Patriots dynasty at a glance...

[Jeven316]

Quote: Originally Posted by VidGaminMachine476

Still a helluva team. Just didn't get it done tonight. 31 other teams would trade their seasons for 18-1. Or just be in the SB for christ's sake.

Just 30 other teams because I don't think the Giants would trade.

[BigTigLSU]

Honestly I always thought the 4 superbowls was more impressive than going undefeated for the season based on the free agent issue. Its harder to maintain a team for a long period time to make it possible to win a superbowl. The teams in the NFL talent wise are watered down cause teams dont hold on to players as long as they used to so the talent is spread out. You dont have teams full of HOFers like back in the 70's 80's or even the 90's. So running throught the league in one season is more feasable than a team winning 4 championships in a decade, but I guess when you look at it after yesterday both things are not that easy to do cuase it didnt happen and I feel for Junior cause he played his arse off this year and its ompressive for a guy that age to play at that level.

[MassNole]

You know I actually think the fact that this is a Free Agent era makes it easier for a team to reload. Think about it, in the days of the Steelers, 49ers, and to a lesser extent the Cowboys those teams couldn't just go find a free agent and immediately patch a problem. They would have had to hope to find a diamond in the rough who another team cut or draft well. Today a team can just go sign someone to fill such a gap. Take the Pats signing of Adalius Thomas as a prime example, in the days of the earlier dynasties going out and signing him never would have been an option, same thing with Wes Welker.

I know on the flip side of that coin it can be said it is harder to keep your players around. But on the same hand it is easier to replace them right away. I know I'm biased, but when comparing the dynasties of the Super Bowl era, the Pats just fall behind the other teams to me.

[Cardot]

Quote: Originally Posted by feeq14

First and foremost many say that their dynasty is so great because they were in the FA era. However this also means that their competition was watered down. Look at the 9ers, Cowboys, Steelers, Skins, etc. These teams all had to go through each other to get to their championships.

I think winning multiple titles in this era is pretty impressive. Look at some other recent Superbowl winners:
2007 Colts - No Playoff Wins this year.
2006 Steelers - No Playoff win since.
2003 Bucs - One hit wonders
2001 Ravens - One hit wonders
2000 Rams - Won one, Made it to a 2nd but lost.
1998 Broncos - Last team with back to back titles, but dropped off pretty quickly after that.
1997 Packers - Won one, Made it to a 2nd but lost.

[Eton Rifles]

I dont think its quite done yet, at least for one more year. Next years schedule is 6 games against the afc east, 4 against the afc west, 4 against the nfc west, Indy and Pittsburgh. At worst, they are division winners next year unless Brady gets hurt.

[koolbubbaice]

Quote: Originally Posted by feeq14

So the other day i was listening to the 2 live stews... or some other sports radio sho, and a caller denigrated patriots dynasty which was initially dismissed but the guy made a few good points, some of which are even more prevalent after tonight. First and foremost many say that their dynasty is so great because they were in the FA era. However this also means that their competition was watered down. Look at the 9ers, Cowboys, Steelers, Skins, etc. These teams all had to go through each other to get to their championships. Aside from their first against the Rams, I cant think of too many truly signiture wins in the playoffs for the Pats. Nothing like the Cowboys in 93 (was it 93 when they finnaly beat the 49ers?). Also they have never been a dominant champion. All of their SB wins were by 3 points. Nothing like the way that the 9ers cowboys etc blew away their comp. The theory is that the pats are the best playing team in an era where teamwork based skill in teh NFL is at an arguable all time low. Add on spy gate and some minor steriods crap and a SB appearance where they were pretty much dominated and suddenly you have allot to detract from in this dynasty. This is not to say that I completely agree but i thought it would be an interesting discussion considering the circumstance.

Patriots never had a dynasty to begin with.. Team of the decade? of course.. Dynasty? N0.. A dynasty is sustaining greatness over a long period of time.. The only true Dynasty was the 49ers.. 83-98 with at least 10 wins. from 81-98 16 playoff appearances. 81-98 9 championship games. 5 SB titles.. Winning their division 75% of the time during that streak..
81-98 is a dynasty.. not 4-5 yrs..

[bkfount]

Quote: Originally Posted by feeq14

So the other day i was listening to the 2 live stews... or some other sports radio sho, and a caller denigrated patriots dynasty which was initially dismissed but the guy made a few good points, some of which are even more prevalent after tonight. First and foremost many say that their dynasty is so great because they were in the FA era. However this also means that their competition was watered down. Look at the 9ers, Cowboys, Steelers, Skins, etc. These teams all had to go through each other to get to their championships. Aside from their first against the Rams, I cant think of too many truly signiture wins in the playoffs for the Pats. Nothing like the Cowboys in 93 (was it 93 when they finnaly beat the 49ers?). Also they have never been a dominant champion. All of their SB wins were by 3 points. Nothing like the way that the 9ers cowboys etc blew away their comp. The theory is that the pats are the best playing team in an era where teamwork based skill in teh NFL is at an arguable all time low. Add on spy gate and some minor steriods crap and a SB appearance where they were pretty much dominated and suddenly you have allot to detract from in this dynasty. This is not to say that I completely agree but i thought it would be an interesting discussion considering the circumstance.

the argument fails because the teams they are compared to were elite in their era, just like the patriots are now. The patriots may play in a FA era, but they are far and above more consistant and better than what any team this era has done in comparison. The colts got one superbowl, and so did the steelers, yet they haven't been as dominant and on top of player moves as the patriots have been. Teams drop off the face of the earth very quickly in the nfl, and the ones that hang on do so as borderline playoff teams.

The measuring stick to a dynasty is trophies and consistency. The patriots have both of those, regardless of era labels.

[wwharton]

forget the schedule, they'll have the same team back (they'll sign moss) minus Samuel and still have a high 1st round draft pick to play with. the team just went 18-1. the pats aren't done with anything.