EARLY Super Bowl Prediction

[Joe Hoya]

I'd add UCLA in the '70s and the Chicago Bulls in the '90s to that list. 6 titles in 8 years, even if the three most important figures (Jordan, Pippen, and Jackson) were the same is pretty impressive.

[DanMcQ]

SFHoya99 said:

Gimme a break. I hardly dislike Boston Sports, and have liked this version of the Patriots. But I've had this argument with U of Miami football fans (not enough titles), USC Football fans, New England Patriot fans...and it is still the same.

A dynasty, in the literal definition, is a succession of rulers. There's no succession here. Not yet. Call me after next year and I might agree.

I never said that this isn't impressive. (and in fact have detailed quite the opposite in either this thread or another). The job done by the Pats front office is very impressive. Same with the coaching staff and the players.

Just not a dynasty yet. My standards are high.

Dynasties: Yankees, period. The US in (certain) Olympic Sports or the America's Cup. Celtics 57-69. Maybe the 50s Browns-Packers. Notre Dame Football.

'


Define "rulers" then, in the football sense. (And in the continuing the tread sense, realize that I was doing some chain yanking with my extending the years yardstick comment.) What specifically do you mean - are you talking about the quarterback? The coach? The assistant coaches? What percentage "turnover" meets your "high" standards?



1997 - SB - Coach: Parcells, QB - Bledsoe, RB: Curtis Martin

1998 - lost in divisional against Steelers
1999 - lost in wild card against Jacksonville

2002 - SB - Coach: Belichick, QB - Brady, RB: Smith

2004 - SB - Coach: Belichick, QB: Brady, RB: Smith
significant player gone from prior roster - Lawyer Milloy

2005 - Coach: Belichick, QB: Brady, RB: Dillon
significant players gone from prior roster: both starting CBs (Ty Law, Ty Poole), Pro-Bowler Richard Seymour, Pro-Bowler Damien Woody, starter Ted Washington


..the only constants on the roster from 1997 to 2005 who play significant roles are Vinatieri, Willie McGinest, Tedy Bruschi, and Ted Johnson

[DanMcQ]

...Jack Ham disagrees with your criteria:

Wash Times: Patriots can bring back the dynasty

www.washtimes.com/sports/20050127-120528-7935r.htm

Jack Ham has first-hand experience with NFL dynasties.
In the 1970s, the Hall of Famer played linebacker for the Pittsburgh Steelers teams that won four Super Bowls in six years. So his response when asked to rate the New England Patriots' achievement, should they beat the Philadelphia Eagles a week from Sunday for their third Super Bowl title in four years, was quite a mouthful.
"Three out of four in this era is better than what our football team did," he said.
"We had teams that pretty much did it with the same players," Ham said. "[Patriots coach Bill Belichick] is doing it with different players. The turnover of his football team was a lot higher than the turnover of our team. ... I think winning three out of four Super Bowls puts them in rarified air."
When a player leaves the Patriots, it is usually the organization's decision. Turnover has fostered improvement. Of the 22 starters in New England's win last weekend over the Steelers in the AFC Championship, only five started three years ago when the Patriots beat St. Louis to win their first Super Bowl. That does not include two of their best players, defensive end Richard Seymour and cornerback Ty Law, who missed the Pittsburgh game because of injuries. But the Patriots arguably are better now than they were heading into Super Bowl XXXVI in 2002.

...sounds a lot like a "succession of rulers" to me, but what do I know?

[SFHoya99]

thebin said:

Winning three Super Bowls in four years even in the pre-FA and pre-salary cap era would qualify you as a dynasty no questionas asked. You have to be either disingenuously contrarian or retarded to actually deny the Pats the title "dynasty" if they win in two weeks. If they win, and they are not a "dynasty" then the word means nothing.

I got my set standards for a dynasty, and you got yours. This isn't an official designation, and I don't change my definition of the word for circumstances.

It doesn't mean the Pats aren't a great team or a great franchise. Just not a dynasty.

I'm neither disingenuously contrarian nor retarded. I just have higher standards than you do.

