The AFC East dynasty is alive and well but zero playoff wins since '07, only one SB trip since 2005. The real dynasty has been dead for years.
I'm bitching about the complete lack of improvement the team shows heading into the 15th game of the season (2nd time I am stating that). There's no consistency here at all. Same guys making the same mistakes. Team doesnt look prepared to play with time running out on the season. The old "everything little thing.......is gonna be alright" philosophy is getting old. And no. I dont think Holmes was taken aside at all.
Man, Belly must have had to start wearing those AFCE Championship rings on his toes, huh? We are fast approaching a decade since they have won something tangible. You guys now remind me of Cowboy fans.
When people talk about a dynasty in sports it implies championships, not division titles, #1 seeds, or win total. Championships alone define dynasties. The Pats from the 2001-2004 seasons were certainly a dynasty, I don't think that anyone is disputing that since they won 3 Super Bowls in 4 years. But no championships in 8 years, not to mention no playoff victories since 2007, means that there is absolutely no way the Patriots should be considered a dynasty today. Unless you also you want to call the Bills of the 90s a dynasty for all their AFC Championships - but of course no one would think of doing that because it would be ridiculous to say that consistently NOT winning a championship, no matter how close you get, makes one a dynasty.
Good post, and I do agree that championships are the definning factor. However, year-to-year consistency will always put you in a position for that championship.
This is the best post of the thread, don't know why it didn't get props. This is what made parcells so effective.
Let's face it, it's hard for a fat guy to stand in front of a room of world class athletes and tell them to be more disciplined, or give more effort, and be taken seriously.
I didn't notice that post before either, but I have to agree. This immediately made me think of Mike Keenan with the Rangers. Extremely hard ass disciplinarian whose style basically scared the Rangers to a championship. However I believe that had he stayed with the team afterwards that his tough guy routine would not have had the same effect and would have seriously backfired.
Just speaking for myself I go back to Plunkett, Grogan, Eason,,.etc. Many Sunday's I sat on the steel benches of Sullivan stadium. I deserved every minute of the last decade. :breakdance: Giants/Jets will feel like the first playoff game for me, Watching 2 gladiators enter the coliseum knowing one of my nemesis' will be eliminated from the tournament by the end.
I would say a dynasty cannot survive without championships. Are you one of the best teams in the nfl in the last decade, of course. Are you a dynasty over 9 years, no. For me dynasties need multiple championships over the length of it. Hope that makes more sense.
Of course we wish we had those. I was more implying that the team, especially the defense, is so different that you can't reference those Super Bowls as reason as they would win one now.
You know better than that BB. The Pats run of (relative) success goes a lot further than 2001. Try going back to the moment Bob Kraft bought the team in the early 90's. The Pats had 2 losing seasons in the first 3 years of Parcells reign. After that point, the Pats DID NOT have another losing season until 2000, and of course haven't had one since. Even before that time the Pats has some success. Usually 3 years of decent teams 3 years of horror,and 4 years of abject mediocrity each decade....much like the Jets have had their entire existence. I find it ironic that over the last 10 years the Jets have had the greatest consistent success in their HISTORY, yet over the same time they had the misfortune to share the division with a team that went to the superbowl 4 times, winning 3 of them. Man that has GOT to hurt. Though you still have last January to keep you warm, and me in my placehmy:
no, the definition of dynasty is: 1. A line of hereditary rulers of a country: "the Tang dynasty". 2. A succession of people from the same family who play a prominent role in a certain field. in regards to what a sports dynasty is, that doesn't have a definition and is a matter of debate. you can claim your completely made up definition is the criteria, but you just make yourself look f'ing ridiculous, especially when you make up definitions to try and prove your ridiculous point. according to wikipedia: "The most widely-accepted sports dynasties are those with multiple championships over a limited period of time, either consecutively with or without interruption (e.g., UCLA Bruins men's basketball from 1964 to 1975), or non-consecutively (e.g., Oakland/Los Angeles Raiders of the late 1970s and early 1980s, or the Liverpool football team of the 1980s). the early 2000 Patriots fall into both categories, with back to back championships plus an interruption between the first and second. that coincides with what is being said here. back to wiki: In a few cases, a dominant team without championships might be recognized as a dynasty (e.g., Buffalo Bills of the early 1990s), though this is likely to be disputed. this is what you are attempting to claim as the Patriots dynasty, a long stretch of a high level of success but without a championship. the Patriots recent success is comparable to the Bills because it was achieved without a championship. most people don't recognize that to be a dynasty. but even more to the point, calling the Patriots a dynasty would be the equivalent of calling the Colts of the last decade a dynasty -- a lot of success but the one championship doesn't make you a dynasty. if one championship doesn't make the Colts a dynasty how the hell does zero championships make the Patriots? or are you such a desperate homer that you would attempt to convince us that the Colts were a dynasty just to validate your asinine claim that the recent Patriot teams are?
If I say BOOM, headshot, am I being TGG cliche? Because it seems more apt right now than in any other instance.
