Temo;2285934 said:
How were the Patriots not a "real dynasty"
My definition of a real dynasty may differ from yours. When I think of an NFL dynasty, I think of teams with rosters of dominating players who have legitimate opportunities to be enshrined in the Hall of Fame. I consider dynasties as being teams that can be compared to true dynasties of the past such as Packers of the 60's, the Dolphins, Steelers, Raiders and Cowboys of the 70's, the 49ers of the 80's, and the Cowboys of the 90's. Dynasties for me punctuate their championship seasons with either overpowering Super Bowl wins or even awe-inspiring Super Bowl losses.
When I look at the Patriots of the first decade of the 21st century, I see rosters made up overwhelmingly of parity-laden players, who I would not compare to the great teams of yesteryear, whose teams stamped their Super Bowl victories with three Adam Vinatieri fist-pumping field goals. They could've probably added another 'devastating' Super Bowl victory last season if not for the fact that one of their few Hall of Fame players (Vinatieri) hadn't already bolted for the Colts.
The quality of super teams in the NFL has diminished during the past decade and a half as parity has spread the wealth of quality players across many more teams. While the level of competitive football has increased, the
eminence of the few superiorly talent-laden teams which once ran roughshod over less driven franchises, but made up for it with epic showdowns between a handful of superpowered squads, has waned as well.
It's still pro football, but for me, dynasties disappeared before the 20th century ended. Maybe they will one day return, but I haven't seen one yet. Just my two cents.
