Are the patriots a dynasty?

[STL FANATIC]

My vote goes to no. The Rams should have been a dynasty but never achieved that. Had the Rams reached one more SB, preferribly this year, and won it or the one in 2001, that would have been a dynasty in this FA age. However, just because the Patriots barely won two superbowls in three years and didn't even make the playoffs the year between doesn't make them one. I think a dynasty has to have about four of five winning seasons and three trips to the SB. Plus probably two wins.

[slapshot]

If the you almost vote the Rams a dynasty then by your logic the Pats would have to be one, 2 titles in the same amount of years.

Believe it or not, I say not yet...even though 2 titles in 3 years is impressive, I would say yes if they made the playoffs or league championship last year. If next year they make it the title game, then yes, they are a dynasty. It's too short a reign with the interruption to be called a dynasty.

[Discrim]

all i know is the Packers had a shot in the mid and late 90s, too late now.  the Pats now have a shot at being a real dynasty.  They're not one yet, they can be but they're not.  And as you said, the Rams had a shot and blew that.

[STL FANATIC]

If the you almost vote the Rams a dynasty then by your logic the Pats would have to be one, 2 titles in the same amount of years.

Believe it or not, I say not yet...even though 2 titles in 3 years is impressive, I would say yes if they made the playoffs or league championship last year. If next year they make it the title game, then yes, they are a dynasty. It's too short a reign with the interruption to be called a dynasty.

See, the reason I think the Rams were/are closer than the Pats is that they had a lot of success over a good period of time, but big success in that time. I'm not sure if their dynasty window is over or not yet. If they win the SB next year, it has to be up for debate at least.

As you said, a championship game appearence, and probably another SB appearence (has to be two more seasons with that kind of success, not just one) and then the Pats might be one. I don't think they'll reach that.

[slapshot]

I think the Pats can get there again. There are a few players who have contract issues, but with the exception of Ty Law, anyone can be replaced without much disruption of the machine.

New England has proven, it's not one great player that makes a difference, it's many anonymous players that work together as a team that win championships.

[NJTank]

The won 2 times in 3 years. That is not a dynasty. To becoem a dynasty you must win 3. If teh Pats win in the next few years you could call them a dynasty.

[STL FANATIC]

I think the Pats can get there again. There are a few players who have contract issues, but with the exception of Ty Law, anyone can be replaced without much disruption of the machine.

New England has proven, it's not one great player that makes a difference, it's many anonymous players that work together as a team that win championships.

Well, they don't have to be anonymous players. They just have to be balanced and willing to work as a team. And contrary what the St. Louis media tried to brain wash people into believing this year...barely pulling out wins against crap teams with different parts of the team stepping up (ie. saving Bulger) is not better than blowing out every team each week with an awesome offence (led by Kurt Warner). However, that blowing out thing obviously isn't the only way to win.

You mentioned Law as being a key, but the last few minutes showed Harrison was too...he's a very dirty player btw.

[See Red]

No... they're not a dynasty. I say a dynasty is over a span of 5 or 6 years, with consistent playoff and superbowl appearances.

If you count the Rams OR the Patriots as a dynasty... then you'd also HAVE TO count the Broncos as a dynasty. They were a top 5 team for 3 straight years. with 2 Super Bowl appearances and wins. But the bottom line is... over 10 years... you can't have 3 seperate NFL dynasties.

However, I do feel that the Rams and Broncos are the closest things we've seen to dynasties of late. The Rams were a DOMINANT team. They weren't comign from behind and winning close games. They were winning by 10-20 consistently.

And the last Broncos Super Bowl team could probably take any team in the NFL right now.

* EDIT - and the "lose 4 straight" Buffalo Bills were most certainly a dynasty.  If the Bills had had ONE kick go straight, as opposed to wide right... they'd be known as one of the greatest teams in NFL history.  It's a shame.

[KCScout76]

No... they're not a dynasty.  I say a dynasty is over a span of 5 or 6 years, with consistent playoff and superbowl appearances

IMO - it's time that determines a dynasty.  Too many people are quick to label a team a dynasty only to have them fall on their faces.  Check back in 5-10 years. ???

[NJTank]

Good Point KC.

Too often now we jump the gun and give some one or a team legendary staus when we have seen only a portion of there career.

Case in point in 1997 Eric Lindros was on his way to being the next big star, no he is just a bum.

In 1999 Ken Griffey Jr. was voted to teh All Century team now that looks like a complete joke as even his Hall of Fame creditanls  are questionable if he never bounces back.

