Patriots dynasty over?

[Subby]

Originally Posted by FrogMan

the Germans?

Don't stop him. He's on a roll.

[Oilers9911]

I thought a dynasty was a string of championships in a row, not just a good run? Like 4 in a row or 5 in a row...or heck, even 3 in a row. Does 5 in 10 years make a dynasty? 3 in 6? Who knows but I think any Patriots dynasty, if there is one, is over if they don't win for the second year in a row.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Oilers9911

I thought a dynasty was a string of championships in a row, not just a good run? Like 4 in a row or 5 in a row...or heck, even 3 in a row. Does 5 in 10 years make a dynasty? 3 in 6? Who knows but I think any Patriots dynasty, if there is one, is over if they don't win for the second year in a row.

There's obviously no shared meaning, but the other question is whether the "definition" changes over time. The Montreal Canadians won 5 straight Stanley Cups in the 50s - but is that really more impressive than what the Patriots have done considering there were only 6 teams in the NHL at the time? The Celtics won 8 straight championship in the 50s-60s, but there were only 8-9 teams in the league back then. The Yanks won 5 in a row in the 50s, in a 16 team league with no playoffs before the world series, with same team pretty much every year.

The Pats have done what they've done in a 32-team league, with free agency, a salary cap, revenue sharing, and a recent league trend of competitive balance, with pretty much the entire roster turning over outside of Brady. Whatever you want to call it, it's ridiculous.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by molson

There's obviously no shared meaning, but the other question is whether the "definition" changes over time. The Montreal Canadians won 5 straight Stanley Cups in the 50s - but is that really more impressive than what the Patriots have done considering there were only 6 teams in the NHL at the time? The Celtics won 8 straight championship in the 50s-60s, but there were only 8-9 teams in the league back then. The Yanks won 5 in a row in the 50s, in a 16 team league with no playoffs before the world series, with same team pretty much every year.

The Pats have done what they've done in a 32-team league, with free agency, a salary cap, revenue sharing, and a recent league trend of competitive balance, with pretty much the entire roster turning over outside of Brady. Whatever you want to call it, it's ridiculous.

The bolded part is utter and complete bunk. The Defensive front and the Oline have been pretty stable for most of that time. Brady and Faulk added in to that gives you about 50% of the starting players being around for most of the run. Not even close to the entire roster. Good lord.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RendeR

The bolded part is utter and complete bunk. The Defensive front and the Oline have been pretty stable for most of that time. Brady and Faulk added in to that gives you about 50% of the starting players being around for most of the run. Not even close to the entire roster. Good lord.

There's 2 offensive players and 2 defensive players left from the 2001 Super Bowl Team. Go look up that roster, most of those guys were gone 2 years later.

Yes, the next two Super Bowl teams were pretty similar (not shocking considering they were in consecutive years). But a lot of new blood (much of it major contributors) since the last super bowl team.

The real spirit of your post of course, is just finding the absolute least important part of my point. If it's faster just to concede that they had the exact same 53-man roster every single year, fine, it's still more impressive than winning some stanley cups in a 6-team league (which is only slightly more impressive than winning an AFC East Championship).

[Travis]

I know I'm a bit late to the party, but how could you not consider the Oilers a dynasty? 5 Cups in 7 years with the year prior to their first Cup win being a loss in the Cup finals then the two years following their last Cup, they made it to the Conference finals (one step away from the Cup finals).

So in 10 seasons they appeared in the Cup finals 6 times, won it 5 times and lost twice in the conference finals. They went 452-258-90 over the regular season during that stretch and 115-50 in the playoffs. If you cut it off after their last Cup win their records were 379-187-74 and 98-33 over 8 seasons with 5 cups wins and 6 appearances.

[RendeR]

Dynasty is such a hard term to define when it comes to sports. you also have to look at each sport individually to really define what makes a dynasty in that sport.

Teams I consider Dynasties:

NHL
The Montreal Canadiens from '55-'60 (5 straight)
The montreal Canadiens from '64-'79 (10 titles in 15 years)
The NY Islanders from '79-;82 (4 straight titles)
The Edmonton Oilers from '83-'89 (5 in 7 years)

NBA
the Mineapolis Lakers from '48-'53 (5 titles in 6 years)
The Boston Celtics from '56-'68 (11 titles in 15 years *my vote for ultimate dynasty ever)
Los Angelas Lakers from '79-'87 (5 in 9 years)
Chicago Bulls from '90-'97 (6 in 8 years)

MLB
Boston Red Sox from '12-'18 (5 titles in 7 years)
New York Yankees from '36-'43 (7 appearences and 6 titles in 8 years)
New York Yankees from '47-'64 (15 appearences and 10 titles in 18 years)
New York Yankees from '96-'03 (6 appearences and 4 titles in 8 years)

NFL
Green Bay Packers '61-'67 (5 titles in 7 years)
Pittsburgh Steelers '74-'78 (4 titles in 6 years)
Dallas Cowboys '92-95 (3 titles in 4 years)
New England Patriots '01-'04 (3 titles in 4 years)


Notable missing teams:
1920's yankees: amazing teams with superhero-like players, however they only won 2 world series during those years. great team, not a dynasty.

