Bill Simmons : Pats never a dynasty.

Defining a dynasty is like defining a beautiful woman....every has their own criteria.

I will say, it's much more difficult to sustain excellence in today's NFL than it was during the Packers, Steelers, Niners and Cowboys eras. Roster turnovers from year to year make it extremely difficult to maintain dominance. The other "dynasties" could hold on to their rosters for as long as they wished. And they could pay them whatever they needed to keep them happy.

Brady has said it before every season....a team doesn't get their identity until they're well into the season. Every team in today's NFL has to integrate key players into their roster every season. In football, that's very difficult.

So, IMHO, they are the first dynasty of the modern NFL. If they win 1 or 2 more in the next few years, they will have to go down as the greatest of any era. And it's quite possible that if the current rules persist into the future, they may end up being the only dynasty of the modern era and the last dynasty of the NFL.
 
Personally, I never really cared much for the dynasty talk. I doubt the Mings sat around patting themselves on the silk pajama bottoms and doing a happy dance over the fact that they were a dynasty. They just cranked out cool vases and waited for the historians to do it for them.

Not that we don't qualify in a lot of ways and not because I think it is undeserved, but I kind of think that dynasties are a tag that is placed on a team after their run is done.

You knew the Cowboys were done when Aikman retired with the concussions, same deal with the Broncs and Elway. I don't think Brady is thinking about retiring anytime soon. It seems like losing your star QB is the most obvious sign of the end.

No team has ever rolled up three in a row, so intermittent excellence is the gold standard in this league.

I don't happen to believe that our run is done yet. I think that most knowlegable observers would have a tough time looking at the Pats and thinking they are really no threat anymore.

That would be very foolish.

When the run is done and we simply aren't good enough to compete for a Championship anymore then I'll worry about our place in history. I imagine we won't hear much dynasty talk next season and that won't break my heart.
 
I don't care if people call the Pats a dynasty or not. All I know is that they have 3 rings. And maybe more to come.
 
cka203 said:
FWIW, I tend to agree with mgo.....

When I think of dynasty, I think of consistent, sustained achievements for an extended period of time. And while 3 out of 4 SBs is most certainly impressive, I'm not quite ready to call it a dynasty... yet. Although I do think in a few more years, the term will apply.

When I think of NFL teams being a dynasty, I think of the 49ers (Montana's reign) and Cowboys (of the 90s), just off the top of my head. Further back, the Packers. And the Steel Curtain days.

Perhaps it's unfair to judge today's teams against them, due to the cap/free agency/etc. situations being different today, but I still think 5 years is a bit too short... give it a few more, and we'll see.

Just my .02.

If 5 years isnt enough why is 6? .. The Patriots won in 01 missed 02 playoffs by 1 game they werent even playing in. won the next 2 and was taken out in rd 2 this year..

The Steelers won nothing before their 6 year run and have retooled over and over since then but as of yet won nothing. They have 4 in 6 and nothing else ... Yet Steelers will rant about 1 for the thumb... The Owning Family will be the only ones that MAY have 5 rings for them.

Again , If what New England has done in this age of Salary Restraints that the others didnt worry about , Free Agency that the others turned their nose to , because once you were on that team you werent going anywhere unless you sucked. and with the biggest thing everyone likes to throw out there.. NO Superstar talent..and HOFers.. Isnt a Dynasty ..then neither were the others.

There are two types of people who claim that NE isnt a Dynasty...

Those that dont want to admit it or see it because they hate NE because they have pushed their teams around durring this run and they are Jealous , and those that are fans of teams to which they consider dynasties and they dont want another team joining what they had or possibly surpassing it.
If your not in one of those two , then pretty much everyone else says clearly NE's run is a Dynasty.

Again... Who cares .. If NE isnt one NO NFL team is one.
 
Patriot Ron said:
If 5 years isnt enough why is 6? .. The Patriots won in 01 missed 02 playoffs by 1 game they werent even playing in. won the next 2 and was taken out in rd 2 this year..

