TOP 4 Reasons for Pats to win this and next year SB

[NEPatriot]

This season reminds me of 2002 after missing playoff. However, we won SB in 03 and 04.

TOP 4 reasons why Pats needs to win SB this season.

1- Tom Brady is back. Surprised!
2- We drafted 12 players and acquired some from other teams. Serious investment!
3- We lost some personnels this season. Is BB still good without these people?
4-Missing last year playoff.

If we don't win SB this season, our dynasty is officially over. Yes, i'm going to be VERY disappointed.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

The dynasty will end only if the Steelers win 2 straight super bowls to end the decade. I highly doubt that happens. But I'm insane like most fans and think the Pats will win the super bowl this year. Unless they face the Giants again, I don't see any other NFC team putting such a fierce pass rush on Tom Brady.

I really like what they did in free agency picking up vets at a bargain price. If Gallaway has something left in the tank, he can really help out the passing game. I can't wait to see how Fred Taylor does with the Pats and really believe you will see revived Fred Taylor. I love how the Pats are stacked at TE right now which help the running and passing game. I really hope Shawn Springs has something left as well because his physical play is much needed in the secondary. Finally, I hope Leigh Bodden plays like he did in Cleveland to give us another lock down corner that once had his way with elite WR's such as Chad Ocho Cinco.

I think the Pats had a pretty solid draft and converting 2 third round picks for second rounds picks was great business. Chung will add another dimension to this revamped secondary and hopefully will be what Bob Sanders is to Indy. I predicted the Pats would grab Butler and he is another addition to a pretty loaded CB group. I didn't understand the Brace pick at the time, but after thinking about it, I do now. Giving Wilfork rest will invaluable down the stretch. Also, pairing these guys up on short yardage situations will greatly improve their chances of stuffing the run.

However, the only thing that worries most people is who will step up at inside and outside LB? I really hope Guyton overtakes Bruschi and Shawn Crable makes some noise as well.

 

[matt9071]

The best part about the pats it that we are a serious contender every year.

 

[NEPatriot]

The best part about the pats it that we are a serious contender every year.

People have said it in the last 4 years. It would be nice to have 4 or 5 SB rings to prove it.

 

[NEPatriot]

However, the only thing that worries most people is who will step up at inside and outside LB? I really hope Guyton overtakes Bruschi and Shawn Crable makes some noise as well.

I'm worried about our pass rush because we hadn't seen it. Julius Pepper is a good option.

 

[TruthSeeker]

If we don't win SB this season, our dynasty is officially over. Yes, i'm going to be VERY disappointed.

There never was a dynasty.

 

[NEPatriot]

There never was a dynasty.

I hope we still possess the 'killer's instint' .

 

[ALP]

I hope we still possess the 'killer's instint' .

i think the new blood will serve to bring it out again

 

[OldNEPatsFan]

A dynasty happens when a team wins three Super Bowls with no more than 3 years between wins. The Pats dynasty is over.

 

[BradfordPatsFan]

A dynasty happens when a team wins three Super Bowls with no more than 3 years between wins. The Pats dynasty is over.

Well then, it seems to be about time to start a new one!:eat3:

 

[KDPPatsfan85]

Well then, it seems to be about time to start a new one!:eat3:

I second that notion! :eat2:

 

[OhExaulted1]

A dynasty happens when a team wins three Super Bowls with no more than 3 years between wins. The Pats dynasty is over.

I disagree with that criteria entirely. A dynasty certainley does have to have multiple championships in it's resume, but it also needs a sustained period of success. Take for instance the 49ers for example. They won 5 in 14 years starting in '81, but really they were a realistic contender up until 1998. That's 18 years of sustained success. They went 5 years between 4 and 5 with a different QB and those titles are split 3-2 between the coaches.

NE has been to 5 Conf. Championships, 4 SB's and won 3. They missed the post season last year with 11 wins which has happened only 1 time before in the SB era. The 49ers 18 year run had only 1 bad season, the follow-up 1st SB win strike-shortened year (1982 3-6). 17of18 10+win years.

People forget about ownership and I think it's way underrated. The last 15 years of Bob Kraft have produced a 17-7 playoff record. That's what I call sustained success. That's what I call a dynasty. If we win the SB this year you'll have to eat your words.

 

[THE SLAMMER]

I am not a Patriots fan, but surely you can come up with a better case for the team.

#1 Superior coaching staff

#2 Well rounded roster, with quality depth

#3 Veteran Starters that know how to win

#4 Tom Brady

I am not predicting the Patriots will win the Superbowl, because it is to early to make predictions, but the Patriots are certainly in the drivers seat.

 

[smg93]

I am not a Patriots fan, but surely you can come up with a better case for the team.

#1 Superior coaching staff

#2 Well rounded roster, with quality depth

#3 Veteran Starters that know how to win

#4 Tom Brady

I am not predicting the Patriots will win the Superbowl, because it is to early to make predictions, but the Patriots are certainly in the drivers seat.