[SFHoya99]

DanMcQ said:

'


Define "rulers" then, in the football sense. (And in the continuing the tread sense, realize that I was doing some chain yanking with my extending the years yardstick comment.) What specifically do you mean - are you talking about the quarterback? The coach? The assistant coaches? What percentage "turnover" meets your "high" standards?



1997 - SB - Coach: Parcells, QB - Bledsoe, RB: Curtis Martin

1998 - lost in divisional against Steelers
1999 - lost in wild card against Jacksonville

2002 - SB - Coach: Belichick, QB - Brady, RB: Smith

2004 - SB - Coach: Belichick, QB: Brady, RB: Smith
significant player gone from prior roster - Lawyer Milloy

2005 - Coach: Belichick, QB: Brady, RB: Dillon
significant players gone from prior roster: both starting CBs (Ty Law, Ty Poole), Pro-Bowler Richard Seymour, Pro-Bowler Damien Woody, starter Ted Washington


..the only constants on the roster from 1997 to 2005 who play significant roles are Vinatieri, Willie McGinest, Tedy Bruschi, and Ted Johnson

I don't really know what turnover is needed. The fact that the prominent players to me are still there is hurting its case for me.

I admit I have a hard time including the pre-2002 teams. If they had won 1997, and made the playoffs in two of the three years they didn't (and win on Sunday), I'd probably be on board.

As for Seymour, Law and Poole, I realize the injuries have been for most of the season, but the players (and their replacements) are still more or less the same people from last year.

[DanMcQ]

SFHoya99 said:

I don't really know what turnover is needed. The fact that the prominent players to me are still there is hurting its case for me.

I admit I have a hard time including the pre-2002 teams. If they had won 1997, and made the playoffs in two of the three years they didn't (and win on Sunday), I'd probably be on board.

As for Seymour, Law and Poole, I realize the injuries have been for most of the season, but the players (and their replacements) are still more or less the same people from last year.

Agreed, for the most part. I only included the 97 team because the trend started then.

Those Steelers teams had pretty much all the same players though.

The problem is that the current situation, with the salary cap, makes it extremely unlikely that any team will meet your standards again.

[SFHoya99]

DanMcQ said:

Agreed, for the most part. I only included the 97 team because the trend started then.

Those Steelers teams had pretty much all the same players though.

The problem is that the current situation, with the salary cap, makes it extremely unlikely that any team will meet your standards again.

The Steelers don't fit my definition. I don't think of them as a dynasty. Great team, but not a dynasty.

As for an NFL team meeting my standards again, well:

1) I'm not sure too many have met my standards so far (maybe one or two)
2) The Patriots are mighty close.

[showcase]

I think I side with SFH on this: a dynasty is different than a very impressive run. I'm not sure where the line between dynasty and dominant franchise lies, but I don't think that just having a string of years peppered with league championships is enough. It's certainly the minimum requirement, but if that's sufficient, then couldn't you argue that the Pats already ARE a dynasty? The problem with making that argument for them now is that lots of other teams of roughly the same period could make similar claims (the the Cowboys of the 90s and Steelers of the 70s come to mind as teams that won back-to-back SBs + one or more others in close succession).

I mean, shouldn't a dynasty have to last more than four or five years to qualify? Honest question. Obviously, I have my own opinion, but what sort of theoretical reasons would one offer in support of a shorter timeframe. For my part, I think watering the minimum requirements down to admit the dominant team or two in each sport in each decade renders the concept of dynasty nearly meaningless. The only sports dynasties I recognize are the Yanks (and then only begrudgingly), the UCLA Bruins, and the Boston Celtics.

I mean, the A's could make a claim similar to the Yank's (10 WS titles over the years, and a number in close proximity to eachother in different periods), but I doubt anyone would even have them on their initial ballot for admission into the Hall of Dynasties.

[mplshoya]

My prediction

Patriots 77 Eagles -7

negative 7 you ask?? Brady will find a way.

