Death of a Dynasty

[DeROK]

Hey everyone,

I just wanted to share an article that I wrote to wrap up the season for my Patriots site. Despite the title, I think you'll find it to be a very inspiring article. It's a good look back at the past six years for this team and a good way to lose some of the frustration we're all feeling after Sunday's loss.

Here's the address of the article. I tried posting the full text for you here, but I got an error message saying it was too long:

http://www.derok.net/patriots/new-england-colts-afc-championship.html

 

[SoonerPatriot]

Sigh....people who proclaim the "dyansty is dead" don't seem to understand the concept of the word.

In football terms a dyanasty is defined as sustained excellence over an extended period of time. The 49ers took nine seasons to win 4 SBs. We've won 3 in 6. Last time I checked, the 49ers were a dynasty.

 

[Seymour93]

The Steelers went through a two year drought during their dynasty and the 49ers went an even longer period SB-less. Don't call the funeral home just yet.

 

[MrClutch]

Despite the "Death of a Dynasty" thing, I think it was a pretty good written article. But you do talk about the 2nd coming, which means it isn't really dead yet.

 

[Lansdowne]

The overtime win in Miami happened in 2003, not 2002. Save for that, this is a good read. It made me feel a little better. I don't agree that the dynasty is over, but one thing that is undeniable is that the Patriots mystique took a severe blow. That game on Sunday still doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Tunescribe]

Hey everyone,

I just wanted to share an article that I wrote to wrap up the season for my Patriots site. Despite the title, I think you'll find it to be a very inspiring article. It's a good look back at the past six years for this team and a good way to lose some of the frustration we're all feeling after Sunday's loss.

Here's the address of the article. I tried posting the full text for you here, but I got an error message saying it was too long:

http://www.derok.net/patriots/new-england-colts-afc-championship.html

The criteria you use to declare the dynasty "officially over" is ambiguous, at best. But then, so is the very definition of "dynasty." I don't think anything is concluded/over/done/finished with this team until BB and Brady leave, Kraft sells the team, or the current regime posts back-to-back losing seasons.

 

[Patriot Missile]

I agree with the ending of that article. But for him to say there were no questionable calls in that game is pretty asinine. The alleged faceguarding by Hobb'sand the holding of Caldwell in the endzone was blatantly clear that this game could of had a different outcome. Injuries also became part of the equation. but they are part of the game.

I'll admit though this loss didn't sting as bad as Denver last season. To be honest I think I'm drinking too much Koolaid with sour grapes as an apetizer,but if a few calls might of gone our way we could of been looking at 5 superbowls in 7 years. Ofcourse we've also benefited from some breaks ourselves, so in the end it all evens out. They won and we lost,end of story

I liked the end of the article because I truly believe that this team will do what it takes to get younger and faster and be better than last year. I'm uncertain how they are going to go about it. Samuel,Warren,Graham,Brown and Dillon. If we are lucky we will keep 3 of these guys and I don't think it will be in that sequence either. All I know is somehow,some way this team will climb the mountain and battle again.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

The overtime win in Miami happened in 2003, not 2002. Save for that, this is a good read. It made me feel a little better. I don't agree that the dynasty is over, but one thing that is undeniable is that the Patriots mystique took a severe blow. That game on Sunday still doesn't make sense to me.

That was only because the Patriots did the seemingly impossible (which, if you think about it, is an oxymoron in and of itself).

I think it's so shocking because it's only the second time the Belichick/Brady Pats have brought a lead into the fourth quarter and lost the game, although, to be blunt, given how bad the team seemed to be faring, it's almost a miracle that it wasn't an utter massacre by the Colts.* Undoubtedly losses like this will happen again--but I don't think it'll happen very often under the current regime.

Then again, it also begs the question of what "the Patriots mystique" is. After last season, let alone last Sunday, I think the "mystique" of the seemingly invincible teams of 2003 and 2004 is certainly dead and buried. What I see now, though, is what's been there for the last six seasons: the most consistent team in football (I'm speaking long-term here, not week-to-week), one that manages to win far more games than it should given how few "stars" it has, how much attrition it's suffered, and how little credit it's given by the pundits.

[*BTW--my guess is--and I admit it's only speculation here--is that the flu bug that "hit" the team this weekend was more like a sledgehammer than a flyswatter.]

 

[Armen Da Pats Fan]

Good article, DeRok...it's obvious you put some work and thought into it and I respect that...

However, I have a different slant on this...

By their very nature and definition of the word itself, dynasties never die. They are only born.

The very act of becoming a dynasty grants immortality.

It's like being a marine. There is no such as an "ex-marine" and there is no such thing as an "ex-dynasty". Semper Fi!

In sports, there is the Yankees Dynasty, Celtics Dynasty, Canadiens Dynasty, Steelers Dynasty, 49ers Dynasty, Cowboys Dynasty, Patriots Dynasty, Packers Dynasty...

Each dynasty may occur within its given epoch, but it never dies when the next one takes over. It only retires.

Have the Patriots reached retirement of their dynasty? As was mentioned earlier by other posters here, I wouldn't put them put them out to pasture just yet.

Consider the past seven years of the franchise:

2001 - AFC East Champion; Super Bowl Champion
2002 - Missed playoffs (lost division championship on a tie-breaker to Jets @ 9-7)
2003 - AFC East Champion; Super Bowl Champion
2004 - AFC East Champion; Super Bowl Champion
2005 - AFC East Champion; Divisional Round of Playoffs
2006 - AFC East Champion; Conference Championship Round of Playoffs

Note to the rest of the NFL & especially the AFC East: Dismiss them at your own risk!

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Sorry bud but when you put it out there you're asking for it.

