Hostile;1324677 said:The 70's Steelers 4 in 6 years with 2 back to back teams and 11 Hall of Famers don't count huh?
Woods;1324709 said:Man, I was really hoping the Colts could win this thing . . . .Looks like the Pats are on their way yet again . . . .
superpunk;1324714 said:In terms of straight winning, I guess it's only rivaled by the Stillers.
But when you observe that their dynasty exists because of instant replay and field goal kickers, I can't even put them close to the real dynasties.
DBoys;1324726 said:Cap produces closer competition and that is why it is more impressive. "Real dynasties" are stacked teams and no doubt would beat the Pat teams. But you have to admit what they are doing is amazing.
Cristoff;1324728 said:There are more teams now than there were in the 70's. Couple that with free agency and the salary cap and you get a league full of mediocre teams. In the era before the salary cap you'd never have a team in the playoffs let alone championship game with a weak defense (i.e. colts, saints).
Woods;1324709 said:Man, I was really hoping the Colts could win this thing . . . .Looks like the Pats are on their way yet again . . . .
superpunk;1324735 said:What amazes me, is whether it's a replay we've never heard before, slack enforcement f illegal contact penalties, field goals, turnovers, etc - the breaks ALWAYS go their way. It sounds disrespectful, but it's a dynasty based almost entirely on luck - from the luck (if you want to call it that) of Cox taking Bledsoe out, to last week's luck against the Chargers, it ALWAYS goes their way. I guess after this long, that's not luck anymore, for them - but for any other team, these are just lucky bounces. They're a blessed team, somehow.
Julius Jones;1324740 said:holy mother of god i just saw a vinny t. commercial, how ironic is that.