[DanMcQ]

showcase said:

I think I side with SFH on this: a dynasty is different than a very impressive run. I'm not sure where the line between dynasty and dominant franchise lies, but I don't think that just having a string of years peppered with league championships is enough. It's certainly the minimum requirement, but if that's sufficient, then couldn't you argue that the Pats already ARE a dynasty? The problem with making that argument for them now is that lots of other teams of roughly the same period could make similar claims (the the Cowboys of the 90s and Steelers of the 70s come to mind as teams that won back-to-back SBs + one or more others in close succession).

I mean, shouldn't a dynasty have to last more than four or five years to qualify? Honest question. Obviously, I have my own opinion, but what sort of theoretical reasons would one offer in support of a shorter timeframe. For my part, I think watering the minimum requirements down to admit the dominant team or two in each sport in each decade renders the concept of dynasty nearly meaningless. The only sports dynasties I recognize are the Yanks (and then only begrudgingly), the UCLA Bruins, and the Boston Celtics.

I mean, the A's could make a claim similar to the Yank's (10 WS titles over the years, and a number in close proximity to eachother in different periods), but I doubt anyone would even have them on their initial ballot for admission into the Hall of Dynasties.

The 4 or 5 years thing is a good marker. My only point is that might need to be ratched down to 3-4 years under current salary cap constraints.

Besides, all this dynasty talk was started so there would be something other than TO's ankle screws to talk about this week.

[SFHoya99]

DanMcQ said:

The 4 or 5 years thing is a good marker. My only point is that might need to be ratched down to 3-4 years under current salary cap constraints.

Besides, all this dynasty talk was started so there would be something other than TO's ankle screws to talk about this week.

I'm gonna go in a circle here, but Dynasty isn't something I rachet down. If you can't make it, you can't make it. Sorry. It'll make making a dynasty more impressive.

I think some people think of dynasty on a linear scale with great team ---> historic team ----> dynasty as the pinnacle.

Dynasty isn't that kind of term for me. You can argue that for the front office, the Patriots run is more impressive than the Celtic's run in the 60s for various reasons. I might agree with that; but that doesn't change the fact that for me the Celts were a dynasty and the Pats not.

[Joe Hoya]

The main reason the Patriots are not a dynasty, even with a win Sunday, is this:

They would have won three Super Bowls in four years. What happened that other year?

THEY MISSED THE PLAYOFFS!

Dynasties don't miss the playoffs. Not until they've been deposed.

Although, we are on the cusp of a team creating a dynasty in their division (the Eagles OWN the NFC East - no matter how bad it is!), and a win Sunday should start the Eagles off on their way to winning five Super Bowls out of the next seven.*



*The statements reflected here do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of a sane, rational human being.

[DanMcQ]

Joe said:

The main reason the Patriots are not a dynasty, even with a win Sunday, is this:

They would have won three Super Bowls in four years. What happened that other year?

THEY MISSED THE PLAYOFFS!

Dynasties don't miss the playoffs. Not until they've been deposed.

Although, we are on the cusp of a team creating a dynasty in their division (the Eagles OWN the NFC East - no matter how bad it is!), and a win Sunday should start the Eagles off on their way to winning five Super Bowls out of the next seven.*



*The statements reflected here do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of a sane, rational human being.

One problem about using the NBA as an example of not missing the playoffs: it's kind of like the NHL, where if you can field a full roster, you're in.

Yup, a great almost dynasty, like the Vikings and the Bills...

[Cambridge]

Joe said:

The main reason the Patriots are not a dynasty, even with a win Sunday, is this:

They would have won three Super Bowls in four years. What happened that other year?

THEY MISSED THE PLAYOFFS!

Dynasties don't miss the playoffs. Not until they've been deposed.

In the year they missed the playoffs they finished 9-7 in a three way tie with Miami and the Jets for first place in the AFC East. Jets had the tie breaker due to one more divisional win...although they had split the series against NE and Miami.

That 9-7 record, while not stellar was also tied for the second Wild Card slot with the Dolphins, Browns and the Broncos.

Unfortunately, the Browns had the tie breakers...and New England, who finished second to the Browns in the tie breakers, was bumped from the playoffs.

