Patriots a dynasty? I think not.

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: Evdawg
read the thread and youll figure it out

All I can figure out that you can only consider it a dynasty if you like the team.

 

[Evdawg]

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: MrDingleDangle

Originally posted by: Evdawg

Originally posted by: Jzero
Winning 3/4 consecutive superbowls, seems like you could reasonably call that a dynasty....

God, nevermind.. you people are impossible.

Just think about it! Don't look at the numbers... sure theyre great but man, just cause they get it done... the circumstances may be different from the past and such

who would you consider a dynasty???

The only teams he considers dynasties are the Niners and the Cowboys.

Only? Well if you can come up with more dynasties than that... id like to hear them. Steelers in 70's were great. there are a couple other teams, but there have only been a few dynasties so i got a majority of teams. Idiot

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: Evdawg
read the thread and youll figure it out

All I can figure out that you can only consider it a dynasty if you like the team.

We have a winner!

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Evdawg

Originally posted by: Jzero
Winning 3/4 consecutive superbowls, seems like you could reasonably call that a dynasty....

God, nevermind.. you people are impossible.

Just think about it! Don't look at the numbers... sure theyre great but man, just cause they get it done... the circumstances may be different from the past and such

So the pats should be held to a different standard than other teams?

 

[Evdawg]

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: Evdawg
read the thread and youll figure it out

All I can figure out that you can only consider it a dynasty if you like the team.

We have a winner!

Can yall name more dynasties than steelers/49'ers/cowboys? No i dont think there are many more. My point stands.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Evdawg

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: Evdawg
read the thread and youll figure it out

All I can figure out that you can only consider it a dynasty if you like the team.

We have a winner!

Can yall name more dynasties than steelers/49'ers/cowboys? No i dont think there are many more. My point stands.

Packers and Bears.

 

[Evdawg]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: Evdawg

Originally posted by: Jzero
Winning 3/4 consecutive superbowls, seems like you could reasonably call that a dynasty....

God, nevermind.. you people are impossible.

Just think about it! Don't look at the numbers... sure theyre great but man, just cause they get it done... the circumstances may be different from the past and such

So the pats should be held to a different standard than other teams?

Its not a standard, its the circumstances. What is the competition now? What are they players?

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Evdawg

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: Evdawg

Originally posted by: Jzero
Winning 3/4 consecutive superbowls, seems like you could reasonably call that a dynasty....

God, nevermind.. you people are impossible.

Just think about it! Don't look at the numbers... sure theyre great but man, just cause they get it done... the circumstances may be different from the past and such

So the pats should be held to a different standard than other teams?

Its not a standard, its the circumstances. What is the competition now? What are they players?

If anything, the game has become more equal. So what are you trying to argue?

 

[Evdawg]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Evdawg

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: Evdawg
read the thread and youll figure it out

All I can figure out that you can only consider it a dynasty if you like the team.

We have a winner!

Can yall name more dynasties than steelers/49'ers/cowboys? No i dont think there are many more. My point stands.

Packers and Bears.

packers is questionable... of course depends what year youre talking about.

 

[Evdawg]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Evdawg

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: Evdawg

Originally posted by: Jzero
Winning 3/4 consecutive superbowls, seems like you could reasonably call that a dynasty....

God, nevermind.. you people are impossible.

Just think about it! Don't look at the numbers... sure theyre great but man, just cause they get it done... the circumstances may be different from the past and such

So the pats should be held to a different standard than other teams?

Its not a standard, its the circumstances. What is the competition now? What are they players?

If anything, the game has become more equal. So what are you trying to argue?

I was trying to argue that i think the teams arent as great as they used to be, or they are as great but dont have as great of competition. You agree that great players come and go correct? (like joe montana, micheal irvin, jerry rice... hes still in it but fading) I think that there was possibly more competition in the other teams era's of "dynasties". Thats all... times have changed.

 

[MrDingleDangle]

so you say patriots arent a dynasty because they arent exciting? am I correct with that?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Evdawg

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Evdawg

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: Evdawg
read the thread and youll figure it out

All I can figure out that you can only consider it a dynasty if you like the team.

We have a winner!

Can yall name more dynasties than steelers/49'ers/cowboys? No i dont think there are many more. My point stands.

Packers and Bears.

packers is questionable... of course depends what year youre talking about.

Actually I think it's you who is questionable.

 

[edro]

I vote Yes on your imaginary pole.

 

[MrDingleDangle]

Originally posted by: Evdawg

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Evdawg

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: Evdawg

Originally posted by: Jzero
Winning 3/4 consecutive superbowls, seems like you could reasonably call that a dynasty....

God, nevermind.. you people are impossible.

Just think about it! Don't look at the numbers... sure theyre great but man, just cause they get it done... the circumstances may be different from the past and such

So the pats should be held to a different standard than other teams?

Its not a standard, its the circumstances. What is the competition now? What are they players?

If anything, the game has become more equal. So what are you trying to argue?

I was trying to argue that i think the teams arent as great as they used to be, or they are as great but dont have as great of competition. You agree that great players come and go correct? (like joe montana, micheal irvin, jerry rice... hes still in it but fading) I think that there was possibly more competition in the other teams era's of "dynasties". Thats all... times have changed.

so you are saying there is less competition now then there used to be??!?!?!!?

 

[Evdawg]

Originally posted by: MrDingleDangle

Originally posted by: Evdawg

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Evdawg

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: Evdawg

Originally posted by: Jzero
Winning 3/4 consecutive superbowls, seems like you could reasonably call that a dynasty....

