Are the patriots a dynasty?

[the_cynic]

At this stage in the game I would take Brady and the Patriots over Warner and the Rams.  Even if Warner is healthy I don't think the Rams can get back to their old winning ways.

[STL FANATIC]

At this stage in the game I would take Brady and the Patriots over Warner and the Rams. Even if Warner is healthy I don't think the Rams can get back to their old winning ways.

Your choice...I'll take Warner and the Rams any day.

[Phil]

At this stage in the game I would take Brady and the Patriots over Warner and the Rams. Even if Warner is healthy I don't think the Rams can get back to their old winning ways.

Your choice...I'll take Warner and the Rams any day.

As would I.

W W

| |

| . . |

| U | WOOHOO! Rams/Broncos... Super Bowl XXXIX!

[jkrdevil]

I would take Brady, much more proven in the clutch.

I don't think the Pats are a dynasty. If Pennington is healthy, I think the Jets will win the division. Next year it will be the Jets-Broncos in the AFC championship, providing of course each team is healthy.

[Fusebazell]

The Patriots are not a dynasty.  They win 2 Super Bowls in 3 years and they are a dynasty?  Talk to me 2 years from now about them being a dynasty.

[KCScout76]

DYNASTY:  The Ottaman Empire, Roman Empire  or Chang Dynasty (China) were dynasties.  Sorry. Then Yankees, Cowboys, Canadians, Tenn Vols & UConn women's BB are a mere mist in the Sunlight of true DYNASTIES.  

These are just very good teams passing through history.

[NJTank]

LOL

The Ottoman Empire a dynsaty entirely based on putting your feet up.

Any way I have to disagree name one great pitcher or QB produced by the Chnag or Roman Empires.

[winters in buffalo]

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.

I agree.

In my mind, a dynasty is a team that makes the playoffs several years in a row,  goes to the conference championship in most of those years, makes it to the finals in at least half, and wins 2 or 3 titles. Oh yeah... using the same core players.

Now look back, and you'll only identify a few teams that meet the criteria across all sports.

Given the fact that the Pats won the title 2 years ago, and failed to make it to the playoffs the following year, they're not even close to dynasty status yet.

Free agency and salary cap rules have made the dynasty a tough thing to achieve, but I think that eventually you'll see more. We're seeing that a talented front office can keep a good team together, but a lot of those potential dynasties get punctuated by short-lived great teams that are built up, win and then dismantled within 3 or 4 years.

[yh]

LOL

The Ottoman Empire a dynsaty entirely based on putting your feet up.

Any way I have to disagree name one great pitcher or QB produced by the Chnag or Roman Empires.

Well, Paul Tagliabue, in his State of the NFL address did make reference to the great Chinese QB Yao Fling.

You can look it up . . .

And as for your second empire reference, does Roman Gabriel count?

[NJTank]

No Gabriel could never win the big one.

[STL FANATIC]

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.

I agree.

In my mind, a dynasty is a team that makes the playoffs several years in a row, goes to the conference championship in most of those years, makes it to the finals in at least half, and wins 2 or 3 titles. Oh yeah... using the same core players.

Now look back, and you'll only identify a few teams that meet the criteria across all sports.

Given the fact that the Pats won the title 2 years ago, and failed to make it to the playoffs the following year, they're not even close to dynasty status yet.

Free agency and salary cap rules have made the dynasty a tough thing to achieve, but I think that eventually you'll see more. We're seeing that a talented front office can keep a good team together, but a lot of those potential dynasties get punctuated by short-lived great teams that are built up, win and then dismantled within 3 or 4 years.

And that FA thing is the reason a lot of media wants to label them a dynasty. "In this age of free agency, this makes the Pats a dynasty" they say. I throw things at the TV.

Yes, it's harder to have a dynasty, but the standards shouldn't change. Maybe we should allow it to be 5-6 years, instead of 8-12, but still, don't lessen what has to be achieved. They didn't even make the playoffs last year.

I didn't read the whole article, but in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, an article seems to suggest Billicheck agrees with the majority here.

[NJTank]

Well 2 in 3 years is not a dynsaty but if they win another then you can bring up this argument either way you always need to give something time.