That very same 9-7 record would have earned them a playoff spot in the NFC, where there were only 7 teams at or over .500 in the whole league...by comparison the AFC had 12 including all 4 of the AFC East and all four of the AFC West.

My point is not to say that the Pats are a dynasty, but to put a hold on the "Pats missed the playoffs and stunk it up one year" kinda talk. That's ridiculous. Did they play subpar compared to the SB years? Yes, but was it bad, no. Especially not in comparison to the performance of their contemporaries.

Between 2001 and 2004 they have a combined record 0f 48-16, .750 winning percentage. (Note: Nearly half of those losses were in 2002.) They are undefeated in the post-season at 9-0. All in the toughest division in the NFL over the last 5 years. Their divisional opponents during that time have posted an overall record of 101-107 -- much higher than any other division in football.

Again, I'm still uncertain as to how I sit on the whole dynasty issue. I'm torn, but I just had to respond to our resident Eagles' booster pointing fingers at the 2002 team, who plagued by injuries, missed the playoff by a hairsbreadth in the toughest division in football. Does it disqualify them from dynasty talk, perhaps. But, it wasn't as if it was a total collapse of a season as it has been portrayed on this board.

[Joe Hoya]

When you look at the records:

2001: 14-5
2002: 9-7
2003: 17-2
2004: 16-2

9-7 DOES look like a complete collapse in comparison. That's what I'm saying. A team that dominates like that shouldn't have an "off year" if they're a true dynasty.

Only IV days, II hours and I minute until XXXIX begins...

[Cambridge]

Subtract the playoff games from those records:

2001: 11-5
2002: 9-7
2003: 14-2
2004: 14-2

[thebin]

IF. IF. IF For 4 straight years- the Pats win 14 games on average per year and take three Super Bowls- that is a dynasty. If it is not, "dynasty" means merely whatever you want it to mean and nothing of any value whatsoever. They were arguably a dynasty last year if you want to account for the modern parity. You don't want to account for the salary cap, et al? Fine. Then they have to win this year to do it. But that's it. This does it, no matter what. No more backsies. No more do-overs. No more obfuscation. I really can't believe how obstinate and ambulance-chasing-lawyerly some of you are being in bringing some pretty ridiculous parameters out of the woodwork in fashioning some pretty half-assed arguments. Its weak. I guess this is what its like to be a Yankee fan, putting up with all of this pathetic whinging.

[Z]

totally agree with you bin. i think a lot of this dynasty-denial stems from the fact that they've only been an "oh god, we have to play these guys" absolutely dominant type of team for two years. but its pretty silly to just write off the '01 squad, who plowed through some outstanding teams.

nevertheless, i still am shocked by the CW that the pats will dispatch of the eagles in the absence of a total collapse. mcnabb is having a historic year in terms of taking care of the football. if the eagles don't turn the ball over (and i dont expect them to) this game is a toss up to me. even so, it's still going to be painfully hard to root for any team that includes freddie mitchell, who has skyrocketed to the top of my "most annoying athletes" list.

[SFHoya99]

thebin said:

IF. IF. IF For 4 straight years- the Pats win 14 games on average per year and take three Super Bowls- that is a dynasty. If it is not, "dynasty" means merely whatever you want it to mean and nothing of any value whatsoever. They were arguably a dynasty last year if you want to account for the modern parity. You don't want to account for the salary cap, et al? Fine. Then they have to win this year to do it. But that's it. This does it, no matter what. No more backsies. No more do-overs. No more obfuscation. I really can't believe how obstinate and ambulance-chasing-lawyerly some of you are being in bringing some pretty ridiculous parameters out of the woodwork in fashioning some pretty half-assed arguments. Its weak. I guess this is what its like to be a Yankee fan, putting up with all of this pathetic whinging.

So basically your argument is "If a dynasty is not how I define it, then it isn't worth anything."

Come back when you have something rational to contribute. I like the Patriots. I'll be rooting for them on Sunday. But Dynasty? Nope. And none of your weak insults can change that.

This is what counts as a rational argument where you come from, huh?