Patriots a dynasty if they win this superbowl?

[SofaKing]

ok, so i was arguing with my friend who btw is a bandwagon patriots fan, and she said that the Patriots SHOULD be considered a Dynasty if they win this next superbowl, considering how much the NFL has changed with salary caps, etc. But I disagree. I think they should be labeled as a dominant team of this decade.. definitely not a dynasty YET. They haven't ruled for nearly long enough. What's your take guys?

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: SofaKing
ok, so i was arguing with my friend who btw is a bandwagon patriots fan, and she said that the Patriots SHOULD be considered a Dynasty if they win this next superbowl, considering how much the NFL has changed with salary caps, etc. But I disagree. I think they should be labeled as a dominant team of this decade.. definitely not a dynasty. They haven't ruled for nearly long enough. What's your take guys?

only dynasty i can say was the greenbay packers under lambardy (i cant spell sue me) and the 90s cowboys

if they have a couple more good seasons then maybe yes

i dont want to hear about the 85 bears--one season isnt a dynasty

 

[Brackis]

Teams these days hope and pray and build to simply make it to the superbowl, the Patriots will be 3 time champions, and 14-1 in the last 10 years in the playoffs.

 

[gw186]

No dynasty, cause Philly is gonna win Superbowl

 

[Childs]

Unfortunately, yes. At three Superbowl wins in 4 years that surpasses most of all the great teams in the last 30 years. Puts in them in the same league as the 80-90s 49ers and 70s Steelers.

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: SofaKing
ok, so i was arguing with my friend who btw is a bandwagon patriots fan, and she said that the Patriots SHOULD be considered a Dynasty if they win this next superbowl, considering how much the NFL has changed with salary caps, etc. But I disagree. I think they should be labeled as a dominant team of this decade.. definitely not a dynasty. They haven't ruled for nearly long enough. What's your take guys?

only dynasty i can say was the greenbay packers under lambardy (i cant spell sue me) and the 90s cowboys

if they have a couple more good seasons then maybe yes

i dont want to hear about the 85 bears--one season isnt a dynasty

I'd add the 49ers to that during the Montana/Young era.

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: jjones

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: SofaKing
ok, so i was arguing with my friend who btw is a bandwagon patriots fan, and she said that the Patriots SHOULD be considered a Dynasty if they win this next superbowl, considering how much the NFL has changed with salary caps, etc. But I disagree. I think they should be labeled as a dominant team of this decade.. definitely not a dynasty. They haven't ruled for nearly long enough. What's your take guys?

only dynasty i can say was the greenbay packers under lambardy (i cant spell sue me) and the 90s cowboys

if they have a couple more good seasons then maybe yes

i dont want to hear about the 85 bears--one season isnt a dynasty

I'd add the 49ers to that during the Montana/Young era.

completly forgot about that

 

[Vic]

3 rings = dynasty

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: SofaKing
ok, so i was arguing with my friend who btw is a bandwagon patriots fan, and she said that the Patriots SHOULD be considered a Dynasty if they win this next superbowl, considering how much the NFL has changed with salary caps, etc. But I disagree. I think they should be labeled as a dominant team of this decade.. definitely not a dynasty. They haven't ruled for nearly long enough. What's your take guys?

only dynasty i can say was the greenbay packers under lambardy (i cant spell sue me) and the 90s cowboys

if they have a couple more good seasons then maybe yes

i dont want to hear about the 85 bears--one season isnt a dynasty

compare them to the 90s cowboys and you'll see that it is indeed a dynasty.

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: SofaKing
ok, so i was arguing with my friend who btw is a bandwagon patriots fan, and she said that the Patriots SHOULD be considered a Dynasty if they win this next superbowl, considering how much the NFL has changed with salary caps, etc. But I disagree. I think they should be labeled as a dominant team of this decade.. definitely not a dynasty. They haven't ruled for nearly long enough. What's your take guys?

only dynasty i can say was the greenbay packers under lambardy (i cant spell sue me) and the 90s cowboys

if they have a couple more good seasons then maybe yes

i dont want to hear about the 85 bears--one season isnt a dynasty

compare them to the 90s cowboys and you'll see that it is indeed a dynasty.

i dont know. teams feared the cowboys--dont here about teams fearing the patriots (the way teams feared the cowboys)

thats my opinion and i know if you go off numbers then they are a dynasty but i base it off of other teams views of them and numbers. thats why i think they need another good season

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: Childs
Unfortunately, yes. At three Superbowl wins in 4 years that surpasses most of all the great teams in the last 30 years. Puts in them in the same league as the 80-90s 49ers and 70s Steelers.

Which says alot considering this is an era of parody, and NFL teams cant go out and spend like the Yankees. Sad but true the 1990s Cowboys and Niners are suffering for their massive over spending.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: SofaKing
ok, so i was arguing with my friend who btw is a bandwagon patriots fan, and she said that the Patriots SHOULD be considered a Dynasty if they win this next superbowl, considering how much the NFL has changed with salary caps, etc. But I disagree. I think they should be labeled as a dominant team of this decade.. definitely not a dynasty. They haven't ruled for nearly long enough. What's your take guys?

only dynasty i can say was the greenbay packers under lambardy (i cant spell sue me) and the 90s cowboys

if they have a couple more good seasons then maybe yes

i dont want to hear about the 85 bears--one season isnt a dynasty

compare them to the 90s cowboys and you'll see that it is indeed a dynasty.

i dont know. teams feared the cowboys--dont here about teams fearing the patriots (the way teams feared the cowboys)

thats my opinion and i know if you go off numbers then they are a dynasty but i base it off of other teams views of them and numbers. thats why i think they need another good season

Thats because the Cowboys were the first to have the huge offensive linemen.