#5 Our team is better than your team

 

[NEPatriot]

Well then, it seems to be about time to start a new one!:eat3:

It's not too late to start a new one and it's even better and sweeter if this new dynasty is better than the old one.

 

[SteveBsFan]

I disagree with that criteria entirely. A dynasty certainley does have to have multiple championships in it's resume, but it also needs a sustained period of success.

I agree with this. People need to be real when it comes to defining a dynasty. A real life dynasty is when a family controls something (like a country) for many generations. In sports, it's more of a domination over a long period of time.

Anyone who follows football know the Patriots have essentially dominated since '03, despite only winning it all twice in that span. They have dominated their division in that time (until last season), and everyone knows the playoffs are not the be-all-end-all of domination. In a one game playoff, it's really hard to determine the 'best' team that season because as '07 pointed out, one team can have a good run for 15 minutes, and win one game that happens to be labeled the championship game.

I'm not making excuses. I didn't really think the Pats were a dynasty until the '03-'07 run. They still have a chance to continue that dynasty because everyone knows the only reason they didn't win 13-14 games last season was dumb luck.

 

[italian pat patriot]

The best part about the pats it that we are a serious contender every year.

i agree: i really love the fact that the Patriots are contenders every year since a lot

this is the best we can have

 

[OldNEPatsFan]

I disagree with that criteria entirely. A dynasty certainley does have to have multiple championships in it's resume, but it also needs a sustained period of success. Take for instance the 49ers for example. They won 5 in 14 years starting in '81, but really they were a realistic contender up until 1998. That's 18 years of sustained success. They went 5 years between 4 and 5 with a different QB and those titles are split 3-2 between the coaches.

NE has been to 5 Conf. Championships, 4 SB's and won 3. They missed the post season last year with 11 wins which has happened only 1 time before in the SB era. The 49ers 18 year run had only 1 bad season, the follow-up 1st SB win strike-shortened year (1982 3-6). 17of18 10+win years.

People forget about ownership and I think it's way underrated. The last 15 years of Bob Kraft have produced a 17-7 playoff record. That's what I call sustained success. That's what I call a dynasty. If we win the SB this year you'll have to eat your words.

Eat this

Sports Illustrated
Monday, May 21, 2007
Defining a Dynasty

A dynasty as any team that wins at least three championships in five years or wins championships in at least half of the years more than five. For example, winning two championships in a row does not not make a team a dynasty. Winning one more in the next three years does, however (3 in 5 years). Winning championships every other year for eight years would also make a dynasty (4 in 8 years)

 

[mgteich]

You're not making excuses? We last won the Super Bowl five seasons ago. That is a long time.

You need the face the fact that the patriots were not Super Bowl contenders in 2005 and 2008, and choked in 2006 and 2007, unable to keep opponents from scoring late even when everything depended on it. To call our perfromance over the past four years a "dynasty" is a gross misuse of the word.

As a great coach once said, "it is what it is".

If all we are talking about is bragging rights to the decade, we already have that unless the steelers win this year and next, as someone already posted. The 2001-2004 patriots were indeed a dynasty, one of the best dynasties ever. 2007 was one of the greatest single seasons ever.

It is time to begin a new dynasty. However, I suppose when we string this year and next year together, we will be talking about the decade and call it all one dynasty.

I agree with this. People need to be real when it comes to defining a dynasty. A real life dynasty is when a family controls something (like a country) for many generations. In sports, it's more of a domination over a long period of time.

Anyone who follows football know the Patriots have essentially dominated since '03, despite only winning it all twice in that span. They have dominated their division in that time (until last season), and everyone knows the playoffs are not the be-all-end-all of domination. In a one game playoff, it's really hard to determine the 'best' team that season because as '07 pointed out, one team can have a good run for 15 minutes, and win one game that happens to be labeled the championship game.

I'm not making excuses. I didn't really think the Pats were a dynasty until the '03-'07 run. They still have a chance to continue that dynasty because everyone knows the only reason they didn't win 13-14 games last season was dumb luck.

 

[mgteich]

As I have indicated, if the patriots win in 2009 and 2010, we should consider the 2001-2010 patriots an NFL dynasty, having won 5 of 10 Super Bowls.

HOWEVER, I would note that since we won the AFC in 2007, in 2001-2008, the patriots were a dynasty in the AFC. We won four AFC championships in eight years, meeting the definition below. Even if we win only one of the next two AFC championships, we will still be an AFC dynasty under the definitions you posted.

Eat this

Sports Illustrated
Monday, May 21, 2007
Defining a Dynasty

A dynasty as any team that wins at least three championships in five years or wins championships in at least half of the years more than five. For example, winning two championships in a row does not not make a team a dynasty. Winning one more in the next three years does, however (3 in 5 years). Winning championships every other year for eight years would also make a dynasty (4 in 8 years)