Patriots a dynasty? I think not.

[Geekbabe]

Great coaching,great teamwork among skilled players, the most loyal fanbase a team could ever have imho makes the New England machine a dynasty.

And how on earth can anybody say that last's night's games wasn't exciting?

 

[Evdawg]

Originally posted by: nycxandy

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: Evdawg
I'm saying the circumstances may be. There are GREAT players right NOW in the NFl. But a lot of them werent in the superbowl.

So you feel football would be more exciting and competitive if all the great players were stacked onto one rich team?

I believe he is saying that. I bet Evdawg thinks baseball is the most competitive sport out there.

no that is not what i think. I guess im having trouble pointing out what im trying to say. There are no "rich" teams in football, so how could all the great players be stacked? You cant. You could more back in the 90's and below, but i dont think it was as bad as say the yankees or whatever teams. And i dont think that the patriots are better than the past dyansties... end of story. Not at ALL that i dont like them, that is not it. I actually do like the patriots, they have a lot of cool guys on their team. They dont showboat or get in peoples faces like a lot of players do now.

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: Evdawg
I'm saying the circumstances may be. There are GREAT players right NOW in the NFl. But a lot of them werent in the superbowl.

Superbowl != Pro Bowl.

I am starting to see what you are saying, but it just doesn't work to compare a team in one era and claim that winning 3/4 championship games is invalidated because there may be less talent in the league overall, or because the Namath Jets may have been able to beat the Brady Pats. You can almost make those kind of comparisons in other sports because the play enough games to build up statistical evidence to support it. But not football where every team only plays every other team once in the regular season.

Consider this year. The Eagles pretty much ran the NFC. The Pats pretty much ran the AFC. The Pats beat the Eagles. Maybe you could says "Well Pittsburgh beat the Eagles, maybe they would have beat the Pats." But then again, the Pats slammed the Pittsburgh in the AFC championship game. They truly, honestly have the best team in football right now. And I'm an Eagles fan - this just cannot be disputed.

But these arguments don't hold water. Winning isn't everything; it's the only thing.

 

[MrDingleDangle]

ok i am also starting to see your point, but you cant compare teams from different time periods, its the same as the who is better bonds or babe ruth in baseball...

all you can say is that these teams are the greatest teams of their time and the patriots are a dynasty...that doesnt mean you are saying they can beat the 49ers or cowboys, because we will never know the answer to that, but they did accomplish the same feat that each of those teams did

 

[ddwbi0]

who knows if the pats are any better or worse than previous dynasties? unless they play, which isnt going to happen, we dont know. That said, the pats can still be argued to be a valid dynasty. They might not be as strong or as good as previous teams or have as many star players, but they still accomplished exactly what previous dynasties did (3+ superbowls), with less.

 

[nitsuj3580]

I'm still not sure what your definition of "dynasty" is?

Sports dynasties are measured by championships. The NFL champion wins the Super Bowl. Patriots have won 3 out of the last 4 Super Bowls which is an extremely rare feat. It doesn't matter how they win, the bottom line is they've won for a rather extended period of time especially given today's game with free agency, salary caps, etc.

I'd like to hear one valid reason why they should not be considered a dynasty?

 

[KLin]

The Patriots are officially a dynasty in my book.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

They're a dynasty for sure. They are the weakest one in alot of peoples' eyes, but it's pretty much unanimous that they're a dynasty.

 

[Evdawg]

Originally posted by: MrDingleDangle
ok i am also starting to see your point, but you cant compare teams from different time periods, its the same as the who is better bonds or babe ruth in baseball...

all you can say is that these teams are the greatest teams of their time and the patriots are a dynasty...that doesnt mean you are saying they can beat the 49ers or cowboys, because we will never know the answer to that, but they did accomplish the same feat that each of those teams did

This is also a reply to Jzero's reply. I agree with what youre saying and a great point with bonds/babe. Hopefully im not opening pandoras box here... but think about this. Everyone knows Bonds used/uses roids to get the homeruns he does get right? So would you consider Babe the better player or Bonds? I sure would pick Babe over Bonds or any other player in the league right now. They had a lot less technology back then to improve their game, or cork bats to cheat with, or roids. Thats basically my point with the other dyansties.... circumstances have changed, so i feel that its just a different accomplishment.

See what im trying to say more now? Thank you for your point dangle

 

[Evdawg]

Originally posted by: nitsuj3580
I'm still not sure what your definition of "dynasty" is?

Sports dynasties are measured by championships. The NFL champion wins the Super Bowl. Patriots have won 3 out of the last 4 Super Bowls which is an extremely rare feat. It doesn't matter how they win, the bottom line is they've won for a rather extended period of time especially given today's game with free agency, salary caps, etc.

