|
|
Post by Zig on Feb 2, 2015 21:09:45 GMT -5
So after 10 years the Patriots finally got that elusive 4th Super Bowl win. Most would say the Super Bowls they won in 2001, 2003 and 2004 made them a Dynasty so the question is: Does this Super Bowl 49 win continue that "Dynasty" or no? Also some other options if yes or no isn't your answer.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Bag on Feb 2, 2015 21:15:05 GMT -5
01-04 = dynasty. noone can argue that at all.
14, adds to the hall of fame resumes of bill and tom, but imo a "dynasty" has to maintain a fair amount of the roster doing it multiple times.
|
|
|
|
Post by pr0t0cl0wn on Feb 2, 2015 21:16:51 GMT -5
Dynasty needs 3 titles in 4-5 years. Need to have consecutive titles if you stretch it to 5 years. Not like you can link the 2009 Yankee WS to the 96-00 teams, and that's a 10 year gap too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Swamp Dragon on Feb 2, 2015 21:23:47 GMT -5
Not even close yes the earlier version could be considered a Dynasty this is just one title
|
|
Otis B. Driftwood
VIP Member
I have had a perfectly wonderful evening, but this wasn't it.
Posts: 7,943
Likes: 2,185
|
Post by Otis B. Driftwood on Feb 2, 2015 22:05:48 GMT -5
Dynasty - no.
Continued level of excellence above anything since the Cowboys of the late 60's through the early 80's - no question. And that's pretty damn good too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Canuck eh? on Feb 2, 2015 22:17:01 GMT -5
To be a Dynasty you need Joan Collins.
|
|
|
|
Post by aka50yearfan on Feb 3, 2015 10:14:46 GMT -5
Well, if you will like me Zig and be my best bud and hang out together and take me to strip clubs and pay for a lap dancer and be my bodyguard when I tell some millennial what an asshole he is, then yea, sure.
If not, well then everything changes. Up to you.
|
|
|
|
Post by sgtschultz on Feb 3, 2015 16:54:09 GMT -5
Always thought Brady had a little Linda Evans in him.....  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2015 16:57:46 GMT -5
i say dynasty.
can any other franchise match the level of superiority in any other SPORT for the same time frame?
they average about 12 wins a year, won every AFC east title but 2 (one when brady was hurt, and they won 11) and the 02 hangover.
so, since 2001
average 12 wins
9 AFC champ games
6 superbowls
4 wins
|
|
|
|
Post by pr0t0cl0wn on Feb 3, 2015 17:01:01 GMT -5
i say dynasty. can any other franchise match the level of superiority in any other SPORT for the same time frame? they average about 12 wins a year, won every AFC east title but 2 (one when brady was hurt, and they won 11) and the 02 hangover. so, since 2001 average 12 wins 9 AFC champ games 6 superbowls 4 wins The Yankees from 1996 through 2009 beats them. Both teams lost 2 games in the championship between, but the Yankees had 5 titles the Pats have 4. And the 5th Yankee title and the 4th Pats title are 100% not tied to their actual dynasty stretch. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2015 17:05:23 GMT -5
i say dynasty. can any other franchise match the level of superiority in any other SPORT for the same time frame? they average about 12 wins a year, won every AFC east title but 2 (one when brady was hurt, and they won 11) and the 02 hangover. so, since 2001 average 12 wins 9 AFC champ games 6 superbowls 4 wins The Yankees from 1996 through 2009 beats them. Both teams lost 2 games in the championship between, but the Yankees had 5 titles the Pats have 4. And the 5th Yankee title and the 4th Pats title are 100% not tied to their actual dynasty stretch. ok, 5 titles...how many ALCS appearances? pats have the equivalent at 9 yankees? |
|
|
|
Post by pr0t0cl0wn on Feb 3, 2015 17:08:42 GMT -5
The Yankees from 1996 through 2009 beats them. Both teams lost 2 games in the championship between, but the Yankees had 5 titles the Pats have 4. And the 5th Yankee title and the 4th Pats title are 100% not tied to their actual dynasty stretch. ok, 5 titles...how many ALCS appearances? pats have the equivalent at 9 yankees? Not sure. The 5 WS titles, then 2 WS losses makes 7. Then 2004 against Boston obviously. Not sure if there was another one or not. So at least 8. BUT! 5 titles > 4 titles And either way, isn't the point if this championship should be tied to the dynasty era which ended 10 seasons earlier? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2015 17:12:43 GMT -5
ok, 5 titles...how many ALCS appearances? pats have the equivalent at 9 yankees? Not sure. The 5 WS titles, then 2 WS losses makes 7. Then 2004 against Boston obviously. Not sure if there was another one or not. So at least 8. BUT! 5 titles > 4 titles And either way, isn't the point if this championship should be tied to the dynasty era which ended 10 seasons earlier? bookended thats the way i see it a start in 01, and most likely, a finish in 2015, to the title run from brady and belichick...tho a repeat would make my nipples hard. one thing i have to point out is that to me anyway, a dynasty is partly maintained by a constant in the FO, management, and players. pats have brady, belichick and kraft...over the duration. thats never changed. yankees had torre and girardi, not to mention georges kids. |