 

[maddogchen]

I hate bandwagon Patriot fans. My bandwagon friend actually thought New England was a state

 

[AStar617]

Originally posted by: Vic
3 rings in 4 years = undisputable dynasty

Fixed for a nitpick--3 rings over, say, 30 years, does not a dynasty make... but 3 in 4, there's not much to argue.

Damn, glancing thru this thread there's a lot of people who still don't want to give credit where credit is due. Someone spoke of teams not fearing the Pats--what difference does this make if they can't beat them??? Where will all of these fearless teams be watching the game from? The same place as me, in the damn living room.

And for the record, while I do want us to get the respect we are due, I do kinda hate fairweather fans too. If you don't know the following names (dating from the dark, dark days of the early 90s), then consider your Pats card officially pulled:

Dick McPherson
Hugh Millen
Tommy Hodson
Leonard Russell
John Stephens

All we had then was Irving Fryar, Andre Tippett, and a young Ben Coates. Life as a 2-15 Pats fan was rooooooough. :thumbsdown:

 

[MidasKnight]

Originally posted by: Childs
Unfortunately, yes. At three Superbowl wins in 4 years that surpasses most of all the great teams in the last 30 years. Puts in them in the same league as the 80-90s 49ers and 70s Steelers.

Agree.

 

[imported_Chemist]

Originally posted by: Vic
3 rings = dynasty

Quoteth for agreement.

 

[geno]

Originally posted by: Childs
Unfortunately, yes. At three Superbowl wins in 4 years that surpasses most of all the great teams in the last 30 years. Puts in them in the same league as the 80-90s 49ers and 70s Steelers.

Not to mention everything the league has put into place to encourage parity, salary cap, etc...

but if they make 3 rings in 4 years, I'm sorry but they're the dynasty of our time

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: SofaKing
ok, so i was arguing with my friend who btw is a bandwagon patriots fan, and she said that the Patriots SHOULD be considered a Dynasty if they win this next superbowl, considering how much the NFL has changed with salary caps, etc. But I disagree. I think they should be labeled as a dominant team of this decade.. definitely not a dynasty. They haven't ruled for nearly long enough. What's your take guys?

only dynasty i can say was the greenbay packers under lambardy (i cant spell sue me) and the 90s cowboys

if they have a couple more good seasons then maybe yes

i dont want to hear about the 85 bears--one season isnt a dynasty

compare them to the 90s cowboys and you'll see that it is indeed a dynasty.

i dont know. teams feared the cowboys--dont here about teams fearing the patriots (the way teams feared the cowboys)

thats my opinion and i know if you go off numbers then they are a dynasty but i base it off of other teams views of them and numbers. thats why i think they need another good season

good point. but it seems like the pats just bowl over any good team that goes against them. (reference my boys da colts and they scored what? 3 points?)

pats have the complete package and it wins many a game.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: maddogchen
I hate bandwagon Patriot fans. My bandwagon friend actually thought New England was a state

BAH!

In my mind they still lost to the raiders over a BS call. I'll never live that down.

<---always wondered where the new england state was.

 

[Glitchny]

Originally posted by: AStar617

Originally posted by: Vic
3 rings in 4 years = undisputable dynasty

Fixed for a nitpick--3 rings over, say, 30 years, does not a dynasty make... but 3 in 4, there's not much to argue.

Damn, glancing thru this thread there's a lot of people who still don't want to give credit where credit is due. Someone spoke of teams not fearing the Pats--what difference does this make if they can't beat them??? Where will all of these fearless teams be watching the game from? The same place as me, in the damn living room.

And for the record, while I do want us to get the respect we are due, I do kinda hate fairweather fans too. If you don't know the following names (dating from the dark, dark days of the early 90s), then consider your Pats card officially pulled:

Dick McPherson
Hugh Millen
Tommy Hodson
Leonard Russell
John Stephens

All we had then was Irving Fryar, Andre Tippett, and a young Ben Coates. Life as a 2-15 Pats fan was rooooooough. :thumbsdown:

I dont know all of those names but i asnt old enough to remember the patriots at that time anyways. But I have been a Pats fan as long as I have watched football and I hate that the Pats still dont get any credit, no matter what they do. 3 rings in 4 years is certainly a dynasty (if they win, which im confident they will). And I dont know many bandwagon fans, everyone around here just hates the patriots.

 

[jlarsson]

Everyone talks about the 90's Cowboys being a dynasty ... they won 3 Super Bowls in 4 years. If the Patriots win their 3rd Super Bowl in 4 years, how are they NOT a dynasty? (And they did in the salary cap era no less)

 

[oboeguy]

Are you doubters crazy? I'm far from being a Patsies fan and I know they're a "dynasty" if they win. WTF? How many teams have won three SB titles, let alone three of four?

In any case, I'm in a bind regarding which team to cheer in this SB (NY fan). Oy!

 

[ElFenix]

only dynasty in sports is the yankees.

 

[SofaKing]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
only dynasty in sports is the yankees.

And the Montreal Canadiens

 

[herkulease]

I'd have to say the 50s/60s celtics. c'mon 9 straight championships.

corrected mistake.