2017 NFL Season: Then there were Two

[Brass]

3 hours ago, Lights Out said:

No way. LeBron's 2016 Finals alone is more impressive than Brady's entire career.

 

[BBTV]

18 hours ago, infrared41 said:

That just might have been the most entertaining Super Bowl I've ever seen. Pats haters aren't going to like this, but it's a shame one of those teams had to lose. 

 

Eh, not really.

[DnBronc]

4 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Are the Patriots a true singular "dynasty" in the true sense of the word, or are they multiple "dynasties" strung together, or something else altogether?

 

Asking because the early 00s Patriots were a 99.9% different team than the late teens version.  Typically "dynasties" are teams who's core is relatively consistent through their era of dominance.  In this case, it's literally just the coach and QB and everyone else has been replaced.  I think it's its own thing altogether - something we've never seen before, and likely never will again.

 

 

 

I would call the 2001-today's Pats a soft dynasty. Yes, they won five SB's, but their fourth was ten years after their third (it should be five or less for a true dynasty). The only true dynasties in NFL history are the 1961-67 Packers, 1974-79 Steelers, and 1981-94 49ers.

[DnBronc]

4 hours ago, McCarthy said:

Steratore went to the upstairs booth and I think that guy had enough wherewithal to say "nobody is ever going to watch this sport again if we don't call this a touchdown like we should". The game would've always been tainted if they had reversed that to an incomplete pass, the Patriots probably find a way to comeback from the ensuing field goal and it'd be tuck rule times 100. I'm surprised they made the right decision because I was also certain they were gonna botch it because that's what the NFL does best. So glad common sense won out. 

 

The Clement catch was probably the incorrect call, but it felt right spiritually, if you know what I mean. I don't have a problem with that either. 

 

Steelers fans will gripe about the James play, but under the dumb rule the James play is called correctly and the Ertz play is called correctly. James never "Became a runner" like Ertz did. He fell down on his own and lost the ball while not surviving the ground. Ertz possessed the pass, took 3 steps as a runner before he was touched which means it's a TD as soon as it breaks the plane regardless of what happens to the ball afterwards. It's so stupid we even have to talk about this, both plays should be touchdowns, but as the rule is written the James play is not a touchdown. I hope they fix that rule this offseason because it is nonsensical.

 

There is this guy who does a sports conspiracy blog who thinks that the NFL rigged this SB for the people:

 

https://superfraud.blogspot.com/2018/02/super-bowl-liie-for-people-circus-with.html

[IceCap]

Congrats to @BringBackTheVet and all the other Eagles fans here btw.

Last night’s game was one of the best start-to-finish Super Bowls I’ve ever seen, and it’s great to see such a fun team come out on top. 

[oldschoolvikings]

3 hours ago, Lights Out said:

No way. LeBron's 2016 Finals alone is more impressive than Brady's entire career.

 

Holy Snit.  OK, we get it, you hate the Patriots. But you have to stop with this nonsense, you're losing whatever credibility you might be holding on to.

[IceCap]

13 minutes ago, DnBronc said:

 

I would call the 2001-today's Pats a soft dynasty. Yes, they won five SB's, but their fourth was ten years after their third (it should be five or less for a true dynasty). The only true dynasties in NFL history are the 1961-67 Packers, 1974-79 Steelers, and 1981-94 49ers.

Calling the 2001-2018 Patriots anything but a dynasty seems silly. 

Yes, ten years between #3 and #4, but Jesus. The only other team I’ve seen with that much sustained success over a period of comparable time would be the 1999-2014 San Antonio Spurs. 

 

[RockyTopper]

1 minute ago, DnBronc said:

 

I would call the 2001-today's Pats a soft dynasty. Yes, they won five SB's, but their fourth was ten years after their third (it should be five or less for a true dynasty). The only true dynasties in NFL history are the 1961-67 Packers, 1974-79 Steelers, and 1981-94 49ers.

Not sure how the current Pats run is a "soft" dynasty that's somehow less of a dynasty than those other dynasties. Basically, what you have here with New England is a long stretch of success like the 49ers, except instead of starting out in 1981 with Walsh and Montana and ending in 1994 with Seifert and Young, its all been under the same coach and quarterback AND they have three more appearances to boot.

