Dynasty...did it start in 96?

[NEfan32]

Ok, they didn't win, and there were some rough years from 96 to 01, but thats 5 years, and I am pretty sure, most teams would be glad to go to 2 SB in 5 years. If you look at it, since 96...

96-NE
97
98
99
00
01-NE
02
03-NE
04-NE
05
06-NE AFCCG
07-NE AFCCG

Thats 6 times in 11 years we have been to the AFCCG or SB. Not to Mention 85, which is 2 SB in 11 years, which some teams haven't done.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Ok, they didn't win, and there were some rough years from 96 to 01, but thats 5 years, and I am pretty sure, most teams would be glad to go to 2 SB in 5 years. If you look at it, since 96...

96-NE
97
98
99
00
01-NE
02
03-NE
04-NE
05
06-NE AFCCG
07-NE AFCCG

Thats 6 times in 11 years we have been to the AFCCG or SB. Not to Mention 85, which is 2 SB in 11 years, which some teams haven't done.

Over a 12 year stretch, that is pretty damn good. Look at the 49ers from 80-92. The Pats are right there.

80
81 SB
82
83 NFCCG
84 SB
85
86
87
88 SB
89 SB
90
91
92 NFCCG

 

[apricissimus]

Ok, they didn't win, and there were some rough years from 96 to 01, but thats 5 years, and I am pretty sure, most teams would be glad to go to 2 SB in 5 years. If you look at it, since 96...

96-NE
97
98
99
00
01-NE
02
03-NE
04-NE
05
06-NE AFCCG
07-NE AFCCG

Thats 6 times in 11 years we have been to the AFCCG or SB. Not to Mention 85, which is 2 SB in 11 years, which some teams haven't done.

I think continuity of players and coaches is more important than just a year by year tally of what the team has done in determining when the dynasty began. And more importantly, I think any discussion of "dynasty" must include SB victories. Therefore the dynasty began in 2001, no earlier.

No one ever called the Buffalo Bills or the Atlanta Braves a dynasty.

 

[NEfan32]

I think continuity of players and coaches is more important than just a year by year tally of what the team has done in determining when the dynasty began. And more importantly, I think any discussion of "dynasty" must include SB victories. Therefore the dynasty began in 2001, no earlier.

No one ever called the Buffalo Bills or the Atlanta Braves a dynasty.

True, my point was that the success has been since 96, it isn't like we can out of nowhere in 01. That being said, I agree with you.

 

[apricissimus]

True, my point was that the success has been since 96, it isn't like we can out of nowhere in 01. That being said, I agree with you.

I do see what you mean. I've always seen the Parcells/Bledsoe years as an essential stepping stone to where the Patriots are now.

And Pete Carroll? Just bump along the road, I suppose.

 

[mgteich]

If you go back to 1996, you might as well go back to January 1994. Before that we about to lose the team. After that, the team sold out every seat and won the division in Kraft's first year. We've never looked back.

For me, Belichick joined the team in January 2000 with a plan to build a dysasty, and so he has.

Ok, they didn't win, and there were some rough years from 96 to 01, but thats 5 years, and I am pretty sure, most teams would be glad to go to 2 SB in 5 years. If you look at it, since 96...

96-NE
97
98
99
00
01-NE
02
03-NE
04-NE
05
06-NE AFCCG
07-NE AFCCG

Thats 6 times in 11 years we have been to the AFCCG or SB. Not to Mention 85, which is 2 SB in 11 years, which some teams haven't done.

 

[xmarkd400x]

A sports dynasty, in my opinion (and I think most), is a run of excellence punctuated by championships. The Patriots from 96-00 were good and has some postseason success. The 2001-current Patriots are in a run of excellence punctuated by championships.

 

[Gumby]

The Dynasty did not start in 96......................HOWEVER, the TROY BROWN era did ....

 

[patsfan209]

Like others have replied, the Dynasty really started in 2001.

But don't forget in this run of success, the Patriots won 8 division titles since 1996. How many teams can make that claim in the last 12 years?

And its already 9 postseasons in the last 12 years also... when you include their Wild Card title in 1998.

 

[Lansdowne]

The seeds were planted when Parcells joined, that's for sure. Brought in Bledsoe, Law, Milloy, Bruschi, Vinatieri, McGinest... that core helped usher in the Belichick core of guys we're seeing today (Brady, Seymour, Warren, etc.)

 

[Lansdowne]

But don't forget in this run of success, the Patriots won 8 division titles since 1996. How many teams can make that claim in the last 12 years?

Let me expand on that, including stuff that has already been mentioned:

9 playoff appearances in 12 seasons
1 undefeated regular season
1 season with a losing record
5 playoff byes
8 appearances in the Divisional Playoffs
6 appearances in the Conference Championship
4 appearances in the Super Bowl (pending)

3 Super Bowl championships (pending)
4 AFC championships (pending)
8 AFC East championships

3 head coaches
a division title with each coach

129-63 regular season record (.672)
16-5 playoff record (.762) (pending)

No team has been better in that stretch.

 

[Amazedbyitallin07]

Over a 12 year stretch, that is pretty damn good. Look at the 49ers from 80-92. The Pats are right there.

80
81 SB
82
83 NFCCG
84 SB
85
86
87
88 SB
89 SB
90
91
92 NFCCG

San Fran went to the NFCCG in 1990 also.

What's really impressed me about the Patriots (and made me, admittedly, jump on the bandwagon) is the two years in 05 and 06 when they didn't fall off the map after winning two Super Bowls. People talk about those being down years, but even in 05 they won a playoffgame by 25 points. I live and grew up in western mass, which was half Giant country in the 90's, especially after they beat the Belichick and the boys beat the bills in 90. Giants were my #1 team for a long time, but I couldn'y help but root for the Patriots once they started to play awesome football.

 

[neuronet]

Don't include that traitor Parcells in this glory. The dynasty began with Belichick.

 

[marionbutts1995]

dynasty began the moment Mo Lewis injured Bledsoe. End of subject. or maybe the tuck rule game.

 

[Omega Supreme]

The dynasty started with Belichick for sure, but I'm not quite going to discount the years prior to him. Parcells helped bring the team up from being a complete laughingstock to being a perenial contender. Of course, the Pete Carroll years were pretty sketchy, but it's amazing to know that since 1996 the Pats have had only 1 losing season. There's a lot of teams who'd kill to be able to have that.

 

[Fahrenhype]

Yeah it began when Brady stepped in for Bledsoe. The team definitely had some success prior to the golden years but a dynasty is typically about winning it all. If it wasn't, you could consider the Eagles a dynasty in the first half of this decade.

 

[Maroney TD]

The dynasty was definately all BB but Parcell's planted the seed with the teams in the late 90's. Without Law, Milloy, Bruschi, Vinatieri, McGinest the Pats aren't a dynasty.

 

[Horace Ivory]

Let's also not forget that Parcells was the one who brought Belchick in which allowed Kraft to get to know him and eventually hire him. If Parcells doesn't already have a relationship with BB he is probably never our head coach.

That said, the dynasty started in '01.

 

[DonBlackmon55]

The dynasty was definately all BB but Parcell's planted the seed with the teams in the late 90's. Without Law, Milloy, Bruschi, Vinatieri, McGinest the Pats aren't a dynasty.

wrong ! bottomline without Brady there is no dynasty
Rest of the Parvells era or BB/Pioli era players were/are all supporting cast, but it is Brady that is the engine that makes it all happen.