- Joined
- Sep 13, 2004
- Messages
- 58,986
- Reaction score
- 12,773
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.Don't mind Felger, he's just upset because he's a near-journalist.
For Felger it is all about the ratings, which remind me aren't they pretty poor... wonder how long it will take for ESPN to continue to fund this fool and realize that he is not able to make inroads in this market???
Wasn't Felger the ring leader of the "The only thing Tomase did wrong was say Walsh filmed the walkthrough rather than observed and if he made that one word change his article would have been correct" brigade? Before Tomase was proven wrong, Felger was on the "filming signals was no big deal, but the videotaping of the walkthrough would be a big deal" kick. Felger was pretty vocal on the subject.
You're right, I'm taking away space that would otherwise have been occupied by somebody complaining about a totally different member of the media
When there is a triviality requirement of "your post must be this high to ride" someone please send me a PM, I must have missed the memo. We should probably get back to discussing Coach's new lady friend (and the awesome breakdown subtheme of MILF vs. Cougar) because that's a much more valuable use of bandwidth.
I don't really care that you made the thread.
It just seems like an awfully odd thing to get upset about.
"Near-dynasty" instead of "dynasty"?
RALLY THE PITCHFORKS!!!!
…
A fair assessment - I'd give the nod to 3 because it happens so infrequently, and because there is a level of "dominance" for most of the teams that fall into a "near" category (one could actually argue Dallas as the biggest exception as they fell from favor a bit after the early 90's even in comparison to the late 2000s Pats). But, to me, that puts the Pats on top b/c we have truly dominated the 2000's even though we are 3/4 in SBs with a craptacular loss in the AFCCG to boot, and you can caveat the whole shebang with the idea that we've done it in the era of free agency, which to me was thought impossible before BB/Pioli arrived on scene.I was actually under the impression that the 49ers and the Steelers were the only true dynasties, because they were able to win 4 super bowls within a single decade, which seems to be the cutoff.
I would consider Dallas another 'near-Dynasty', although some may consider them one because they've won 5 in total.
I was actually under the impression that the 49ers and the Steelers were the only true dynasties, because they were able to win 4 super bowls within a single decade, which seems to be the cutoff.
I would consider Dallas another 'near-Dynasty', although some may consider them one because they've won 5 in total.
Felger is a Tool! And in other news, the sky is blue.:rocker:
So if you agree with the idiot columnist it's a good citation for your opinion of a dynasty, but if not, it is ridiculous and commenting on it is getting ones panties in a bunch? OK, I guess I see where you're coming from...I tend to agree with Bob Ryan's assessment [blah blah blah] then the Patriots are NOT a dynasty [blah blah]
Anyway, this thread seems ridiculous for two reasons: [blah] someone is actually getting their panties in a bunch over an idiot columnist calling the Patriots anything but a FULL FLEDGED DYNASTY BABY. Ugh.
So if you agree with the idiot columnist it's a good citation for your opinion of a dynasty, but if not, it is ridiculous and commenting on it is getting ones panties in a bunch? OK, I guess I see where you're coming from...
Not at all...to summarize my previous post (because you clearly think I was just blah-ing you to death): 1) the Patriots are, in fact, not a dynasty according to the actual, you know, definition of the word; 2) whether you agree or disagree with what I just wrote, why is it a big deal that some ****** said that they were just a *gasp* 'near-dynasty'? Seriously, I understand the hatred geared toward Felger...he's a complete douche. But to express shock and disgust at the fact that he doesn't consider the Patriots to be a 100%, certified 'dynasty' seems a bit outrageous to me.
Haha...well done. I enjoy pettiness, and I'm also bored, so we have a few things in common.
I just want to point out that the ONLY reason I brought up Bob Ryan was that it was the first time I had really heard that stance taken, and after thinking about the way he interpreted it, and reading an actual definition, it made perfect sense...the definition that I cited is, as you see below, from an actual dictionary, not from Ryan...sorry if I was confusing in that regard.
Also, regarding the definition, I do have to say that my point there stands: if you interpret the definition of dynasty to mean something along the lines of (straight from dictionary.com--the American Heritage Dictionary definition) 'A family or group that maintains power for several generations', then consider the 'group' part to include sports teams, you have the definition I was refering to...to me, the only teams that fit that description, imo, are the three I mentioned.
I also wanted to mention that the entire purpose of my first post was to back up Felger and mention that it isn't a cut-and-dried case of the Pats being a dynasty, that in fact there is a very credible reason to believe that they AREN'T a dynasty.
And finally, my high horse ran off on me a long time ago, I much prefer my trusty, stationary soapbox.