God, nevermind.. you people are impossible.

Just think about it! Don't look at the numbers... sure theyre great but man, just cause they get it done... the circumstances may be different from the past and such

So the pats should be held to a different standard than other teams?

Its not a standard, its the circumstances. What is the competition now? What are they players?

If anything, the game has become more equal. So what are you trying to argue?

I was trying to argue that i think the teams arent as great as they used to be, or they are as great but dont have as great of competition. You agree that great players come and go correct? (like joe montana, micheal irvin, jerry rice... hes still in it but fading) I think that there was possibly more competition in the other teams era's of "dynasties". Thats all... times have changed.

so you are saying there is less competition now then there used to be??!?!?!!?

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.

 

[shenaniganz]

Originally posted by: Evdawg
Anubis, i mean sure the game was decent but my original point was.. it was a helluva lot more fun to watch 90's cowboys or 80's niners... thats all and thats why i dont consider them a dynasty. Patriots are a GREAT team, you cant discount that... but i dont see them as being as great as past teams that everyone thinks they are

Wrong. Your original point was that the Pats are not a dynasty. Since when was wathcability or "exciting to watch" a criterion for being a dynasty?

 

[intogamer]

Originally posted by: Freejack2
Massachusetts is having a heck of a year sportswise, first the Sox and now the Patriots. Wonder if Boston had another "happy" riot again.

Edit: I do agree that so far the Patriots are a dynasty. If they win just a couple more games this decade you can bet the next decades they'll be recalling the Patriots as the first dynasty of the millenia.

RIOT TOMM

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Evdawg

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!!!

Dude, i never said Brady wasnt gonna be put in the Hall... I'd like to see where I DID say that. People like you are just too damn defensive of your team. I'm not wrong at Brady not being in the Hall because i never said he wouldnt.. that isnt even in the discussion man, read the post.

Whats your definition of a dynasty? I personally dont have one that REAL detailed but i have an idea... i think its an opinionated topic.

Calm the hell down. You said people think he's the greatest QB ever. He's certainly ranks up there with the greats IMO. My Hall of Fame comment was meant to support this opinion. Geez...lighten up.

I think it is pretty well defined by the other teams before that were given the term dynasty. 3 out of 4 Superbowl wins in 4 years definitely qualifies them as a dynasty. It is not an opinion, it is a fact.

 

[Ynog]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Evdawg

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Evdawg

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: Evdawg
read the thread and youll figure it out

All I can figure out that you can only consider it a dynasty if you like the team.

We have a winner!

Can yall name more dynasties than steelers/49'ers/cowboys? No i dont think there are many more. My point stands.

Packers and Bears.

packers is questionable... of course depends what year youre talking about.

Actually I think it's you who is questionable.

The 60's Packers are definately a Dyntasy. They only had 2 Superbowl wins, but thats just because the first Superbowl happened during the 1966-1967 season. Had the Superbowl been played during the mid 60's they would probably have had 5 wins. They won the NFL Championship in 61,62 and 65 to go along with the Superbowl in 66,67.

 

[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?

 

[Evdawg]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Evdawg

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!!!

Dude, i never said Brady wasnt gonna be put in the Hall... I'd like to see where I DID say that. People like you are just too damn defensive of your team. I'm not wrong at Brady not being in the Hall because i never said he wouldnt.. that isnt even in the discussion man, read the post.

Whats your definition of a dynasty? I personally dont have one that REAL detailed but i have an idea... i think its an opinionated topic.

Calm the hell down. You said people think he's the greatest QB ever. He's certainly ranks up there with the greats IMO. My Hall of Fame comment was meant to support this opinion. Geez...lighten up.

I think it is pretty well defined by the other teams before that were given the term Dynasty. 3 out of 4 Superbowl wins in 4 years definitely qualifies them as a Dynasty. It is not an opinionated topic. It is a fact.

you put words in my mouth, like "brady isnt going to the hall". I never said that.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Evdawg

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Evdawg

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!!!

Dude, i never said Brady wasnt gonna be put in the Hall... I'd like to see where I DID say that. People like you are just too damn defensive of your team. I'm not wrong at Brady not being in the Hall because i never said he wouldnt.. that isnt even in the discussion man, read the post.

Whats your definition of a dynasty? I personally dont have one that REAL detailed but i have an idea... i think its an opinionated topic.

Calm the hell down. You said people think he's the greatest QB ever. He's certainly ranks up there with the greats IMO. My Hall of Fame comment was meant to support this opinion. Geez...lighten up.

I think it is pretty well defined by the other teams before that were given the term Dynasty. 3 out of 4 Superbowl wins in 4 years definitely qualifies them as a Dynasty. It is not an opinionated topic. It is a fact.

you put words in my mouth, like "brady isnt going to the hall". I never said that.

I didn't put any words in your mouth-that wasn't my intent anyway. I merely was pointing out that he is worthy of going to the Hall of Fame. Alright?

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: Ynog
You can argue the status of Brady's greatness.

But if the Patriots aren't a Dynasty, then neither were the 90's Cowboys or the 80's Niners.

Which has been the yardstick for a long time, therefor they are a dynasty.

/thread.

 

[BeauJangles]

I don't know if i agree with your belief about teams being better during the dynasty age... I think it depends on your perspective. Just out of curiosity, what teams are you a fan of?

 

[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.