Hey Freak!

OK, so last night, the Patriots won the Super Bowl again, 24-21. People are talking about a dynasty here.

I disagree.

Sure, three Super Bowl wins in four years, but shit, it was only by a combined 9 points. I'm sorry, but I think that a dynasty should kick more ass than that. And think about it, in some of the other Super Bowl years, they needed some weird shit to happen (read: an obvious interception ruled as a fumble - remember that game against Oakland in the playoffs a few years back) just to squeak by.

So yeah, I'll give the Patriots credit - they've won a lot of games. But I'll reserve the word "dynasty" for a team who convinces me they're the best. Winning by field goals isn't convincing.

But hey, that's just my opinion.

I'm with you on that.

And for some reason I also have the desire to point out that if Philly had fucking shown UP for the last FOUR MINUTES OF THE GAME then things might have been a little different.

OH sure, there was the touchdown and everything, but jesus, they stopped playing at like 3:45 left. WALKING back to the line of scrimmage, huddling up when they should have had a no-huddle offense...

Yeah, I'm a chick, but I used to help coach football so I can hang. And for this being the first and last game of the season that I saw this year, I've got to say I was pretty disappointed.

And that there's no dynasty.

at the risk of sounding like a bitter eagles fan, i have to agree. the patriots are a great team, but i would expect a "dynasty" to have more decisive wins.

The problem I had with this whole situation is the frickin band wagon the media has become. There wasnt one commentator I saw that gave the Eagles any chance of winning.

It was a great game up until that last eagles drive, did you see the punt returner FALL DOWN? it was sad.


All in all though I'm happy =) Eagles covered the spread.

I'll have to respectfully disagree, at least in part.

I don't want to call them a dynasty yet. If they win again in the next two years, then maybe.

I would however not expect blowout wins in this day and age of parity and free agency. 3-7 points is just about right in a league where a team can be in the Superbowl one year and not make the playoffs the following year.

I give the Patriots more credit for their consistency.

FWIW, Harrison probably could have run that INT in at the end. They would have won by 10, covered the spread, and I would have won $1000 in a football pool. Damned unselfish players... who needs em.

well at least there's still basketball. Surely they can't take THAT championship too.

I'm with adi on the parity point - and that is what I like about the NFL. Teams are more and more similar in makeup, and there is increasingly fewer "blowouts" like in the Super Bowls of the late 70's early 80's where a team would win by 30 points and decimate the opponent.

well said

It figures. I move back to Boston and am ALL excited to watch my Bruins play hockey and all hell has broken loose.

Red Sox winning the Series? Pats winning AGAIN? *sigh*

What's a girl gotta do to see Lord Stanley's Cup in Boston? Well, maybe the Terriers will win the Beapot... not the same, but almost as good.

Lets review the previous dynastys:

Pittsburgh 16, Minnesota 6
Pittsburgh 21, Dallas 17
Pittsburgh 35, Dallas 31
Pittsburgh 31, L.A. Rams 19

Lots of close wins there. Next:

San Francisco 38, Miami 16
San Francisco 20, Cincinnati 16 (the fuckin bengals???)
San Francisco 55, Denver 10

Ok, so a larger margin. Then we get superbowls that suck. Who even watched that last one past halftime?

Last:

Dallas 52, Buffalo 17
Dallas 30, Buffalo 13
Dallas 27, Pittsburgh 17

They vary.

And, as metioned above, with free agency and the cap, parity means closer games. Dontcha wanna see a GOOD superbowl? Didja know who was gonna win after the half? No.

The pats are a dynasty. Do you really think they are gonna stop at 3? They finally got their last piece of the puzzle this year; a pro-bowl HB. Look for them to take at least 2-3 more SB.
IMHO
yes im from Boston.

for the record, i don't consider SF, Pitt, or even Dallas (yes, my fave team) to be dynasties. much as i hate to say it, just the Packers could be considered a dynasty, in the pre-Super Bowl years (well, they managed to squeak in two of them). sorry, but you gotta dominate more than a few games to be a dynasty in my book.

and NE won't even win the Super Bowl next year. too many up n comers in the AFC ready to take 'em out. plus the fact that NE will be getting a year older, and not a year better.

face it. NE is just a good team who got lucky in three big games. we all know that those games could have gone either way. that does not make for a dynasty.

How do you explain the 2 1/2 year winning streak? Doesnt that define domination? And the beatings on the #1 O and #1 D, just luck?
All the sports writers call the three aforementioned teams "Dynasties", as does everyone else. Why would that be?
Lucky? for real?
btw it was a fumble, and they ruled it an incomplete pass. The "tuck" rule lol.
Im putting up right here that im calling the pats next year.
You heard it here, well, prolly last.

*raises hand to Method's question*

I watched the Cowboys / Steelers game 'til the Barry end! Hardly thought that game sucked...

Booo, I wanted the Eagles to win. A guy that went to my highschool (graduated before I got there) plays on that team!

To Robyn:
I meant the last game in that paragraph, San Fran 55 Den 10
Didja watch that to the end? I didnt.

And this is tha last one i promise!!

Belichick(10-1) has a better post season record then Lombardi(9-1, the loss? the Eagles), your only dynasty. That count?

Look for tha Pats to raise the Belichick trophy once again, lol.

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below: