can we finally put the Patriot dynasty away?

[blindzebra]

3 wins by 9 points and 2 losses.

Belicheat is NOT the best coach ever.

Brady is NOT the best QB ever.

[skinsscalper]

3 wins by 9 points and 2 losses.

Belicheat is NOT the best coach ever.

Brady is NOT the best QB ever.


And an appearance in 5 of the last 11 Super Bowls. Care to name another team or QB/HC that's accomplished the same feat? You're argument couldn't be more stupid if you tried. :rolleyes:

[Cowboys&LakersFan]

3 wins by 9 points and 2 losses.

Belicheat is NOT the best coach ever.

Brady is NOT the best QB ever.

You've got to be joking. 3 wins is 3 wins who gives a **** if they were only by 9 points?

[tyke1doe]

3 wins by 9 points and 2 losses.

Belicheat is NOT the best coach ever.

Brady is NOT the best QB ever.

Getting to five Super Bowls and winning three is still pretty impressive.

Only one other quarterback got to five Super Bowls other than Brady and that's John Elway.

I don't think Brady would have been the best quarterback ever even if he had won this Super Bowl. Just too subjective. But he's one of the best, probably top five even losing.

[Hoofbite]

They've consistently been competitive for a decade and have been to half the Super Bowls in that time.

What if they aren't done?

[jimmy40]

I think they're the best dynasty in history along with the 70's Cowboys.70's Cowboys over 70's Steelers?

[blindzebra]

The 60's Packers, 70's Steelers and Cowboys, 80's Niners, 90's Cowboys would all CRUSH NE.

Hell they would get killed by the 90's Bills too.

[SaltwaterServr]

Zero Super Bowl wins after the defense's had a chance to change their playcalling once Spy Gate broke. 2-2 in the playoffs since then, including a pair of first round playoff losses.

Belicheat had a chance tonight, but he's Coughlin's little *****.

[dthahn]

And an appearance in 5 of the last 11 Super Bowls. Care to name another team or QB/HC that's accomplished the same feat? You're argument couldn't be more stupid if you tried. :rolleyes:

You've obviously missed the cheating reference. The point is the Pats never would have won if they hadn't cheated their arses off. Do you also consider the Buffalo Bills a dynasty too! Get a clue!

[TheCoolFan]

Belichick's stock took a huge hit tonight and he knows it. Pats are too finesse with that spread offense. You need real WRs that can stretch the field and put pressure on DBs...look at what the Giants, Packers, and Saints do. On top of that, their defense has problems...

[Cowboys&LakersFan]

Belichick's stock took a huge hit tonight and he knows it. Pats are too finesse with that spread offense. You need real WRs that can stretch the field and put pressure on DBs...look at what the Giants, Packers, and Saints do. On top of that, their defense has problems...

Their defense was actually solid tonight. They only allowed 2 touchdowns. They just couldn't score on the Giants.

[CowboyMike]

The 60's Packers, 70's Steelers and Cowboys, 80's Niners, 90's Cowboys would all CRUSH NE.

Hell they would get killed by the 90's Bills too.

Using their rules? Probably.

Using today's rules? I'd say NE beats them 6 out of 10 times. Those teams wouldn't be able to play NE's receivers physically like they did back in their day. It's a different game now.

[TheCoolFan]

But it's not the same dominant defense it was during their dynasty years...the defense that would take the Colts' offense and shut them down. That was their identity and somewhere along the line, Belichick's team lost their identity and they became more of an offensive team to cater to Brady's development as an elite QB.

[Bloodbunny]

None of those old teams would stand a chance against the 2011 Patriots or Giants. Today's players are MUCH faster, bigger, stronger, etc. Even the 2011 Cowboys would probably beat them. It wouldn't even be a contest.

Don't kid yourself, the game/players haven't changed THAT much since the 90s. The 60s and 70s? Yes certainly; but the late 80s and 90s teams most certainly could.. hell Brett Favre was a product of that era and played well until 2010....

[Doomsday101]

3 wins by 9 points and 2 losses.

Belicheat is NOT the best coach ever.

Brady is NOT the best QB ever.

Regardless of who people feel is the better coach or QB "ever" does not change the fact that the Pats have put together a great Franchise under Belicheck. I'm not a fan of the Pats but I will give credit where it is due.
Fact is in 12 season in NE Belicheck has had 10 of 12 years where they have won 10 or more games and have gone to 5 SB winning 3.

Whether we call it best ever or one of the best, it is very impressive what they have accomplished

[Aikbach]

The Patriots are a dynasty, the caveat is they presided over a truly vanilla era in NFL competition.

[yimyammer]

Yeah they suck, Landry did too since he lost 3 Super Bowls

:bang2:

[bbgun]

http://gifninja.com/animatedgifs/615031/patspalm.gif

[CowboyMike]

Yeah they suck, Landry did too since he lost 3 Super Bowls

:bang2:

This. That double standard cannot be applied.

If the Patriots dynasty is discounted because of their Super Bowl losses, then sadly the 70s Cowboys have to be discounted as well.

Many people, including myself, consider the late 80s-90s Bills to be among the greatest teams ever, and they never won a Super Bowl.

[DOUBLE WING]

Pats probably win last night if Gronk is healthy, but nonetheless, they need to draft better. Belichick has stockpiled draft picks and hasn't done much with them. Their secondary is worse than ours and they have no pass rush. It's amazing how many of their draft picks on D have done nothing.

But who is going to unseat them in the AFC?

[Romo 2 Austin]

And an appearance in 5 of the last 11 Super Bowls. Care to name another team or QB/HC that's accomplished the same feat? You're argument couldn't be more stupid if you tried. :rolleyes:

Plus one.

[JackWagon]

They are 2 plays away from 5-0 in SBs ... If Asante holds onto the INT they go 19-0 in 2007. If Wes catches the ball they probably score and win #5 SB and are the greatest Dynasty ever. Really ... they are pretty F-g good. 2 plays away from 5-0 in SBs.

[burmafrd]

They are 2 plays away from 5-0 in SBs ... If Asante holds onto the INT they go 19-0 in 2007. If Wes catches the ball they probably score and win #5 SB and are the greatest Dynasty ever. Really ... they are pretty F-g good. 2 plays away from 5-0 in SBs.


close don't count. There are SB winners then there is everyone else.

[perrykemp]

5 Superbowls in 11 years with 3 SB Victories. They are as much of a dynasty as your are ever going to see in the salary-cap era.

[tyke1doe]

You've obviously missed the cheating reference. The point is the Pats never would have won if they hadn't cheated their arses off. Do you also consider the Buffalo Bills a dynasty too! Get a clue!

And you know this how?

Do you have some alternate reality machine where we can tell what would have happened under different circumstances?

You don't.

Secondly, their Super Bowls weren't voided so despite what happened, the NFL still recognizes those three wins.

[tyke1doe]

Using their rules? Probably.

Using today's rules? I'd say NE beats them 6 out of 10 times. Those teams wouldn't be able to play NE's receivers physically like they did back in their day. It's a different game now.

Yep. NE would likely destroy most of those 60s, 70s and 80s teams. Different schemes, difference in size and speed, wiser/more knowledgeable coaches, better conditioning, etc.

[BraveHeartFan]

lol! I love how now we have to qualify the wins because they were 'only by 9 points'!

This isn't college football brother. You don't get style points.

You just win. The Patriots are a Dynasty and they've been damn good for a long time now.

And even if Tom and Bill aren't the greatest ever at what they're doing they're definately in the discussion and deservedly so.

[Wimbo]

I don't think New England is done. With a better Secondary, this team will be really good.

[BraveHeartFan]

And besides that anyone trying to claim this isn't a Dynasty or talking junk because they've lost 2 out of 5 appearances...I suppose you don't think the Cowboys of the 70's were really that good either then, huh? I mean they only lost 3 of 5 appearances in the Superbowl.

[REDVOLUTION]

1. The Pats really didnt deserve to be in this SB. (I dont remember their season in 2007?) Baltimore should have been in this one OR if Stealers werent banged up AND they got Tebowed - they should have been in it)

2. The Pats cheat = they win.

3. Get caught cheating = they lose.



If you want to defend the Pats losses.

1. The Tyree Catch
2. The 3 drops at end of game Sunday. Starting with Welker. It was very similar to Romo missing Austin or Austin pulling up in game vs Giants. In both scenarios a Giants loss if caught.



Oh well.

[realtick]

And an appearance in 5 of the last 11 Super Bowls. Care to name another team or QB/HC that's accomplished the same feat? You're argument couldn't be more stupid if you tried. :rolleyes:

Zzzzzzzing!

[realtick]

And besides that anyone trying to claim this isn't a Dynasty or talking junk because they've lost 2 out of 5 appearances...I suppose you don't think the Cowboys of the 70's were really that good either then, huh? I mean they only lost 3 of 5 appearances in the Superbowl.

Oh, c'mon now.

Kryptonite is to Superman as objectivity is to the hom..........nevermind.

[Idgit]

Nope.
(http://www.nepatriotsdraft.com/2012/01/2012-patriots-draft-picks.html)

[BraveHeartFan]

Nope.
(http://www.nepatriotsdraft.com/2012/01/2012-patriots-draft-picks.html)

Excellent point.


Not only were they just there but once again, as usual, they've got a boatload of picks with with to improve the team more.

[Doomsday101]

1. The Pats really didnt deserve to be in this SB. (I dont remember their season in 2007?) Baltimore should have been in this one OR if Stealers werent banged up AND they got Tebowed - they should have been in it)

2. The Pats cheat = they win.

3. Get caught cheating = they lose.



If you want to defend the Pats losses.

1. The Tyree Catch
2. The 3 drops at end of game Sunday. Starting with Welker. It was very similar to Romo missing Austin or Austin pulling up in game vs Giants. In both scenarios a Giants loss if caught.



Oh well.

The cheating stuff is becoming a joke. What they did, did not lead to SB it was talent on the team it was execution.

[REDVOLUTION]

The cheating stuff is becoming a joke. What they did, did not lead to SB it was talent on the team it was execution.




Yes. When you cheat and "know" a play is coming and you "execute" it - IT IS A JOKE!


Sorry Charlie!


FACT: Cheating = Win SB. Not Cheating = Lose SB.

Can you twist it any other way? Do they need to lose another SB or 2 or 3 before it makes sense?

[Doomsday101]

Yes. When you cheat and "know" a play is coming and you "execute" it - IT IS A JOKE!


Sorry Charlie!


FACT: Cheating = Win SB. Not Cheating = Lose SB.

Can you twist it any other way? Do they need to lose another SB or 2 or 3 before it makes sense?

And they did not know and Jimmy Johnson explained it. They did not know what plays were coming. Joke is guys who don't understand and use their own personal dislike to discredit a team.

I guess our SB mean nothing as well since Jimmy was doing similar things.

[BraveHeartFan]

And they did not know and Jimmy Johnson explained it. They did not know what plays were coming. Joke is guys who don't understand and use their own personal dislike to discredit a team.

I guess our SB mean nothing as well since Jimmy was doing similar things.


Shhhh...don't dare talk bad about Jimmy! That wasn't against the rules, apparently, back then.

[tyke1doe]

Shhhh...don't dare talk bad about Jimmy! That wasn't against the rules, apparently, back then.

Yep. Jimmy even admitted he did the same thing.