Don't quit your day job, and I'm assuming after reading this that you are a fan and you have one.

If you feel compelled to write about a sport, try NASCAR - it goes around and around in circles and eventually they wave a checkered flag just to make the nonsense stop. Which is about what you ended up doing.

And you are dead wrong about the dynasty - those span decades with championship seasons bookending years of consistently competitive teams. This HOFHC/QB tandem still has several prime years in front of it and a track record proving that even in a transitional season they can somehow consistently remain competitive - something no other championship team has been able to sustain in the salary cap era.

 

[Patriot Missile]

One more thing to add. How can a dynasty be dead when we just lost the AFC Championship game?

 

[Rob0729]

Although I think the Dynasty label is thrown around too liberally. I think there was only one true dynasty in this town and that is the Celtics. But I don't think the 49ers, Steelers, or Cowboys were dynasties either.

But in the watered down NFL version of dynasties,I think it is too early to declare the Pats' dynasty over. The Montana led 49ers went two years between their first (1981) and second (1984) titles and then waited another three years to get their third (1988). And let's not forget that there was four years in between their fourth (1989) and fifth (1994) Super Bowl. So if we get a Super Bowl title next season, we would have gotten four Super Bowl titles faster than the 49ers took to get three.

So how can we honestly say the dynasty is over when we have another three years to get our fourth Super Bowl title as fast as the 80s 49ers did. The 49ers dynasty was five Super Bowls over a 13 year span. We still have plenty of time to match that Dynasty.

 

[PatsFan24]

remember the steelers won two in a row, did not make it back the next two years, then won two more.

 

[pats1]

"End of an Era."

Don't think so. Nice try though.

If they win next year it's not a second dynasty. It's the same old team, the same old "dynasty" that came just a few plays short the year before.

 

[PF1996]

Sorry, but this dynasty that never really was is dead. Brady isn't getting any better. The coaching since Weis and Romeo left has been AVERAGE - tackling has deteriorated, in game adjustments has deteriorated, creativity and flexibility have deteriorated. Our drafts have been AVERAGE at best. We can't even get a stop or a first down to keep a fourth quarter lead. The flu/missing players isn't a good enough excuse because those factors were KNOWN leading up to the game. Therefore there should have been a plan in place to account for those effects and there was not. The Pats should have been going for their 4th straight SB - they have beaten themselves the last two years and THAT is the best proof that the dynasty is dead. The Pats that won in '01, '03, '04 wouldn't have beaten themselves.

 

[patriotspride]

Hey everyone,

I just wanted to share an article that I wrote to wrap up the season for my Patriots site. Despite the title, I think you'll find it to be a very inspiring article. It's a good look back at the past six years for this team and a good way to lose some of the frustration we're all feeling after Sunday's loss.

Here's the address of the article. I tried posting the full text for you here, but I got an error message saying it was too long:

http://www.derok.net/patriots/new-england-colts-afc-championship.html

why would anybody want to read somthing with a that garbage title and why would anybody think the pats run is over when bb pioli and brady are still with the team sorry ill pass.

 

[patriotspride]

Sorry, but this dynasty that never really was is dead. Brady isn't getting any better. The coaching since Weis and Romeo left has been AVERAGE - tackling has deteriorated, in game adjustments has deteriorated, creativity and flexibility have deteriorated. Our drafts have been AVERAGE at best. We can't even get a stop or a first down to keep a fourth quarter lead. The flu/missing players isn't a good enough excuse because those factors were KNOWN leading up to the game. Therefore there should have been a plan in place to account for those effects and there was not. The Pats should have been going for their 4th straight SB - they have beaten themselves the last two years and THAT is the best proof that the dynasty is dead. The Pats that won in '01, '03, '04 wouldn't have beaten themselves.

if thats the case why were they just a 3rd and four from the sb.if it was truly over we wouldnt have been in the playoffs .what the pats did this year is more proof that the run is far from over .

 

[WestPat]

Sorry, but this dynasty that never really was is dead. Brady isn't getting any better. The coaching since Weis and Romeo left has been AVERAGE - tackling has deteriorated, in game adjustments has deteriorated, creativity and flexibility have deteriorated. Our drafts have been AVERAGE at best. We can't even get a stop or a first down to keep a fourth quarter lead. The flu/missing players isn't a good enough excuse because those factors were KNOWN leading up to the game. Therefore there should have been a plan in place to account for those effects and there was not. The Pats should have been going for their 4th straight SB - they have beaten themselves the last two years and THAT is the best proof that the dynasty is dead. The Pats that won in '01, '03, '04 wouldn't have beaten themselves.

your post is full of silly rants, but Brady isn't getting better takes the cake, he had a QB rating of 87 this season with the WRs he had to work with, he is 29, and his QB skills are getting better and better, and when a team with supposedly "less" talent reached the AFCCG, then coaching was great IMO.
and what would you have done genius, when when your 2st, 2nd, and 3rd stringers were on the sidelines on defense?
some people think it's easy to get to the SB , and some think it's easy to win it...NEWSFLASH..it's NOT!!..just ask Dan Marino

 

[oldskool138]

Although I think the Dynasty label is thrown around too liberally. I think there was only one true dynasty in this town and that is the Celtics. But I don't think the 49ers, Steelers, or Cowboys were dynasties either.

Hey! The Red Sox were a dynasty from 1901-1918!

 

[sieglo]

I'd just like to point out that it required Manning (a future first ballot HOFer, a guy who will retire with record stats in almost every major QB category, and who may be technically the best QB to ever play the game) to put together the best half of football in his career to beat the Pats.... And we were still just one play away, even though we were completely depleted defensively for a variety of reasons.