Are the Pats a dynasty if they win?

[patsox]

Enjoy

[Breakwood]

? what does that have to do with the city, Are you saying foxboro is the best sports city?

[patsox]

sorry, I just wrote the wrong title

[NJTank]

No problem I as moderator can change the topic.

[patsox]

thanks pal

[sportsfan331]

i think so

[NJTank]

Well if the Cowboys of the 90s are considered a dyansty for 3 in 4 so would the Pats.

[jkrdevil]

Look again in 10 years. Right now I think missing the playoffs the year after Super Bowl XXXVI hurts. Had they made the playoffs that year then yes.

[Breakwood]

I dunno bout this year but if they three-peat there will be no doubt.

[patsox]

how do you make a signature?

[IronChefShark]

ah SHADDUP!

[NJTank]

how do you make a signature?

Patssox theres a thread in the sportlogos section Frequentally asked questions check that out before asking any.

FAQ

[See Red]

The Patriots are, without a doubt, a dynasty. 31-2 in their last 33 (or is it 32-2 in their last 34, now?)... you won't see dominance like that very often. Especially in this era of Free Agency when you see really good teams miss the playoffs the next year, and really bad teams make them. Consistency alone makes it a huge accomplishment. They missed the playoffs one year, but it's not like they finished under .500 or missed it by a lot.

[Cartabago]

I thought dynasties were consecutive superbowl wins, without break years. :\

[slapshot]

Bill Belichick was asked that last week after the Pittsburgh game. His response?

"A dynasty is when you win 3 Super Bowls in 4 years."

If the Pats win, it's a dynasty.

[See Red]

I thought dynasties were consecutive superbowl wins, without break years. :\

It depends on who you ask. But generally, back to back Super Bowls aen't considered a dynasty as the Denver Broncos teams that won back to back Super Bowls aren't considered a dynasty.

To me, it's dominance over an extended period of time (4 years +), and 3 Super Bowls in 4 years fits the description to me.

[Stampman]

To me a dynasty is something that doesn't happen all the time, and the minimum requirement in my books is 3 championships in a row--so if they can do that--I would say yes--until then a semi dynasty.

Edmonton Oiler fans don't like this as it eliminates their team from being one too--but that's how I see it--and it makes dynasties rarer & sweeter...

(For example--the NHL in all its history would then have 4 teams qualify-or 3 teams --one twice.)

[See Red]

So to you, the NFL has never had a dynasty?

[Pat]

thats ridiculous, thats like saying the 9ers werent a dynasty because they didnt win 3 in a row.

A dynasty is a team that dominates in an era.

3 Super Bowls in 4 years especially in this era of free agency would be considered a dynasty in my books

[yh]

thats ridiculous, thats like saying the 9ers werent a dynasty because they didnt win 3 in a row.

A dynasty is a team that dominates in an era.

3 Super Bowls in 4 years especially in this era of free agency would be considered a dynasty in my books

Can't say it much better myself.

The Steelers of the 70's winning 4 Super Bowls in 6 years was a dynasty. The 49ers winning 4 Super Bowls in 9 years was a dynasty.

The Cowboys winning 3 Super Bowls in 4 years was a dynasty.

Keep in mind, you don't just look at Super Bowls won but also whether the team is a legitimate Super Bowl contender and playoff participant in the years when they don't win it all. You need championships to be a dynasty but you don't need them every single year - just having the talent and recognized ability to win it all also counts in the picture as well.