I have to tell you, hearing all these people annointing New England Patriots as a Dynasty makes me sick to my stomach. 2 Super Bowls in three years is a nice accomplishment, winning both games by 3-points a dynasty does not make. They did not even make a playoffs last year. You want to look at a Dynastly, look at the Eagles. The ONLY team in the NFL to be in the playoffs 4 straight years (and next will be 5), appeared in the last 3 NFC Championships games, won NFC EAST 3 straight years. If it was not for a few bad breaks, Eagles would have a couple Super Bowl appearances and atleast one win, then they would definately be the team on the 00's. They DO have the best record this decade. If the Pats do not take a step backwords next year, like they did after their first Super Bowl win, and if they win again, then the D word can begin to surface, until then dont's even think about. Now, Come one Everyone get together and Sing Fly Eagles Fly On the Road to Victory Fight Eagles Fight Score a Touchdown One...Two...Three Hit em Low Hit em High And watch our Eagles Fly Fly Eagles Fly On the Road to Victory E A G L E S.....EAGLES
Since Free Agency began in 1993 (I believe it was 1993), the age of Dynasties has pretty much been over. Dallas went to three Superbowls and won them all... They were the last Dynasty. The Packers could have been a Dynasty under Holmgren, but the Superbowl loss to Elway in 1997/1998 and the subsequent playoff loss the next year (the Jerry Rice fumble game) took that chance away. They do have the best record in the NFL since 1993, by the way, but just the one Superbowl win kind of kills all the Dynasty talk there. Denver won twice, then died. Haven't won a playoff game since. St. Louis won, then lost, then choked away their chance to be a Dynasty. As for New England...going to two in three years, winning them both and looking primed to contend next year...they COULD be a dynasty, as far as modern era teams go. I think it might be a wee bit early to say that, though. If they win next year...or even appear next year, sure. Until then, just enjoy this one.
I think New England is more of a 'dynasty' than Phili. You have to get to the big game to be a dynasty.
In order to be a dynasty, you must win atleast 2 straight SUPER BOWLS...the Patriots will be a dynasty if they repeat now, that would be 2 in a row and 3 in 4 years, thats major dynasty material...the way I figure it, there have been 6 dynasties in the Super Bowl era, they are: 1.Late 60's Packers...Won Super Bowl 1 and 2, the trophy is named after thier coach 2.Early 70's Dolphins....Won SB 7 and 8, appeared in 6, had perfect season, went 32-2 over 2 years, niether matched since 3.70's Steelers....went back to back twice, won 4 Super Bowls in 6 years 4.80's 49ers....Won 4 Super bowls from 81-89, went back to back in 88-89 5.90's Cowboys....Won 3 of 4 Super Bowls, went back to back in 92-93 6.Late 90's Broncos....Won 2 straight, 98 and 99, may have won a 3rd if Elway didnt retire As far as Phili being a dynasty, thats a joke, thats like saying the Braves were the team of the 90's, you can be a bridesmaid 20 times, but that doesnt mean you will ever be the bride
I know that not many people considers the late 80s/early 90s Buffalo Bills to be a Dynasty, but I do. From 1988-1993 they went 70 and 26 and appeared in four straight Super Bowls! That is impressive...win or lose. I wonder how history would view these same Bills had Scott Norwood not tanked that kick in the first one?
No the Pats are not a dynasty but the reason its being talked about so much is because of the great potential for it. Main reason is Brady is only 26 with two titles already. Belichick isnt going any where. A good core of young players from this past draft with lots of picks in the up coming draft as well. In good shape for the salary cap and our biggest free agent is woody and we did just fine against the "best front 4" with out him. Cant forget about Weis and Romeo either, glad to see them back. And no the Eagles are not even close to being a dynasty.
I had to laugh a little extra when I read that Philly would be considered a dynasty team. It's amazing how many teams have done approximately what the Eagles have done and gotten no such credit. The Steelers went to the playoffs 6 straight times under Cowher, had a couple of Conference championships and appeared in one Super Bowl, and I would never have called that team a dynasty team. Winning back to back championships or even 3 in 5 years would be dynasty like. The Pats have the potential, but as we see in the last 40 years, it's been tough going for any team, so we shall see what the 2004 Pats have in store.
the patriots are a dynasty two super bowl wins is a dynasty in pro football, the only exception would be if they were accomplished by same team 2 years apart with a whole new roster. to say you have to win them in a row is ridiculous, you mean to tell me if the alternate over 12 years win/lose they arent a dynasty 6 super bowls in 12 years? it doesnt have to be consecutive, they won jsut as many as the dolphins team did in a three year stretch, and just as many as broncos and cowboys
I think some of it is that they dropped from Super Bowl Champ to not even making the playoffs. Next season will tell a lot about the ability and character of the Patriots. They are certainly on the cusp of dynasty status.
To clarify myself, I do not think any of these teams are dynasties. However, I disagree that a dynasty is not possible in today's NFL. Good Salary cap management, not making stupid free-agent aquisitions, then there's no reason why a team can't be on top for years. I look at the Eagles for example, they have had back to back 12 win seasons, and they have 19 our of 22 starters under contract for next year, and they have the third most salary cap room in the league. It just burns me up inside knowing that had we had a decent, not even a great WR corp, we would have won atleast one Super Bowl in the last 3 years. It just hurts man, just hurts. But anyway, the point is, that it is possible to creat a dynasty-type team in todays NFL. It does take smart decisions. I think the Pats do have all of the components to win for the next few years. I also think it would be great for the game if they are.
dynasties are great championship teams however thus eliminating the eagles, and bills, dynasty is a long succession of rule, 2nd place is not rule nor is 4th so no eagles in equation
Sorry but dynastys win champioships. Philly is not even close. Regular season win percentage means nothing. Dynastys are teams that win back to back or championships within a certain time frame. Dallas in the 90s, sanfran in 80's pitt in the 70's,dallas in 70's. Dynastys.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Eagles4Life)</div><div class='quotemain'>It just burns me up inside knowing that had we had a decent, not even a great WR corp, we would have won atleast one Super Bowl in the last 3 years.</div> Eagles, How can you say that you would have won 1 of the last three superbowls when you team hasn't even reached the game? You can say if this if that but it doesn't mean anything. There eagles have shown no abilitly to win the big game therefor you can't say they would have won anything. I could say "if greenbay beat the jets in teh last game of the season we would have won the division and since brady is undefeated in the playoffs we would have won the superbowl in 2002 as well." That is obviously a bunch of crap because we couldn't stop the run in 2002 and had we slipped in we would have been knocked out. As for the dynasty thing I don't bye the consective championships argument, it is nice to do but I don't think it is the difference between a dynasty and just a really good team. If the core of the team is basicly the same and you win 3 or 4 championships inside of a decade you can be considered a dynasty. The pats can't be considered one yet but are on the verge whether you like it or not.