I'd like to hear one valid reason why they should not be considered a dynasty?

i agree 3/4 is an amazing accomplishment.. but read my latest post to kinda further see my point.

 

[SofaKing]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
I think Manning is a better regular season quarterback but Brady's got the rings...Similar to the Leinart vs. Rodgers debate in college football...

Nah, I wouldn't think so. Rodgers played a great season but he didn't put up monster numbers like Manning. They were almost identical to Leinart's. Cal's offensive scheme didn't allow him to throw as much as he'd like, especially with the receiving corps decimated almost the entire season.

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: Evdawg

Originally posted by: MrDingleDangle
ok i am also starting to see your point, but you cant compare teams from different time periods, its the same as the who is better bonds or babe ruth in baseball...

all you can say is that these teams are the greatest teams of their time and the patriots are a dynasty...that doesnt mean you are saying they can beat the 49ers or cowboys, because we will never know the answer to that, but they did accomplish the same feat that each of those teams did

This is also a reply to Jzero's reply. I agree with what youre saying and a great point with bonds/babe. Hopefully im not opening pandoras box here... but think about this. Everyone knows Bonds used/uses roids to get the homeruns he does get right? So would you consider Babe the better player or Bonds? I sure would pick Babe over Bonds or any other player in the league right now. They had a lot less technology back then to improve their game, or cork bats to cheat with, or roids. Thats basically my point with the other dyansties.... circumstances have changed, so i feel that its just a different accomplishment.

See what im trying to say more now? Thank you for your point dangle

Improved technology does not diminish modern day accomplishments. As long as each of the other teams and players had access to the same technology, then the results are just as impressive now as they were years ago. Games advance and records are broken.

The Bonds analogy is a bit different because steroid use gives a player an unfair advantage, which makes it difficult to evaluate him in the context of other ball players. The Patriots have accomplished everything with the same rules, same technology and same salary cap restrictions as every other team in the NFL.

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: Evdawg
Thats basically my point with the other dyansties.... circumstances have changed, so i feel that its just a different accomplishment.

This is true. Nonetheless, they made the accomplishment of playing the football of today better than any other team of today, so any dynasty-calling is well-deserved.

 

[Evdawg]

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: Evdawg
Thats basically my point with the other dyansties.... circumstances have changed, so i feel that its just a different accomplishment.

This is true. Nonetheless, they made the accomplishment of playing the football of today better than any other team of today, so any dynasty-calling is well-deserved.

i can agree with that.. a dynasty they are. I think my point i guess is that people are making them sound like they are as good of a dynasty as past dynasties. Or that Brady is the best QB that ever lived.

The hype is just frustraiting to have people go crazy and living in the moment

 

[torpid]

Actually, no, I would take bonds. The athletic talent of athletes has changed dramatically over the years. I doubt ruth would be one of the best players if he were to play today, steroids or not. It's just not a valid comparison, because for his time ruth was spectacular. The same for older heavyweight champions. Does anyone really think that the brown bomber or someone like rocky marciano would stand a chance in the modern heavyweight division? Even with the division in shambles after lewis retired, they are all still physical specimens that would rip apart the old guys who probably weighed less than roy jones jr did as a heavyweight.

Actually it certainly is possible to attract a large number of the best players. At least in theory. Many players want to play for a championship, not for money. I don't know if it will happen anytime soon, but it's possible.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Evdawg

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: Evdawg
Thats basically my point with the other dyansties.... circumstances have changed, so i feel that its just a different accomplishment.

This is true. Nonetheless, they made the accomplishment of playing the football of today better than any other team of today, so any dynasty-calling is well-deserved.

i can agree with that.. a dynasty they are. I think my point i guess is that people are making them sound like they are as good of a dynasty as past dynasties. Or that Brady is the best QB that ever lived.

The hype is just frustraiting to have people go crazy and living in the moment

Who said that though? I haven't heard anyone say that Brady is the best QB that ever lived, or that they are the best dynasty..etc..fact is, they are a dyanasty in the era of free agency. That is quite an accomplishment.

 

[Evdawg]

Originally posted by: torpid
Actually, no, I would take bonds. The athletic talent of athletes has changed dramatically over the years. I doubt ruth would be one of the best players if he were to play today, steroids or not. It's just not a valid comparison, because for his time ruth was spectacular. The same for older heavyweight champions. Does anyone really think that the brown bomber or someone like rocky marciano would stand a chance in the modern heavyweight division? Even with the division in shambles after lewis retired, they are all still physical specimens that would rip apart the old guys who probably weighed less than roy jones jr did as a heavyweight.