1990's Buffalo Bills: made it into 4 straight Super Bowls, unfortunately they lost all 4. Had they even won 1 of those I'd have included them. Geting to the big game 4 straight years is insane.

1980-90's San Francisco 49ers: Amazing football teams lead by an amazing coach, however well they always played they only won titles sporadically. 1 here 2 there with some major down years in between. Great stuff, legendary players. Not a Dynasty.


So there you have it. RendeR's Dynasty Definition index. Compare your teams to that and see where you stand.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by molson

There's 2 offensive players and 2 defensive players left from the 2001 Super Bowl Team. Go look up that roster, most of those guys were gone 2 years later.

Yes, the next two Super Bowl teams were pretty similar (not shocking considering they were in consecutive years). But a lot of new blood (much of it major contributors) since the last super bowl team.

The real spirit of your post of course, is just finding the absolute least important part of my point. If it's faster just to concede that they had the exact same 53-man roster every single year, fine, it's still more impressive than winning some stanley cups in a 6-team league (which is only slightly more impressive than winning an AFC East Championship).

The fact remains that you're exaggerating intensely with that statement and it makes them sound a LOT better than they were. yes there was turnover, it wasn't as bone cuttingly huge as you make it out to be and it was spread over the years between them.

Its NOT more impressive than winning a championship 5 or 6 straight years, its not even close. no matter how many teams there are, in fact I'd suggest that the fewer teams there are the TOUGHER the competition becomes, therefore that works against the Pats. They're good, but they're not even in the top 10 of all time dynasties in sports.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RendeR

The fact remains that you're exaggerating intensely with that statement and it makes them sound a LOT better than they were. yes there was turnover, it wasn't as bone cuttingly huge as you make it out to be and it was spread over the years between them.

Its NOT more impressive than winning a championship 5 or 6 straight years, its not even close. no matter how many teams there are, in fact I'd suggest that the fewer teams there are the TOUGHER the competition becomes, therefore that works against the Pats. They're good, but they're not even in the top 10 of all time dynasties in sports.

I wouldn't put them in the top 10 all time either, in terms of pure dominance over a league.

But I think you're overlooking the league size thing. Do you really think it's more difficult to win a championship in a 6 team league NHL, 8-team NBA, or 16-team MLB v. a 32 team NFL? The odds just aren't in your favor to do it year after year in the latter, especially with the crapshoot of expanded playoffs.

If the Yankees of the 50s, for example, had to deal with a 5-game divisional playoff, then a 7-game league championship series before going to the playoffs, they would have won a hell of a lot fewer championships. If the Celtics or the Canadians of the 50s had to get through 3 series before the finals, they wouldn't have won all the titles they did.

[st.cronin]

Meet your 2009 Super Bowl MVP: Kevin O'Connell

[Radii]

The Patriots dynasty is long over, well before last week. How in the world can a team not win a championship for 3 years running and have this question even up for debate? Just because you are the most feared team in the league doesn't mean you have to automatically attach the vaunted "dynasty" term to it. There is no dynasty in the NFL currently.

HOWEVER, that really seems irrelevant to me. The NFL in the super bowl era has been nicely divided by decades. It would take an unbelievable run(say Dallas running off the next 3 super bowls or something like that) for New England to not be remembered as the best team of this decade. Whether you call it a dynasty or not seems pretty irrelevant... Steelers in the 70s, 49ers in the 80s, Cowboys in the 90s, Patriots this decade, is how I'll end up remembering my NFL history.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by molson

I wouldn't put them in the top 10 all time either, in terms of pure dominance over a league.

But I think you're overlooking the league size thing. Do you really think it's more difficult to win a championship in a 6 team league NHL, 8-team NBA, or 16-team MLB v. a 32 team NFL? The odds just aren't in your favor to do it year after year in the latter, especially with the crapshoot of expanded playoffs.

To the question in bold: Absolutely. As i said above, the team number might be low, but the talent pool remains about the same, so your talent is condensed making each team that much stronger, far higher competition levels, quality of teams than having the talent pool spread of 32 teams.