 

It's almost like the Belichick/Brady Pats are a double dynasty, with two runs where they made it three out of four SBs, winning all three times the first go round 2001-2004 and coming darn close to doing it again this go round 2014-2017, with the 2007 (16-0 perfect regular season, an unequaled feat in the 16-game season era even if they lost the SB) and 2011 appearances coming in between the two of them. Love them or hate them there's just nothing else comparable to their success.

[Brass]

9 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

Calling the 2001-2018 Patriots anything but a dynasty seems silly. 

Yes, ten years between #3 and #4, but Jesus. The only other team I’ve seen with that much sustained success over a period of comparable time would be the 1999-2014 San Antonio Spurs. 

 

 

"But I don't like them so its different."

[OnWis97]

If the Patriots are not a dynasty, we've definitely seen our last NFL dynasty.  They have missed the playoffs twice since Brady took over (and once without him and with an 11-5 record).  They've been to eight Super Bowls in 17 years.  The personnel has changed a lot (which makes it all the more impressive from a coaching/GM perspective) But for 17 years, the Pats have entered the year as one of the teams that has a shot.  And they've really never disappointed.  

 

Green Bay has kinda been  that way for even longer, but 2-1 in the Super Bowl over about 25 years vs. 5-3 over 17 years...

 

I don't think it matters a great deal who is playing safety, middle linebacker, or left tackle.  Or even QB (though there has only been one).  That fanchise is always there at the end.  It's a dynasty, 2001 to ????.

[ozzyman314]

I always thought of The Patriots run as 2 separate dynasties rather than 1 long one. Mostly because even with Brady & Belichick, the teams were so dynamically different. 

 

01-04 were a more defence oriented team with guys like Tedy Bruschi, Rodney Harrison, and Ty Law. 

14-17 was a more offensive team with players like Gronkowski, Edelman, Hogan, Amendola, etc.(With the offensive turnaround really starting in 07 with Moss & welker).    

 

 

[BBTV]

32 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

Congrats to @BringBackTheVet and all the other Eagles fans here btw.

Last night’s game was one of the best start-to-finish Super Bowls I’ve ever seen, and it’s great to see such a fun team come out on top. 

 

Thank you.  I definitely did a lot to earn it and deserve it.  Can't wait for my parade.

 

25 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

Calling the 2001-2018 Patriots anything but a dynasty seems silly. 

Yes, ten years between #3 and #4, but Jesus. The only other team I’ve seen with that much sustained success over a period of comparable time would be the 1999-2014 San Antonio Spurs. 

 

 

My original question was whether it's one dynasty, two separate dynasties, or some other thing altogether that's even bigger than a dynasty.  The only reason I'm questioning one vs two is because the cast of the championship strings is literally different by all but two people.  I guess if we don't have a title requirement for "dynasty", then it's one long one, but in my head when i think of dynasty, I'm thinking like the Cowboys that had largely the same core team for their 3 titles in the '90s.  This is weird - it's literally just Brady through all of it.

 

 

EDIT:

 

3 minutes ago, ozzyman314 said:

I always thought of The Patriots run as 2 separate dynasties rather than 1 long one. Mostly because even with Brady & Belichick, the teams were so dynamically different. 

 

01-04 were a more defence oriented team with guys like Tedy Bruschi, Rodney Harrison, and Ty Law. 

14-17 was a more offensive team with players like Gronkowski, Edelman, Hogan, Amendola, etc.(With the offensive turnaround really starting in 07 with Moss & welker).    

 

 

This is kinda the way I was looking at it - or at least one way of looking at it that made me ask the question.

[Sport]

I was thinking the Patriots are sort of like the 95-2015 Red Wings of football. Their runs don't really line up in perfect symmetry, but they both had a dominant initial championship core, regrouped while still maintaining a high level of competitiveness to the point where they probably could've won one or two more, and then came back with a different core and won some more with only a few of same players. Both were quite annoying too. 

 

I think whenever the Patriots do finally run out of steam it'll be the gradual dropoff we've seen with the Red Wings and not an all-at once kind of thing. 

