

:+1:

Those Montreal teams had loads of HOF players, in any era.



Didn't Montreal basically have their pick of French-Canadian players in those days though for their entire career though? Not much of an argument for spreading the talent pool out when it wasn't illegal to purchase junior players (or entire teams) until 1969.

[molson]

Didn't Montreal basically have their pick of French-Canadian players in those days though for their entire career though? Not much of an argument for spreading the talent pool out when it wasn't illegal to purchase junior players (or entire teams) until 1969.

Good point, they had the exclusive rights to players within a certain radius, and pre-draft, they had the inside track on pretty much every French-Canadian player.

[TroyF]

The Patriots "dynasty" isn't over yet. Are there major causes for concern? Yeah, there should be, for a variety of reasons. The defense was slipping even at the end of last year. Teams were starting to move the ball on them pretty consistently. Bruschi, Vrabel and Harrison are about done. When Brady comes back next year, Moss will turn 32. He may have a couple of years left, but not a lot. The secondary needs a complete overhaul. (outside of Merriweather) The OLine has struggled. Other teams are also getting better. The Steelers are revamping. The Browns may suck this year, but they have a young core of stars. The Broncos have a very young core of offensive players. (and zero defense for this year, but a good round of FA and draft and they become dangerous again) The Bills have improved and won't be going anywhere for a few years. The Dolphins with Parcells there will upgrade their talent.

All of that said, you get Brady back, and he's going to fix a lot of wrongs. It's hard for me to envision Brady not getting back to another SB. He's got a good 6 or 7 years left after he comes back, my guess is he'll get back again.

How soon determines the dynasty. But my guess is sooner than later.

[BishopMVP]

Moss will turn 32. He may have a couple of years left, but not a lot.The things that people complain about with Moss (doesn't catch balls in traffic over the middle, basically didn't try for a couple years in Oakland, and possibly the rest of this year*) may help prolong his career. Joey Galloway's still a deep threat at age 39 or whatever.

* There were at least two blatant ones Sunday. He pulled his arms back on a well thrown slant when he saw the safety coming which was terrible. The other was the INT called back for (a very weak) roughing the passer penalty where Moss was so disgusted Cassell underthrew him by 15-20 yards on a go route he gave up and allowed the ball to be picked easily. The latter I don't blame him for as much, but it's worrisome going forward this year (and lends more support to my claim that Cassell won't be starting by Week 10.)

[TroyF]

The things that people complain about with Moss (doesn't catch balls in traffic over the middle, basically didn't try for a couple years in Oakland, and possibly the rest of this year*) may help prolong his career. Joey Galloway's still a deep threat at age 39 or whatever.

* There were at least two blatant ones Sunday. He pulled his arms back on a well thrown slant when he saw the safety coming which was terrible. The other was the INT called back for (a very weak) roughing the passer penalty where Moss was so disgusted Cassell underthrew him by 15-20 yards on a go route he gave up and allowed the ball to be picked easily. The latter I don't blame him for as much, but it's worrisome going forward this year (and lends more support to my claim that Cassell won't be starting by Week 10.)

Hate to break it to Randy, but there are only a couple of guys at Brady's level in the NFL, and the Patriots won't have any of them on their roster this year. I do blame him on the second one, who gives a crap if Cassell underthrew him by 15 yards? If Randy really wants to win, then he goes for that ball.

Cassell may not be starting by week 10. Brady won't either and so if Moss is going to act this way because he doesn't have a pro bowler throwing it to him, he'll do it all year. Galloway is 36, not 39. He also has far less miledge on his body than does Moss. Jerry Rice had a huge year at age 33 and then was essentially a posession WR after that. Guys like Harrison and Bruce are only 35 and they are on the downside. Even a guy like Torry Holt is already losing steam at age 32.

Moss has the talent to be like Jerry Rice and extend his career as a possession type WR who has a big game here and there. But that takes work ethic and desire. Will Randy show that he has that? Will he give a damn when he can't get seperation at will? Will he be able to handle being the possession guy and not the big play guy? I have my doubts on all of it, but he's such a talented player you never know how it'll pan out.

[Kodos]

Randy Moss has no heart.