The Steelers won nothing before their 6 year run and have retooled over and over since then but as of yet won nothing. They have 4 in 6 and nothing else ... Yet Steelers will rant about 1 for the thumb... The Owning Family will be the only ones that MAY have 5 rings for them.

Again , If what New England has done in this age of Salary Restraints that the others didnt worry about , Free Agency that the others turned their nose to , because once you were on that team you werent going anywhere unless you sucked. and with the biggest thing everyone likes to throw out there.. NO Superstar talent..and HOFers.. Isnt a Dynasty ..then neither were the others.

There are two types of people who claim that NE isnt a Dynasty...

Those that dont want to admit it or see it because they hate NE because they have pushed their teams around durring this run and they are Jealous , and those that are fans of teams to which they consider dynasties and they dont want another team joining what they had or possibly surpassing it.
If your not in one of those two , then pretty much everyone else says clearly NE's run is a Dynasty.

Again... Who cares .. If NE isnt one NO NFL team is one.

I didn't mean to make you mad :(

And I did qualify my statement by saying perhaps it was unfair to judge today's teams by past standards (due to cap, FA, etc.).

And I think NE WILL be considered a dynasty in a few years, cause I fully expect them to be a force to be reckoned with for several years to come.

I simply said IMO they weren't one yet...

I don't think any of today's teams are one yet.

But NE is closer than anyone.
 
Well, I agree with Hawg - let the hitorians (not the bobbleheads) decide whether the Pats were a Dynasty some time in the distant future.

I think of the Pats as a powerhouse football team. 3 rings, with more to come. Not even an 'I hope ...' I firmly believe, with absolutely nothing to base the belief on, that more will come our way as long as BB, BB's Defense and Brady are here.
 
I wonder how the 92 Cowboys would've handled the 05 Patriots?

I say Dallas 92 - 35
NE 05 - 10

Of all the past great dynasties, this would be the only realistic matchup, as the size difference and athletic ability of these teams is still relatively even.

For example, I'd go as far as to say 05 NE woulda clobbered a Montana led 49ers team. Wouldn't be close. Today's athlete is so big and so much faster and athletic, that they would've overwhelmed even the great Montana and Rice.

Anyway, I'll quit masturbating over fantasty matchups. Sorry.
 
AikmantoIrvin said:
I wonder how the 92 Cowboys would've handled the 05 Patriots?

I say Dallas 92 - 35
NE 05 - 10

Of all the past great dynasties, this would be the only realistic matchup, as the size difference and athletic ability of these teams is still relatively even.

For example, I'd go as far as to say 05 NE woulda clobbered a Montana led 49ers team. Wouldn't be close. Today's athlete is so big and so much faster and athletic, that they would've overwhelmed even the great Montana and Rice.

Anyway, I'll quit masturbating over fantasty matchups. Sorry.

:LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:

You're a funny guy.
 
MadStork said:
Well, I agree with Hawg - let the hitorians (not the bobbleheads) decide whether the Pats were a Dynasty some time in the distant future.

I think of the Pats as a powerhouse football team. 3 rings, with more to come. Not even an 'I hope ...' I firmly believe, with absolutely nothing to base the belief on, that more will come our way as long as BB, BB's Defense and Brady are here.


honestly if the pats with 3 rings are not a dynasty then neither are the cowboys of the 90's....
 
AikmantoIrvin said:
I wonder how the 92 Cowboys would've handled the 05 Patriots?

I say Dallas 92 - 35
NE 05 - 10

Of all the past great dynasties, this would be the only realistic matchup, as the size difference and athletic ability of these teams is still relatively even.

How would you rank those 90s 'Pokes' SB teams? Who's the best of the bunch? I'd rate the '04 Pats, then the '03 Pats (maybe the best D of the bunch), and lastly the '01 Pats in order of strength. The 2004 Pats could've given any of those Dallas teams a run for their money IMO: they could beat you with passing, running, kicking, or on D.
 
AikmantoIrving,

I notice you're lurking tonight.

What do you think of this article, by ColdHardFootballFact.com, specifically in regard to your previous comments on this thread?