Even if i conceded that point as a point of disagreement, the fact remains that 4 or 5 in a ROW has been done so few times as to make it a huge benchmark for such considerations.

Look at hockey baseball and basketball where you're playing playoff SERIES against each team, not one game playoffs but 5 and 7 game series and teams are still winning them 5-6 even 8 years in a row? I definitely rate taking the title consecutively as a huge mark in any teams favor over a sport where its 1 and done at each playoff bracket. 2 in a row? been done, lots of teams. 3 in a row? far far fewer, 4 in a row? thats fucking impressive, no matter how big your league is. anything beyond that is beyond questioning. IMHO.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Radii

The Patriots dynasty is long over, well before last week. How in the world can a team not win a championship for 3 years running and have this question even up for debate? Just because you are the most feared team in the league doesn't mean you have to automatically attach the vaunted "dynasty" term to it. There is no dynasty in the NFL currently.

HOWEVER, that really seems irrelevant to me. The NFL in the super bowl era has been nicely divided by decades. It would take an unbelievable run(say Dallas running off the next 3 super bowls or something like that) for New England to not be remembered as the best team of this decade. Whether you call it a dynasty or not seems pretty irrelevant... Steelers in the 70s, 49ers in the 80s, Cowboys in the 90s, Patriots this decade, is how I'll end up remembering my NFL history.

That is indeed how the NFL generally is considered, unfortunately the people at NFL films and some network (NFL and ESPN) people have used the word dynasty way too much in regards to those eras.

Like I noted about the Niners above, great teams, fantasticly long period of consistant winning for an NFL franchise, but its not a dynasty.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by RendeR

As i said above, the team number might be low, but the talent pool remains about the same, so your talent is condensed making each team that much stronger, far higher competition levels

Those Montreal teams had loads of HOF players, in any era.

And I always wonder, why do people use the excuse of free agency for propping up current era teams? I mean, it works both ways, correct? The Patriots got Vrabel, Thomas, Seau, Harrison, and I'd argue Welker (yeah, it was a trade, but he was a RFA. They were prepared to make an offer sheet, but making the trade worked up better in Miami's favor) just off the top of my head. Who have they lost-- Samuel and Randall Gay this season, Damien Woody, Vinatieri...I am sure I'm missing others.

Point is, they are using FA the same as other teams to bring in players.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Look at hockey baseball and basketball where you're playing playoff SERIES against each team, not one game playoffs but 5 and 7 game series and teams are still winning them 5-6 even 8 years in a row? I definitely rate taking the title consecutively as a huge mark in any teams favor over a sport where its 1 and done at each playoff bracket. 2 in a row? been done, lots of teams. 3 in a row? far far fewer, 4 in a row? thats fucking impressive, no matter how big your league is. anything beyond that is beyond questioning. IMHO.

Winning a series, in a way, is a more "impressive" accomplishment than winning a single game, of course.

But the law of averages tells you that it's easier to win a bunch of series than a bunch of individual games. There's margin for error in a series. You can play like shit up to 3 times and still win the series. In football, you have to win every single time or you're not winning the championship that year.

It's not necessarily more difficult to win the individual games, but the odds are definitely against you winning multiple championships v. a series situation. What if the Pats had 7 shots against the Giants? What if the Rams had 7 shots against the Pats in the 2002 Super Bowl?

[Radii]

Originally Posted by molson

But the law of averages tells you that it's easier to win a bunch of series than a bunch of individual games. There's margin for error in a series. You can play like shit up to 3 times and still win the series. In football, you have to win every single time or you're not winning the championship that year.

Yep. i don't understand how the argument that a team had to go through 7 game series makes an accomplishment more impressive. Winning a super bowl where you have to be immune to the upset and off days since its one-and-done is a much more meaningful accomplishment IMO.

[molson]

Like the Yankees in the 50s-60s. Ya, those championships were damn impressive, but they had the best team. If you had the best team then, the odds were you'd win the championship. The best team is going to lead in the standings over a 154-game season. And while a best-of-seven world series leaves somewhat more room for uncertainty, it pales in comparison to the insanity of a 7-game ALCS series AND a ridiculous 5-game divisional series, which is basically a coin flip.

[adubroff]

I think there are two things at work:
1) Chances for elimination - How many times do you advance in the postseason to net a championship.
2) Period of elimination - How many losses/bad results does it take to get you knocked out. A football team can not lose, a baseball team can lose 3 times in 7 days and be fine.

