Super Bowl XLIX Gameday Chatter | Patriots vs Seahawks | 2-1-2015

Tony D said:
I'll argue it. Early 2000's was a dynasty. This has little to do with the other. Brady and Belichick are all-timers. Who else is on this team that was on the others?
Click to expand...

Everyone says the 80s 49ers were a dynasty. But how many players that were on the team 81 were still on the team in 89? Montana? Lott? Anyone else? Rice wasn't there in 81, neither was Craig, neither was Haley. Hell even the coach was different.

If that was part of the same dynasty then so are these Patriots.
 
Tony D said:
I hear you Carp, a dynasty isn't going to win every year, but they're not going to go 10 years without a championship.

Cowboys of early-mid 90's is a dynasty. Pats of early-mid 00's is a dynasty. A ton of the same guys on those championship teams. The only connection from this Pats team to those of their past championships is Brady and Belichick. I get they're the main reason, but they went 10 years without a championship and there's hardly anybody else left from their last championship besides them.
Click to expand...

I'd say 4 Super Bowls is considered a dynasty. Cowboys were hot for 4 years and that was it.
 
Tony D said:
I hear you Carp, a dynasty isn't going to win every year, but they're not going to go 10 years without a championship.

Cowboys of early-mid 90's is a dynasty. Pats of early-mid 00's is a dynasty. A ton of the same guys on those championship teams. The only connection from this Pats team to those of their past championships is Brady and Belichick. I get they're the main reason, but they went 10 years without a championship and there's hardly anybody else left from their last championship besides them.
Click to expand...


The Patriots also went to 2 Super Bowls and countless conference championships in between. There is a flow to this Patriots era that connects the championships.
 
Genghis Khan said:
Everyone says the 80s 49ers were a dynasty. But how many players that were on the team 81 were still on the team in 89? Montana? Lott? Anyone else? Rice wasn't there in 81, neither was Craig, neither was Haley. Hell even the coach was different.

If that was part of the same dynasty then so are these Patriots.
Click to expand...

What about the other 2 Super Bowls the 49ers won between those 2? A bunch of guys were on the 81 and 84 teams, then a bunch were on the 84 and 88 and 89 teams. They won 4 Super Bowls in 9 years. Take away 81 and the 84-89 team is a dynasty. The Pats just won their second Super Bowl in 11 seasons with 99% different players.
 
pdom said:
I'd say 4 Super Bowls is considered a dynasty. Cowboys were hot for 4 years and that was it.
Click to expand...

That's a dynasty. Pats of early to mid 2000's is a dynasty. Going 10 years not winning a championship is a dynasty?
 
I am still stunned at that playcall.

They just lost a Super Bowl.

Forever.
 
Genghis Khan said:
The Patriots also went to 2 Super Bowls and countless conference championships in between. There is a flow to this Patriots era that connects the championships.
Click to expand...

Dynasties win multiple championships in my mind and don't go 10 years without one.
 
Tony D said:
That's a dynasty. Pats of early to mid 2000's is a dynasty. Going 10 years not winning a championship is a dynasty?
Click to expand...
IMO...yes. I mean if they win one of the Giants SBs does that change it? Speaks well of the coach, QB, and front office that they can compete at the highest level every year.
 
Tony D said:
That's a dynasty. Pats of early to mid 2000's is a dynasty. Going 10 years not winning a championship is a dynasty?
Click to expand...

If the Cowboys won one more, they'd be a true dynasty as people wouldn't have to say 'early' when they say 90s. I'd consider the 2000s patriots more of a dynasty than the early 90s Cowboys.

Losing 2 Super Bowls counts when it's bookended by 4 wins.
 
Carp said:
IMO...yes. I mean if they win one of the Giants SBs does that change it? Speaks well of the coach, QB, and front office that they can compete at the highest level every year.
Click to expand...

Yes, that changes it. They didn't though. How can a dynasty go 10 years without winning a championship? Doesn't make sense to me.
 
pdom said:
If the Cowboys won one more, they'd be a true dynasty as people wouldn't have to say 'early' when they say 90s. I'd consider the 2000s patriots more of a dynasty than the early 90s Cowboys.

Losing 2 Super Bowls counts when it's bookended by 4 wins.
Click to expand...

Just my opinion, but a dynasty doesn't go 10 years without a championship. I don't care if they made 2 other Super Bowls. They lost them. This team looks absolutely nothing like their last championship.
 
Could you imagine if Romo threw that pick? And Garrett was the head coach? Good thing Seattle, Wilson and Carroll have a Super Bowl in their back pocket.
 
I think Super Bowl appearances count as part of a dynasty. The team never was really rebuilt, just had parts replaced. Whether or not a team is a dynasty is subjective, but I think as long as they are consistently good they are part of the same run of good teams.
 
Do the two titles in 09 and 10 count for the LA Lakers to the group that 3-peated at the turn of the century with Shaq?
 
Clay_Allison said:
I think Super Bowl appearances count as part of a dynasty. The team never was really rebuilt, just had parts replaced. Whether or not a team is a dynasty is subjective, but I think as long as they are consistently good they are part of the same run of good teams.
Click to expand...

Yeah, history will see these teams over the 15 year span as one dynasty. During debates about the greatest dynasty, no credible person would say the 2000s Patriots are weaker than the steelers and 49ers because they only have 3 rings.

On on the same token, nobody credible will say the 90s Cowboys and the 2000s patriots dynasties are tied at 3 SB wins.
 
pdom said:
Do the two titles in 09 and 10 count for the LA Lakers to the group that 3-peated at the turn of the century with Shaq?
Click to expand...

No, because they became a pretty crap team in between.

pdom said:
I didn't either. But if you're referring to the Cowboys of the 70s, do you clarify if it as two separate groups - early and late 70s? Or do you refer to the 71 and 77 Cowboys both as the 70s?
Click to expand...

I consider the 75-78 Cowboys a different team (that would have been a dynasty had they beaten Pitt) from the 70-71 team, and I might not if the team hadn't dropped off in 74 and had to be rebuilt (amazingly quickly due to the miracle 75 draft).
 
pdom said:
Yeah, history will see these teams over the 15 year span as one dynasty. During debates about the greatest dynasty, no credible person would say the 2000s Patriots are weaker than the steelers and 49ers because they only have 3 rings.

On on the same token, nobody credible will say the 90s Cowboys and the 2000s patriots dynasties are tied at 3 SB wins.
Click to expand...

I think it's hard to compare the totality of the teams because of all of the moving parts, but it will sure as hell be hard to argue against Brady and Belichick being the best coach and best QB of all time.
 
Not that it matters much to us, but just thinking how this changes the course of football history. Seahawks win and marshawn lynch probably makes the hall of fame, with a couple more above average seasons.

Just like one Jackie smith catch probably makes Drew Pearson and cliff Harris hall of famers.
 
VA Cowboy said:
They are totally classless. Pete has always been like that and much of their team has apparently taken on his personality. The last few years I have tended to pull for them through the season only because of wanting a team to knock off the 49ers. But other than that I do care for them one way or another. But the do have some very unlikeable players.
Click to expand...

Headline. Cheaters defeat the Classless. (Glad the Pats won)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom