- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
So are the Patriots a two-man 14 season dynasty?
Posted on 2/2/15 at 2:31 am
Posted on 2/2/15 at 2:31 am
How do you apply the 'dynasty' definition to what Belichick and Brady have achieved in their time together at New England?
7
Posted on 2/2/15 at 2:36 am to Street Hawk
2001-2004 was a dynasty.
This was just a previous winner winning again.
This was just a previous winner winning again.
Posted on 2/2/15 at 2:43 am to Street Hawk
How many Super Bowls and conference title game appearances have they had over the last 15 years?
Posted on 2/2/15 at 2:48 am to Jcorye1
quote:
2001-2004 was a dynasty.
This was just a previous winner winning again
They've won the AFC East 12 different times in the last 15 seasons. They have finished no lower than 2nd in the division since 2001. They have appeared in the AFC Championship Game 9 times in the last 15 seasons. They have appeared in the Super Bowl 6 times in the last 15 seasons. They have won the Super Bowl 4 times in the last 15 seasons.
That is the very definition of a dynasty.
This post was edited on 2/2/15 at 3:21 am
Posted on 2/2/15 at 2:49 am to Jcorye1
quote:
This was just a previous winner winning again.
No they are still a dynasty, just as the Spurs are a dynasty despite never winning back to back titles.
Posted on 2/2/15 at 2:50 am to RollTide1987
quote:
They've won the AFC North 12 different times in the last 15 seasons. They have finished no lower than 2nd in the division since 2001. They have appeared in the AFC Championship Game 9 times in the last 15 seasons. They have appeared in the Super Bowl 6 times in the last 15 seasons. They have won the Super Bowl 4 times in the last 15 seasons.
That is the very definition of a dynasty.
This describes an AFC North dynasty
Posted on 2/2/15 at 2:55 am to saintsfan22
quote:
This describes an AFC North dynasty
It describes an NFL dynasty. The last time the New England Patriots won less than 10 games in a season I was a freshman in high school. They have also appeared in 4 straight AFC Championship Games.
This post was edited on 2/2/15 at 2:58 am
Posted on 2/2/15 at 2:57 am to Street Hawk
I don't think you can call the Pats a dynasty, but you can now include Brady and Belichick among the greatest of all time.
Posted on 2/2/15 at 2:58 am to Street Hawk
Celtics in the '60s were a dynasty
UCLA '64-'75 was a dynasty
this is not a dynasty
UCLA '64-'75 was a dynasty
this is not a dynasty
Posted on 2/2/15 at 3:01 am to Kafka
quote:
Celtics in the '60s were a dynasty
With 8 teams in the league.
quote:
UCLA '64-'75 was a dynasty
College =/= professional.
quote:
this is not a dynasty
Yes, it is. When you go to the playoffs every year and are consistently among the frontrunners to win the world championship, you are a dynasty.
This post was edited on 2/2/15 at 3:03 am
Posted on 2/2/15 at 3:11 am to RollTide1987
at the very least, a dynasty threepeats
and that's being very generous
and that's being very generous
Posted on 2/2/15 at 3:12 am to saintsfan22
quote:
This describes an AFC North dynasty
Except for the minor fact that they aren't in the AFC North.
Posted on 2/2/15 at 3:20 am to RollTide1987
quote:
They've won the AFC North 12 different times in the last 15 seasons. They have finished no lower than 2nd in the division since 2001. They have appeared in the AFC Championship Game 9 times in the last 15 seasons. They have appeared in the Super Bowl 6 times in the last 15 seasons. They have won the Super Bowl 4 times in the last 15 seasons.
That is the very definition of a dynasty.
Agree 100% (except they're in the AFC East, not AFC North).
eta: sorry Cosmo, didn't notice you had already pointed that out ...
This post was edited on 2/2/15 at 3:23 am
Posted on 2/2/15 at 3:22 am to Kafka
quote:
at the very least, a dynasty threepeats
So there has never been a dynasty in the modern era of football if we're going with that logic.
Posted on 2/2/15 at 3:36 am to RollTide1987
quote:exactlyquote:So there has never been a dynasty in the modern era of football if we're going with that logic
at the very least, a dynasty threepeats
a dynasty isn't something every generation sees and is entitled to
Posted on 2/2/15 at 6:58 am to Kafka
quote:
at the very least, a dynasty threepeats
and that's being very generous
Tigers baseball -- '91 '93 '96 '97 '00. 5 titles in 10 years, no threepeat. Dynasty?
Posted on 2/2/15 at 7:05 am to Kafka
quote:
a dynasty isn't something every generation sees and is entitled to
Dynasty grinch.
Posted on 2/2/15 at 7:06 am to Kafka
Dynasty are typically consistent winners over an era. In sports it's typically around a decade of dominance. The current Dynasty is new England, proven winners for the last 15 years.
Posted on 2/2/15 at 7:08 am to Jcorye1
quote:
001-2004 was a dynasty.
This was just a previous winner winning again.
Yeah anytime you go 10 seasons between SB wins it is not a dynasty.
Posted on 2/2/15 at 7:09 am to Street Hawk
quote:
two-man
Wilfork says hello
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News