True, the Pats dynasty ended with their last SB win. I just hope that Jets fans remember that even after smoking the Pats last year in week two, they still won the division. It's a long season. I don't think we know yet exactly what kind of team either of us has for the long term, but I'm thinking they will both be in the hunt.
That's completely different. The Bills didn't win a single Superbowl. The idea that the Patriots have been declining since 2004 is nonsense if you have to ignore the Patriots team in 2007 to say that. That team came within a minutes and a half from being 19-0. If the Jets and their fans want to talk about how they were a half away from going to the Super Bowl last year then the same applies to the Patriots. That's still a team that often gets cited as one of the greatest teams of all team and they didn't even win the Superbowl. That's pretty unusual.
You're an idiot! The fact that you went 18 and 1 and LOST THE SUPER BOWL will always be a stain on your record not a badge of honor. Get a clue. P.S. You lost to a New York team!
Good god, it typically takes the Jets three seasons to compile 18 wins. Enjoy the win, but don't shit all over the Patriots for 2007.
Please. Yep historic upset. One of the greatest upsets of all time in fact. It was still a record breaking season. Why the last time a team went through a 16 game season without losing was like... never. When it's part of a 3 Superbowl decade it still points to a franchise that been significant since 2004. That was my point. P.S. You won 1 game in the regular season. What's that? The Superbowl of Week 2?
His name says it best... I don't think most Jet fans feel this way. I for one was in a state of shock. I think Sanchez showed a lot of poise and heart especially after he got blindsided and nearly decapatated in the 3rd quarter. The Pats are not just going to fall off the planet. As long as Brady is there they will be a great team. The guy is a winner and a great QB, he makes everybody around him better and throw in a TE that has the speed and pass catching ability like Hernandez and all of a sudden you add another weapon to a very talented offense. I would also imagine if and when Mankins comes back that will improve things. I think there is some concern in Patsie land though and you being a pretty smart guy know what I'm talking about. They need to start finding ways to win on the road. The other thing that would concern me is you look at the playoff game last year and the Jets game and you could say they were beaten up by more physical teams. I think the Bengals are a fraud and I'm sure most would agree with me but when they play a team that's gonna hit them back they seem to back down. Fortunately there really aren't too many teams as physical as the Jets and Ravens but the Steelers will punch them in the mouth and you know Miami will not back down either. It should be fun and all three teams should give each other fits this season. I see all 3 splitting so it's gonna be tight which was made the Jets loss to Bmore all more frustrating. The guy who said you can't look at Sanchez and say 1 game it's not just one game. You look at him in the playoffs last year and then the 2nd game this year and maybe it was week 1 that was the fraud. 4 of his last 5 games he has played like a 1st round pick. Obviously we need to see some more consistency but you go back to the Bengals game in the playoffs and he has only had 1 bad game.
The Ravens are tough. There's no doubt about that. I am sure that D did a real number on Sanchez's head and the OC as well probably. Their D is very good. The Pats play them too and I'm sure that will be a big game considering how badly the Pats were trashed the last time they played. I was sure Sanchez would do better against the Pats D but I didn't expect him to play as well as he did. I was certainly hoping we would get a few mistakes from him but it didn't happen. I think the Pats let him get some rhythm going and that can often be enough. The drive at the end of the 1st half to get 3 was big.
The argument is about the term 'Dynasty', and how loosely it is applied to a team that has not won a Super Bowl for the better part of a decade. I would never argue that the Pats weren't elite, but there's a difference between 'elite' and a dynasty.
Even dynasties don't win every year but they'll be relevant. San Francisco, Dallas, the 80's Giants to name just a few. They're always hanging around even on an "off" year. Yeah the 2007 Patriots didn't win the Superbowl and deserve the big prize but they were as "relevant" as any one team could get. Again, Jets fans are making a big deal about being a half from the Superbowl, the Patriots were a 1 minute and half from being undefeated and winning the Superbowl. If you want to say that they haven't been the same team since that game and have slipped, yeah sure, you have a better case. They haven't been the same. They're trying to reload the defense while trying to stay competitive.
Come on, man. If I am making a short list of qualities that a Dynasty would possess, I don't think 'Ability to stay relevant' would be high among them. The Patriots stopped winning championships after a playoff upset to the Broncos in 2005 and have failed to attain their goal as often as 31 other NFL teams ever since. I would like to see a Red Sox fan, or anyone outside the Yankee fanbase for that matter, agree that the Yankees were still a Dynasty after that final World Series game against the Diamondbacks. You won't see it.
Anyone downplaying the Sanchez and the Jets offense play would be silly. If they are still bad, what would that say about the team that allowed them to march up and down the field at will in the 2nd half. Alot of folks make new opinions every week based on the outcome of that game. You had to know that Sanchez and the offense wasn't nearly as bad as they looked Monday. We'll know more about both teams in 4 or 5 weeks. What worries me most about the Pats is that they seem to fade in the 2nd half, and this goes back to last season, and even a bit before. Very frustrating.
Personally I think there have been only two real "dynasties" in sports in the relatively modern era. The Yankees, from 1947-1962, won 10 World Series, and went 10-for-16 during that time. The Celtics, from 1957-1969, won 11 championships in 13 years. Very few pro sports teams have had runs of dominance like that. I think "dynasty" is in general a really overused term in sports.
I couldn't come up with anything better then relevant. Dominant? San Francisco 49'ers won Superbowls in 81, 84, 88, 89 and 94. There are a lot of sizable gaps in time there.
True. It's just harder in football to get anything even close to that. How many games in a row did UCLA win in basketball?
Don't know, but they made this poll: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/centurys_best/news/1999/05/06/top_dynasties/ Interesting list. The two teams I mentioned both made it.
Pretty impressive, that's for sure. Here's the section on the Yankees. Even when you lose, but have won a series of championships and have a pattern of winning, even the losses and near wins get added to a dynasty's reputation. That's all I'm saying.