|
|
|
Post by pr0t0cl0wn on Feb 3, 2015 17:37:20 GMT -5
Not sure. The 5 WS titles, then 2 WS losses makes 7. Then 2004 against Boston obviously. Not sure if there was another one or not. So at least 8. BUT! 5 titles > 4 titles And either way, isn't the point if this championship should be tied to the dynasty era which ended 10 seasons earlier? bookended thats the way i see it a start in 01, and most likely, a finish in 2015, to the title run from brady and belichick...tho a repeat would make my nipples hard. one thing i have to point out is that to me anyway, a dynasty is partly maintained by a constant in the FO, management, and players. pats have brady, belichick and kraft...over the duration. thats never changed. yankees had torre and girardi, not to mention georges kids. 100% different eras. How many players from 2004 were on 2014? Its laughable. The Patriots had their dynasty and it ended in 2004. This is just an isolated championship by the same team. Same exact situation with the Yankees in 2009. Nothing to do with the 96-00 titles. |
|
|
|
Post by pr0t0cl0wn on Feb 3, 2015 17:38:53 GMT -5
If you want to keep believing that, knock yourself out with your batshit crazy rock logic, but its completely absurd.
|
|
|
|
Post by Just Another Shem on Feb 3, 2015 17:54:37 GMT -5
For the way people discuss it... They call this team "The Belichick and Brady Patriots"
Brady is literally the only player on the team to win four rings... So it's clearly a totally different team.
So if "dynasty" is the word you want to use or not use... This means "the Brady/Belichick Patriots"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2015 18:39:47 GMT -5
If you want to keep believing that, knock yourself out with your batshit crazy rock logic, but its completely absurd. Wow, got further riled up after you hit post on your initial reply. I must have made sense. |
|
|
|
Post by pr0t0cl0wn on Feb 3, 2015 18:59:28 GMT -5
If you want to keep believing that, knock yourself out with your batshit crazy rock logic, but its completely absurd. Wow, got further riled up after you hit post on your initial reply. I must have made sense. Not at all, you make zero sense, but trying to talk you out of your absurd lines of thought is a fool's errand. Talk to Chappee, he seemed to understand. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2015 11:15:56 GMT -5
Wow, got further riled up after you hit post on your initial reply. I must have made sense. Not at all, you make zero sense, but trying to talk you out of your absurd lines of thought is a fool's errand. Talk to Chappee, he seemed to understand. no, you just cant handle the awesome power of my brain. |
|
Mr mastodon farm
SportsChatter Hall of Famer
back to back World Series Poster
Posts: 107,977 
Likes: 13,006
|
Post by Mr mastodon farm on Feb 4, 2015 14:27:40 GMT -5
asking outsiders to validate your team's success = gaylist
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2015 18:34:08 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2015 18:34:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Center Ice on Feb 4, 2015 21:52:12 GMT -5
I'm still waiting for a team to match Green Bay's three consecutive championships from 1965-1967. Well getting off of football for a moment, the Habs, 5 consecutive Stanley Cup wins would leap to mind. |
|
|
|
Post by Leader O'Cola on Feb 5, 2015 6:51:32 GMT -5
if the pats could have beatn the giants once, I would say yes.
early run, dynasty. new title, impressive. but lots of "postseason" mediocrity mixed in
with that said, 95% of other nfl fans would kill for their success (and "mediocrity")
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2015 7:34:57 GMT -5
I'm still waiting for a team to match Green Bay's three consecutive championships from 1965-1967. Well getting off of football for a moment, the Habs, 5 consecutive Stanley Cup wins would leap to mind. the globetrotters dominance of the generals. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2015 9:30:55 GMT -5
6-4, or as yam would call it, 119-75.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Bag on Feb 5, 2015 18:27:25 GMT -5
"no votes dont count bc i dont agree with them"
- New Tantrum England
|
|
|
|
Post by pr0t0cl0wn on Feb 7, 2015 11:39:52 GMT -5
if the pats could have beatn the giants once, I would say yes. early run, dynasty. new title, impressive. but lots of "postseason" mediocrity mixed in with that said, 95% of other nfl fans would kill for their success (and "mediocrity") Exactly |
|
|
|
Post by pr0t0cl0wn on Feb 7, 2015 11:40:46 GMT -5
The fact that the mass holes had to split "no" into two separate items to make their low "yes" votes seem closer to the majority is adorable
|
|
|
|
Post by The Bag on Feb 13, 2015 10:39:04 GMT -5
11-4
yup.
|
|
