the_cynic Posted February 3, 2004 Share Posted February 3, 2004 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. Utah Jazz Retired Number's#1 - Frank Layden - #7 Pete Maravich - #12 John Stockton - #14 Jeff Hornacek - #35 Darrell Griffith - #53 Mark EatonRetired Number's To Come#00 The Bear (Best Mascot In NBA) - #4 Adrian Dantley - #32 Karl "The Mailman" Malone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL FANATIC Posted February 3, 2004 Author Share Posted February 3, 2004 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. JUSTIN STRIEBEL | PORTFOLIO | RESUME | CONTACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted February 3, 2004 Share Posted February 3, 2004 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkrdevil Posted February 3, 2004 Share Posted February 3, 2004 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fusebazell Posted February 3, 2004 Share Posted February 3, 2004 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCScout76 Posted February 3, 2004 Share Posted February 3, 2004 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. Kansas City Scouts (CHL) Orr Cup Champions 2010, 2019, 2021 St. Joseph Pony Express (ULL) 2023 Champions Kansas City Cattle (CL) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJTank Posted February 3, 2004 Share Posted February 3, 2004 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. www.sportsecyclopedia.com For the best in sports history go to the Sports E-Cyclopedia at http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winters in buffalo Posted February 3, 2004 Share Posted February 3, 2004 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yh Posted February 3, 2004 Share Posted February 3, 2004 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJTank Posted February 3, 2004 Share Posted February 3, 2004 No Gabriel could never win the big one. www.sportsecyclopedia.com For the best in sports history go to the Sports E-Cyclopedia at http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL FANATIC Posted February 4, 2004 Author Share Posted February 4, 2004 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. JUSTIN STRIEBEL | PORTFOLIO | RESUME | CONTACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJTank Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 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. www.sportsecyclopedia.com For the best in sports history go to the Sports E-Cyclopedia at http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.