[Tracy Jordan]

All I know is that Tom Brady and Bill Belichick almost led the Patriots to the Super Bowl in 2006 had it not been for a total second half meltdown against the Colts in the AFCG. Had they won that game, they would have beaten the Bears for their fourth title in six years. You know how impressive Tom Brady was that season? I can't even remember who his starting receivers were and I doubt most of you would know without googling it. The only guy I can remember off the top of my head is Reche Caldwell, I think? That season cemented their legacy as a dynasty for me even though they didn't win the title. It amazes me that they have made it to four Super Bowls in each of the past two decades (2000-2009, 2010-present). All that being said, I still hate them. 

 

On a separate note, this makes me so happy:

 

 

Can't wait for the inevitable episode of Sunny next season entitled "The Gang Burns Down Philadelphia"

[IceCap]

1 hour ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Thank you.  I definitely did a lot to earn it and deserve it.  Can't wait for my parade.

Oh just admit you're happy your team won the Super Bowl

 

[BBTV]

9 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

Oh just admit you're happy your team won the Super Bowl

 

 

I'm motherfraking ecstatic.

 

Or at least I was until I had to log in to work today... man today was rough.

 

I'm going to have to plan better after the win it next year and the next few years after that.

[BBTV]

Sign this guy up for WWE right now:

 

"I want their intestines, we’ll turn them inside out. They’re going to be hanging out next to the f[edit]ing banner in the Linc. LET’S GO. I DON’T HEAR YALL. LET’S GO.

Hey, I’m looking for a mother f[edit]ing pink puff of smoke out the back of the next mother f[edit]er's head that you all take off. Let’s go. Eagles kill! 1-2-3, EAGLES KILL. LET’S GO."

 

 

[Brass]

2 hours ago, Tracy Jordan said:

The only guy I can remember off the top of my head is Reche Caldwell, I think? That season cemented their legacy as a dynasty for me even though they didn't win the title. It amazes me that they have made it to four Super Bowls in each of the past two decades (2000-2009, 2010-present). 

 

And they were so close...

 

 

[B-Rich]

Just an observation on coaches, pro and college. 

With yesterday's win, and Gruden's return to the Raiders, that makes seven eight active NFL coaches who have won Super Bowls:

 

Sean Payton
Bill Belichick
Jon Gruden
John Harbaugh
Pete Carroll
Doug Pederson
Mike McCarthy

Mike Tomlin

 

Seven Eight out of 32, exactly between a quarter and a fifth.

 

On the other hand, in college, there are only FOUR:

 

Nick Saban

Jumbo Fisher

Urban Meyer

Dabo Swinney.

 

And college has a LOT more teams.

 

I wonder why the disparity. Draft/free agency as opposed to recruiting? The Saban effect? (That's one reason why national champ coach Les Miles is no longer on that list). Coach movement to the NFL? (Note Pete Carroll would be on EITHER  list, if you consider the #1 AP ranking for the 2003 season as a championship [they weren't BCS champs, and his 2004 BCS championship was taken back by the NCAA]).....The nature of bowl games vs. pro playoffs?

 

Hmmm.
 

[ZapRowsdower8]

1 hour ago, B-Rich said:

Just an observation on coaches, pro and college. 

With yesterday's win, and Gruden's return to the Raiders, that makes seven active NFL coaches who have won Super Bowls:

 

Sean Payton
Bill Belichick
Jon Gruden
John Harbaugh
Pete Carroll
Doug Pederson
Mike McCarthy

 

Seven out of 32, between a quarter and a fifth.

 

On the other hand, in college, there are only FOUR:

 

Nick Saban

Jumbo Fisher

Urban Meyer

Dabo Swinney.

 

And college has a LOT more teams.

 

I wonder why the disparity. Draft/free agency as opposed to recruiting? The Saban effect? (That's one reason why national champ coach Les Miles is no longer on that list). Coach movement to the NFL? (Note Pete Carroll would be on EITHER  list, if you consider the #1 AP ranking for the 2003 season as a championship [they weren't BCS champs, and his 2004 BCS championship was taken back by the NCAA]).....The nature of bowl games vs. pro playoffs?

 

Hmmm.
 

You forgot Mike Tomlin.