Actually it certainly is possible to attract a large number of the best players. At least in theory. Many players want to play for a championship, not for money. I don't know if it will happen anytime soon, but it's possible.

i 10000% disagree. Players cant have a very steady career for however many years bonds has been in the MLB... and then have stats the jump through the roof and break records that have stood for many many years... its impossible, that is to do it without aid that shouldnt be given.

 

[monk3y]

3 in 4 years is a dynasty in football... Atleast I think it is.

 

[Evdawg]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Evdawg

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: Evdawg
Thats basically my point with the other dyansties.... circumstances have changed, so i feel that its just a different accomplishment.

This is true. Nonetheless, they made the accomplishment of playing the football of today better than any other team of today, so any dynasty-calling is well-deserved.

i can agree with that.. a dynasty they are. I think my point i guess is that people are making them sound like they are as good of a dynasty as past dynasties. Or that Brady is the best QB that ever lived.

The hype is just frustraiting to have people go crazy and living in the moment

Who said that though? I haven't heard anyone say that Brady is the best QB that ever lived, or that they are the best dynasty..etc..fact is, they are a dyanasty in the era of free agency. That is quite an accomplishment.

all over the radio here in dallas, and over Dan Patricks show on the radio.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Evdawg

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Evdawg

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: Evdawg
Thats basically my point with the other dyansties.... circumstances have changed, so i feel that its just a different accomplishment.

This is true. Nonetheless, they made the accomplishment of playing the football of today better than any other team of today, so any dynasty-calling is well-deserved.

i can agree with that.. a dynasty they are. I think my point i guess is that people are making them sound like they are as good of a dynasty as past dynasties. Or that Brady is the best QB that ever lived.

The hype is just frustraiting to have people go crazy and living in the moment

Who said that though? I haven't heard anyone say that Brady is the best QB that ever lived, or that they are the best dynasty..etc..fact is, they are a dyanasty in the era of free agency. That is quite an accomplishment.

all over the radio here in dallas, and over Dan Patricks show on the radio.

Wow, I am surprised. Were these just average guys calling in though?

 

[Evdawg]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Evdawg

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Evdawg

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: Evdawg
Thats basically my point with the other dyansties.... circumstances have changed, so i feel that its just a different accomplishment.

This is true. Nonetheless, they made the accomplishment of playing the football of today better than any other team of today, so any dynasty-calling is well-deserved.

i can agree with that.. a dynasty they are. I think my point i guess is that people are making them sound like they are as good of a dynasty as past dynasties. Or that Brady is the best QB that ever lived.

The hype is just frustraiting to have people go crazy and living in the moment

Who said that though? I haven't heard anyone say that Brady is the best QB that ever lived, or that they are the best dynasty..etc..fact is, they are a dyanasty in the era of free agency. That is quite an accomplishment.

all over the radio here in dallas, and over Dan Patricks show on the radio.

Wow, I am surprised. Were these just average guys calling in though?

yes, and sports announcers. Some were actually from sports center argueing about it and such. Dan Patrick thinks that Brady and Pats arent in a dynasty right now or whatever.

 

[Anonemous]

he's not the greatest but he ranks up there and he still has many more years to go and a solid team and coach to support him.

 

[herkulease]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Evdawg
Congrats to patriots and brady, but i think that people are living in the moment too much. THey think brady is greatest QB etc etc. What are your thoughts?

You'd be crazy to think Brady isn't not going to be in the Hall of Fame. He is a great QB. Think about this for a minute, he has thrown zero interceptions in the playoffs or the Superbowl. I don't think Montana could make that statement.

The Patriots win because they make very few mistakes and they exploit weaknesses on the opposition. They are a team and they play with a strong team attitude.

Patriots are a Dynasty. Deal with it.

Edit-I'm not going to bitch at you because it's a repost. I'm going to bitch at you because you are WRONG!!!

Brady can't lay claim to No INTs in the playoffs or superbowl he was picked off last year. Montana can lay claim to no INTs in the superbowl. however he does have 21 career INTS int he playoffs. I can oly find that brady has had 2 picks in the playoffs. that's just last year. 2001 season can't find playoff numbers.

anyhow the numbers are skewed. Montana has played 23 playoff games, brady 9. As for HOF I feel its too early to judge. He may have 2 superbowl MVPs now but still has about 9-10 years to stink up the joint. If he quit now, I do not believe he will be a 1st ballot selection.

 

[herkulease]

I think why so people question the Patriots is because the last 2 occasions they haven't been able to destory opponents like they were hyped up to do. both times they were 7 point favorites and both sneaked out with a 3 point win. Both games they were not as dominant as they looked in the previous playoff games.

I've also heard some analyst counter point to that is the the pats have the fortitude to win close games. I question that, why win close games. Blow them out and be done with it.

any thoughts?