I notice the 2003 and 2004 Pats rank #1 and #4 all-time on this list.

Still think 35-10 :LOL: is a reasonable score?
 
AikmantoIrvin said:
I wonder how the 92 Cowboys would've handled the 05 Patriots?

I say Dallas 92 - 35
NE 05 - 10

Of all the past great dynasties, this would be the only realistic matchup, as the size difference and athletic ability of these teams is still relatively even.

For example, I'd go as far as to say 05 NE woulda clobbered a Montana led 49ers team. Wouldn't be close. Today's athlete is so big and so much faster and athletic, that they would've overwhelmed even the great Montana and Rice.

Anyway, I'll quit masturbating over fantasty matchups. Sorry.


Well, once you're done wiping up, you might consider that this matchup is an apples to oranges comparison for at least 1 major reason.

There's no question that the early 90s era Cowboys were a dominant force in the NFL. Hell, I always respected what they could do, and loved watching them on 3rd & 6. I don't think there was a team more dangerous in that situation.

However, that was also before the 1994 season when the salary cap was instituted, as well as some other changes brought up to make things more even in the NFL, and make it even harder for a team to crank of multiple championships in a short period. How would those 92 Cowboys have looked under a salary cap? Bet you'd be missing a few key superstars there.

All the dynasty talk by sports analysts over the past few years, they all said that the Patriots, if not a dynasty, were the closest thing to a Dynasty since the salary cap/parity era began. What have the Cowboys achieved since then? How many Championships? How many winning seasons?
 
ColdHardFootballFacts.com has a great comparison of the Boys and Pats SB teams. I used to have the link for it saved but can't find it at the moment.

The short version is the Pats faced much more dominant competition and the hard numbers show them the better team.
 
Undertaker #59 said:
By Bill Simmons
Page 2


Editor's note: This article appears in the January 30 issue of ESPN The Magazine.

When my beloved Pats squandered a chance in Denver to win three straight Super Bowls, all the talk centered on one theme: So long to the Patriots' dynasty. Of course, if they capture next season's Super Bowl, giving them four in six years, everyone will call them a dynasty again, but that's not the point.

This isn't the Bulls imploding after MJ and Pippen left, or even "The Brady Bunch" falling apart after Oliver joined the cast. The Patriots have as much talent as anyone, as well as the best coach and a franchise QB, and you can argue that this year's team endured too many injuries and played one god-awful game at the worst possible time.

Here's the bigger issue: Why were we calling them a dynasty in the first place? Bill Russell's Celtics won 11 titles in 13 seasons -- now that was a dynasty. We live in a sports world where hyperbole rules, so it's easy to forget that Webster's defines a dynasty as "a powerful group or family that maintains its position for a considerable time." Four years is not a considerable time. This Patriots run seemed significant because they were aiming to control the NFL for a considerable time and because the league has been carefully constructed to prevent this from happening. They weren't a dynasty. Not yet.

Still, something happened in Denver. When great teams lose their invincibility, it rarely happens because they self-destruct in every possible way. There's usually a finality to it. For instance, I've rooted for two truly great teams -- the Brady-Belichick Pats and Larry Bird's Celtics. The Celtics' day of reckoning came in 1988 at the hands of a younger, hungrier Pistons team. The torch was passed in Game 6 at the Silverdome, and I can still see Kevin McHale seeking out Isiah Thomas afterward, offering words of encouragement and wishing him well. It was vaguely reminiscent of Duke's "When Apollo died, part of me died, but now you're the one" speech in Rocky IV.

There was no moment like that in the Pats-Broncos game. Looking back, it wasn't just the turnovers as much as the players who screwed up. Did you ever imagine Brady forcing third-and-goal passes like, say, Jake Plummer, or missing wide-open receivers? What about Troy Brown muffing a punt, or Adam Vinatieri missing a crucial field goal, or even the great Willie McGinest getting duped by a play-action handoff for a killer first down? Since when has Willie ever fallen for that crap? It was downright startling for Pats fans to watch our usually unflappable boys collapse like that, kind of like Springsteen diehards watching the "Dancing in the Dark" video for the first time.

