I think it's hard to argue that the Patriots were a dynasty. But you can also place a huge asterisk next to those victories, since they have been caught cheating and accused of numerous other shenanigans. Also, with the league suspiciously destroying evidence that could have validated or invalidated some of the claims against the Patriots I'll never give that team credit for their accomplishments. I have no arguments with anybody who wants to call them a dynasty. But where there's smoke there's fire, and I think the Patriots have been and are still up to no good. The only thing Bill Belichik has revolutionized about the game are new and creative ways to bend / break / and stretch the rules.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. The cheating allegations put in doubt the validity of their wins (and also IMO how good Brady was). It is reasonable to question those wins, but for those not questioning the wins there should be no question that they won enough to be called a dynasty. It doesn't matter whether they were close wins or blow outs.
The Patriots won 3 SB's in 4 years so I would say they were a Dynasty through 2005, but they have not won a SB since and I don't feel they are the dominant team in the NFL. They are still a very good team, but I would no longer say they are a Dynasty. Defensively they are pretty average....but they still have a great offense (passing game) although they don't have much of a running game.
to me there were only three teams that were dynasties in the SuperBowl era, The Packers (half before half after the SB started) the Steelers and the 49ers. I think all the other teams that had nice runs werent really dynasties. I dont think you can water down the defenition so that every ten years we have a so called dynatsy
Imagine how many more Super Bowls the Dolphins would have won in the 1970s if the 3 best players didnt leave for the WFL.
I dont get this question They won 3 out of 4. Thats a Dynasty. They HAD a dynasty. This year's superbowl will be the 5th superbowl without them winning one. What dynasty?
lost to the colts in the afc champ game, and lost the superbowl to the giants...... thats two out of 4 but you are right
Honestly, a Current Dynasty was the 01-05 Eagles, who made 100 straight NFC Championships. I feel they don't get the credit they deserve. They rank up there with the Bills.
I think winning a Super Bowl is a requisite to earn the "Dynasty" label. The Bills were amazing with four straight Super Bowl appearances, but Dynasty? No.
The Jim Kelly/Thurman Thomas/Bruce Smith Buffalo Bills are a bunch of loser/chokers. They deserve no credit whatsoever. It is amazing to get to 4 Superbowls in a row, no doubt. However, they choked in each appearance and deserve ridicule. 1990 - Norwood chokes on a 47 yard FG that would have won the game. 1991 - Got blown out 24-0 in the 3rd qtr. Final score 37-24 in a game that was never even close. ps- Thurman Thomas misses the first two offensive plays because he lost his helmet!!!! 1992 - Lose to the Cowboys 52-17. Turn the ball over NINE TIMES. 1993 - Get blown out again to the Cowboys 30-13 Those Bills should be remembered as losers, not as a dynasty.
that's the thing. if they win another one say, this year, or next year, you are saying they start a new one, even with Brady and Belly at the top.That would make no sense. Dynasties are not something you determine on a year by year basis, but something you determine in the past. Now, the first 3 SBs are a definite dynasty. Is the dynasty over? TBD. With Belly at the helm, it can still go on, it may be over.
If anything, Steelers got a dynasty going right now. If Patriots win 3 out of next 4, then yes, they will be a dynasty again...as of now, Steelers are the defending superbowl champs. Hell, steelers won TWO Lombardis since Pats won.
You guys are too generous with the Dynasty monkier. Green Bay Packers (61-67) Steelers (74-79) Niners (81-89) Cowboys (92-95) Them's the only ones in my book.
did you purposely neglect to list the dolphins from the 70's, or did you just forget? (serious question) i like your list though. i would add the patriots to that list, for the four year span they won their 3 superbowls. that is most definitely a dynasty, especially in today's day and age where it is a lot harder to dominate than it was in the 60's.
I'm not saying 3 or four more. I'm saying, if they won another one this year. Would you say, this last one is not a part of the 2001-2005 dynasty? I wouldn't. Brady and Belicheck define this dynasty. If they go a couple more years, then sure, I can see that the first one ended. But I think they're still on the tail end of the first one.
good list. i would throw out the cowboys (close but no cigar) but agree on the others and agree that people are too happy calling every team a dyanasty nowadays
every team? i think that's exaggerating a little, don't you? in today's age with the salary cap and all that, i think it is harder to dominate over a period of time. as such my personal definition of a dynasty is curtailed as time goes on. it's all relative anyway. you won't see teams like the 60's packers anymore. the patriots as you see from earlier this decade (and maybe arguably now) are the closest thing i think we'll get to seeing a dynasty in today's age, really. but that's just my opinion.
Everyone (outside of the Dolphins) give the Patriots too much credit and attention. If they are so good, why do have to kick a field goal to win every time?
much of todays game is derived fro the earlier football, you should try to read up abit on it, its quite fasinating.
why would you say that. i see no difference in teams ability to dominate. Seems like a cliche that made sense when it was first spouted but over the past decade or two has been proven to be false by having the same teams stay at the top year after year. In fact I'm not sure if an analysis of the two eras might find that its easier to stay at the top nowadays. Just because a team hasnt pulled off the complete domination of a time span needed to be a dynasty IMO, doesnt mean they cant since teams are certainly coming close. having said that, i agree with you that the quality of the teams at the top have deteriorated tremendously. There is zero comparison between the 49ers of the 80s and the Steelers or Patriots of this decade. We have sacrificed quality for parity. Its why I think nowadays, coaching and front offices play a more important part than in the past when you could horde physical talent and rely on that a bit more
Thus far Pats have looked better than I expected this year given their massive defensive player losses over the last few years. Still, that defense is not great anymore and it showed in Belichick's lack of confidence in them against the Colts when he went for it on 4th down. The Pats will lose more games this year because of that defense. The Saints should eat them alive. And when Brady has to throw to catch up, the Saints will have an INT-party.
The Dynasty crumbles from within..... Randy Moss was among four Patriots sent home for the day Wednesday after being late for a 8 a.m. meeting. Derrick Burgess, Adalius Thomas and Gary Guyton were also late, apparently because snowy conditions had traffic tied up. The players will not practice or participate in meetings. We don't know if this will have any ramifications on Sunday, but with the Patriots in a must-win situation, it's hard to see any of them missing extended snaps