If you make the assumption that any team that would potentially be considered a dynasty would be the most talented team in its league, then they would prefer few opporunities to be knocked out and high number of individual games in order to actually be knocked out. If you compare the Pats accomplishment to the Packers accomplishment in the 60s, both faced single game elimination scenarios, except the Pats faced 3 (or possibly 4) of them in their victories and the Pack faced one and only one. It was much more likely in my mind that the Pats would have lost in any one of those years than the Pack would have. If you compare the Pats to the 50s Yankees, the Pats were even more disadvantaged. In fact, I believe that a modern football team faces the hardest challenge in being a dynasty relative to any other sport, with the exception of a modern college basketball team, who has to walk 5 tight ropes.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by Suburban Rhythm

Those Montreal teams had loads of HOF players, in any era.

Didn't Montreal basically have their pick of French-Canadian players in those days though for their entire career though? Not much of an argument for spreading the talent pool out when it wasn't illegal to purchase junior players (or entire teams) until 1969.

[molson]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

Didn't Montreal basically have their pick of French-Canadian players in those days though for their entire career though? Not much of an argument for spreading the talent pool out when it wasn't illegal to purchase junior players (or entire teams) until 1969.

Good point, they had the exclusive rights to players within a certain radius, and pre-draft, they had the inside track on pretty much every French-Canadian player.

[TroyF]

The Patriots "dynasty" isn't over yet. Are there major causes for concern? Yeah, there should be, for a variety of reasons. The defense was slipping even at the end of last year. Teams were starting to move the ball on them pretty consistently. Bruschi, Vrabel and Harrison are about done. When Brady comes back next year, Moss will turn 32. He may have a couple of years left, but not a lot. The secondary needs a complete overhaul. (outside of Merriweather) The OLine has struggled. Other teams are also getting better. The Steelers are revamping. The Browns may suck this year, but they have a young core of stars. The Broncos have a very young core of offensive players. (and zero defense for this year, but a good round of FA and draft and they become dangerous again) The Bills have improved and won't be going anywhere for a few years. The Dolphins with Parcells there will upgrade their talent.

All of that said, you get Brady back, and he's going to fix a lot of wrongs. It's hard for me to envision Brady not getting back to another SB. He's got a good 6 or 7 years left after he comes back, my guess is he'll get back again.

How soon determines the dynasty. But my guess is sooner than later.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Moss will turn 32. He may have a couple of years left, but not a lot.

The things that people complain about with Moss (doesn't catch balls in traffic over the middle, basically didn't try for a couple years in Oakland, and possibly the rest of this year*) may help prolong his career. Joey Galloway's still a deep threat at age 39 or whatever.

* There were at least two blatant ones Sunday. He pulled his arms back on a well thrown slant when he saw the safety coming which was terrible. The other was the INT called back for (a very weak) roughing the passer penalty where Moss was so disgusted Cassell underthrew him by 15-20 yards on a go route he gave up and allowed the ball to be picked easily. The latter I don't blame him for as much, but it's worrisome going forward this year (and lends more support to my claim that Cassell won't be starting by Week 10.)

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

The things that people complain about with Moss (doesn't catch balls in traffic over the middle, basically didn't try for a couple years in Oakland, and possibly the rest of this year*) may help prolong his career. Joey Galloway's still a deep threat at age 39 or whatever.

* There were at least two blatant ones Sunday. He pulled his arms back on a well thrown slant when he saw the safety coming which was terrible. The other was the INT called back for (a very weak) roughing the passer penalty where Moss was so disgusted Cassell underthrew him by 15-20 yards on a go route he gave up and allowed the ball to be picked easily. The latter I don't blame him for as much, but it's worrisome going forward this year (and lends more support to my claim that Cassell won't be starting by Week 10.)

Hate to break it to Randy, but there are only a couple of guys at Brady's level in the NFL, and the Patriots won't have any of them on their roster this year. I do blame him on the second one, who gives a crap if Cassell underthrew him by 15 yards? If Randy really wants to win, then he goes for that ball.

Cassell may not be starting by week 10. Brady won't either and so if Moss is going to act this way because he doesn't have a pro bowler throwing it to him, he'll do it all year. Galloway is 36, not 39. He also has far less miledge on his body than does Moss. Jerry Rice had a huge year at age 33 and then was essentially a posession WR after that. Guys like Harrison and Bruce are only 35 and they are on the downside. Even a guy like Torry Holt is already losing steam at age 32.

Moss has the talent to be like Jerry Rice and extend his career as a possession type WR who has a big game here and there. But that takes work ethic and desire. Will Randy show that he has that? Will he give a damn when he can't get seperation at will? Will he be able to handle being the possession guy and not the big play guy? I have my doubts on all of it, but he's such a talented player you never know how it'll pan out.

[Kodos]

Randy Moss has no heart.