[Phil]

The Patriots can easily be considered a great team (any team that wins the Super Bowl is a great team), but not a dynasty. IMO, a dynasty is defined by a team that survives personnel changes to a significant portion of their team (although the core may stay), and yet continues to win over a period of no less than 5-6 years.

The Patriots are half way there. However, in this day and age of free agency, I think it's highly unlikely we'll ever see another dynasty. The NBA's Lakers are about as close as it comes... a year or two more of domination (including at least one more Championship) could elevate them to that status. Not yet though...

[paynomind]

dynasty?

seriously? a dynasty is six to eight years of constant success, all but one playoff years, three or more championships.

The Yankees? a Dynasty.. the Braves? NO, but as close as you can get without being. 13 years of consecutive playoff is unreal. One championship means that are an incredible team, but not a dynasty.

Football hasnt seen a dynasty since the cowboys.

[vicfurth]

The Cowboys were a dynasty. Won three Super Bowls in four years, four straight NFC title games. The Packers during the twenties and thirties wasn't a dynasty, it was an empire. The Yankees aren't a dynasty, they are an empire (be it an evil one). The Bulls of the 90's was an empire (six titles in eight years).

dynasty?

seriously? a dynasty is six to eight years of constant success, all but one playoff years, three or more championships.

The Yankees? a Dynasty.. the Braves? NO, but as close as you can get without being. 13 years of consecutive playoff is unreal. One championship means that are an incredible team, but not a dynasty.

Football hasnt seen a dynasty since the cowboys.

If your analogy is correct, even the Cowboys weren't a dynasty, and the only dynasties we'll ever see again are Tennesse Vols' and UConn Huskies women's basketball.

[JQK]

The Word "Dynasty" is being thrown around way to much.

THe Yankees of the late 90's and 2000, yes, they were a dynasty, the Bulls, no question, the Lakers, on the edge of it, kind of a 50/50... If they win this year i would say yes

The Patriots? No. If They win next year.. maybe, and i stress MAYBE.... but not now.

[yh]

I agree with John that the term "dynasty" is being hastily applied to teams in the NFL these days.  In my mind a dynasty is a team that dominates its league for an extended period of time and, of course, wins some titles, or at least gets to the championship round, on a consistent basis.  The Pats had an off year in 2002.  If they get back to the top next year, or at least put together a 12+ win season and get to the AFC title game, they'll be on their way.  I think we need another couple of years before fitting them for the crown however.

[JQK]

From Super Bowl XIX to Super Bowl XXX (12 years)

49ers - 4 Super Bowl Victories

Cowboys - 3 Super Bowl Victories

Those are dynasties. Only 5 Super Bowls in that span were not won by the 9ers or Cowboys, and the Giants and Redskins got two each, the other going to the Bears

Until there is a day when there is domination like that again in the NFL, the term "Dynasty" should be retired...

[NJTank]

You forgot about the Bears JQK, but I get your point

You could even push it back a few years

XV-XXX

5. 49ers

3. Cowboys

3. Redskins

2. Giants

2. Raiders

1. Bears

[STL FANATIC]

So, then are people willing to keep the Rams in a dynasty window? I'm not labeling them one yet, but if they win another two SBs, and maybe make another in the next 4-6 years, they would have a dynasty then, right?

[yh]

So, then are people willing to keep the Rams in a dynasty window? I'm not labeling them one yet, but if they win another two SBs, and maybe make another in the next 4-6 years, they would have a dynasty then, right?

Yes, but that's an awfully tall order.  They would qualify for a dynasty because they would have won despite massive changes in personnel and coaching staffs.  The 2009 Rams will look drastically different than the 1999 Rams and if they are still atop the league (again this works with your formula of 5 Super Bowl appearances and 3 championships in a 10 year period) that would be a dynasty within the NFC for sure and probably be considered as a league wide dynasty.

[STL FANATIC]

So, then are people willing to keep the Rams in a dynasty window? I'm not labeling them one yet, but if they win another two SBs, and maybe make another in the next 4-6 years, they would have a dynasty then, right?

Yes, but that's an awfully tall order. They would qualify for a dynasty because they would have won despite massive changes in personnel and coaching staffs. The 2009 Rams will look drastically different than the 1999 Rams and if they are still atop the league (again this works with your formula of 5 Super Bowl appearances and 3 championships in a 10 year period) that would be a dynasty within the NFC for sure and probably be considered as a league wide dynasty.

Yes, but for probably the next three years, Warner is back and all will be well.