I think we need a word that helps us describe the moment when it all changes. When Buster Douglas knocked out Mike Tyson, it was momentous not just because Tyson lost, but because Douglas introduced the possibility that Tyson could lose. When Mariano Rivera blew Game 7 of the 2001 World Series ... well, in retrospect, it's clear the Yankees have never been the same. From that point on, any Yankee opponent remained alive in the ninth. When Clint Eastwood cried in "Million Dollar Baby," it might have had the desired dramatic effect, but he sold out a carefully crafted persona as the unflinching movie hero who always kept his cool.

On the flip side, MJ and the Bulls remained dominant until the end, heroically fending off the Pacers in the 1998 playoffs, and following that with Jordan's famous jumper to clinch No. 6. They kept their swagger through the last moment. That's what made them special.

Because no word exists to cover these scenarios, I'm tapping into my inner Don King and proposing "swaggerability," a cross between swagger and invincibility. Over the past three seasons, the beautiful thing about the Patriots wasn't how they kept winning, but how their fans remained absolutely convinced they would win. No matter what the circumstances, no matter how many injuries piled up, we believed Belichick would unearth the perfect plan, Brady would come through, and so would Willie, Brown, Vinatieri and everyone else. The reason we believed this was because it kept happening. In other words, they gave us no reason not to believe it.

More important, they believed it, and carried themselves like they did ... right up until the Broncos game, when their swaggerability disappeared into thin air. I find this infinitely more depressing than the thought of losing a dynasty that didn't really exist in the first place. Even if the Patriots win easily and often again next season, there will always be a small part of me that wonders if the wheels might come off. It happened in Denver, which means it could happen again.

That's the thing about swaggerability: You can lose it only once.


Bill Simmons must be a genius because I totally agree.
 
Moebius said:
Well, once you're done wiping up, you might consider that this matchup is an apples to oranges comparison for at least 1 major reason.

There's no question that the early 90s era Cowboys were a dominant force in the NFL. Hell, I always respected what they could do, and loved watching them on 3rd & 6. I don't think there was a team more dangerous in that situation.

However, that was also before the 1994 season when the salary cap was instituted, as well as some other changes brought up to make things more even in the NFL, and make it even harder for a team to crank of multiple championships in a short period. How would those 92 Cowboys have looked under a salary cap? Bet you'd be missing a few key superstars there.

All the dynasty talk by sports analysts over the past few years, they all said that the Patriots, if not a dynasty, were the closest thing to a Dynasty since the salary cap/parity era began. What have the Cowboys achieved since then? How many Championships? How many winning seasons?

I dont think the whole pre salary cap era argument holds any water. I mean, salary cap or no, every NFL team was playing by the same rules, then and now. You can always say the additional teams in the NFL also helped the Patriots in their run. Afterall, more teams means the talent is more spread out ,watering down the competition.. Anyway, Dallas built that champoinship team through the draft, and was absolutley dismal before Jerry and Jimmy got it going. So its not like they took over some solid veteran team and tweaked it to get a ring out of it. This was good old fashioned home grown talent combined with Dallas constantly swindling teams out of draft picks and players

Dallas in succession drafted Aikman, Irvin, and Smith . They also drafted Darren Woodson, Mark Stepnoski, and lots of other key players in that time. This wasnt sum team that played together for yrs like the 70s era Steelers, full of in their prime superstars and veterans. They were and still are the youngest and fastest champoinship team there's ever been. I still contend Dallas 92 couldve beaten any team in NFL history, especally todays teams. Seriously, how would Seattle or Pittsburgh have slowed down that Dallas team if theyd met in this yrs Super Bowl?

No contest. Dallas 92 was a truly great team, probably the best ever.
 
I think the Pats would beat the Boys as far as being young-Brady in his second year, Seymour in his first, Woody was young (2nd year) Givens, etc in the first SB year. That I would argue is a bit quicker, and may lead to a longer run eventually, but I cannot argue too much about the Cowboys of 92 being the best team ever-they are definitely in the conversation there.
 
Back
Top