I know. It's kind of like Pats fans talking about how great the team has been from 2005 on because of all the regular season wins, division titles, and two SB losses. Let's face it, since 2005, the Pats have dominated the AFC East, but they are not close to be being one of the best post season franchises in football over that time period. They are 7-6 in the playoffs with no championships. During the same time frame, the Steelers are 9-3 with 2 SBs. The Giants are 8-3 with 2 SBs. New Orleans is 5-2 with a SB. Green Bay is 5-3 with a SB. Indy is 6-5 with a SB. The Pats are in the same class as teams like Arizona who is 4-2 in the post season with a SB loss, Seattle who is 5-4 with a SB loss, Chicago 3-3 with a SB loss and a half step ahead of team like the Jets who are 4-3, Baltimore 5-5, San Diego 3-4, and Philly 3-4. One game over .500 in the post season over the past 7 years with no titles is not a dynasty. It makes the Pats a good team over that period , along with a lot of other good teams that made the playoffs often during that time period without winning it all.
You're right, since 2005 they haven't been the best team in football. They've only been the fifth or sixth best. How disgraceful. Not only would the last seven years be considered the greatest stretch in New York Jets history, it even trumps the seven best years the Jets have had in the last 40 years.
Yeah but for most of that time Tom Brady has been healthy and extremely productive. What a waste of an opportunity. If Namath had stayed healthy the Jets probably would have added to their SB score. He didn't and so the franchise collapsed. That Brady has been healthy but the Pats could not capitalize is going to haunt some New England fans 40 years from now.
Yeah, an 86-26 record with three title games and two Super Bowl appearances, what a waste. I seriously doubt that's an era that's going to "haunt" me in 40 years. I'll probably be haunted by the fact that I'll never see a team as dominant as this one.
In 40 years your short term memory will be shot and the glory days of the past will seem like it just happened yesterday. It will be a very pleasant memory until you realize you pissed in your diaper and need to wait for a Union employee to get off break to change it.
Now that's pretty funny. The last 10 years the Pats are up there with the Steelers of the 70's, 49ers of the '80's and the Cowboys of the 90's as a NFL dynasty team.
Really? I don't think the Steel curtain defense ever finished # 32 in team defense, Bill Walsh was never sanctioned for surveiling the opposition, & Allen/Newton/Stepnowski/Williams never got thrown around like Rag dolls in a super bowl. Roger Craig/Emmitt Smith/Franco Harris & Corey DILLION?! Get the hell out of here.
Just curious, how do you define a dynasty? I would put the 01-04 Pats as a dynasty since they went 3/4 but for me personally it takes championships to have a dynasty. For me the Pats dynasty was 01-04 and probably could have been extended if they won in 07. The Patriots have been the best team in the first half the decade 2000-2001 season until the the 2004-2005 season. The Steelers have been the best team in the second half of the decade 2005-2006 season until 2010-2011 season. So over the whole decade I would give the nod to you guys, but I wouldn't consider the whole decade a dynasty. I would say the first half of the decade was a dynasty though and you guys were the only dynasty of the decade, but it definitely didn't last a decade.
I agree with you. The Steelers, 49ers and Cowboy teams were not dynasty teams for the entire decade as well, just like the Pats.
SF won 4 SBs in the 80s, the first in '81, the last in '89. They were a dynasty throughout the decade. Pitt won 4 in 6 seasons- first 74, last 79 Dall won 3 in 4 years just like NE- both teams of the decades but dynasties for only half the decades.
This WAS a thread to discuss drafts production... Thanks to junc and Murrell for hijacking yet another thread to yet again rehash the same tired pro and con arguments about Brady. Am I the only one tired of this?
go whine somewhere else, sometimes threads go in a different direction but we had a great discussion. It's posts like yours that totally derail a discussion w/ absolutely no value.
You just made my point again. If Pats fans are going to denigrate the Jets and their fans for being proud of the back to back AFC Championship appearances, the same fans cannot turn around and brag about regular season records and division titles that did not lead to a title. The bottom line, as shown in my earlier post, is that since 2005 the Pats have dominated the AFC East but are a .500 team in the playoffs and there are 5 or so teams that have been more successful and 3-4 others with similar post season records and accomplishments. The Pats are nowhere near being a dynasty since 2005 or "in the last 10 years." They had a great run from 01-04 and since are just another good team that makes the playoffs consistently but has not won a title. If you are proud of that, fine, but then don't make of Jets fans being proud of the 09-10 playoff runs, because there is no difference.
You guys push every thread in the same direction. Whether or not Brady is resposinle for the Pats success or failure in each and every SB has nothing to do with how the Pats or Jets draft.
The Pats certainly are not a dynasty at this time. Two other teams have won 2 SB since they last won one. No argument really.
I can agree with this. The 3 wins in 4 years matches something the Cowboys did a while back that few others come close to matching. At this point 4 wins in 12 years would be in the same neighborhood the 49ers Montana - Young stretch. But they still have to get that fourth win. Until they do, the last bunch of years are just dang good football. I mean, two super bowl appearances and perpetual division championships are pretty good, but even in New England you hear the "Dynasty Years" phrase occasionally used to refer to 01 - 04.
