Pats' Dynasty starts & ends with The Raiders

[TheFlyingWedge]

How many times has the Patriots dynasty been predicted to die according to some "analyst"? I think it's happened every offseason in 15 straight years...

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

Yes, it had to be the GOAT. There isn't a single Patriots championship team that had enough margin for error that you could remove the greatest QB of all time, replace him with someone who is pretty good, and still win.

Drew Bledsoe was a pretty good QB. And he was 5-13 under Belichick.

I don't think Tom hit his peak before '05, and winning three in four years is asking a bit much. Whatever, we'll never know.

But if you asked me in '05 if I thought it'd be ten years between titles, with Tom healthy for all but one, I'd have said no way.

 

[mosslost]

Tomlin, Elway, Oakland. They need to refocus.

Soon? Plus they are going to drop further this year.

 

[mosslost]

I am looking forward to the Game in Mexico City this season.

We'll see if the Pats can beat a really GOOD team for a change.

Steelers are better than Oakland.

 

[mosslost]

I feel the same way, but I still reserve the right to argue otherwise when it suits my interests.

I see the Patriots since 2001 as three distinct eras.

2001-06
2007-13
2014-present

Most posters on here tend to agree that at least 6 of the 7 Super Bowls in the Brady era could have gone either way. Let's assume for a moment that they Pats win all 7... If we have all 7 of those rings, does it all become one era or dynasty then? Bottom line is fluky thing happens both in wins and losses in some of our Super Bowls.

It's all one run/era/dynasty..

 

[AzorianPats]

 

[rookBoston]

Oakland did not start the dynasty. They're just more roadkill along the way.

If any team gets credit it has to be the Jets. First when Kraft traded a 1st round pick to secure the GOAT football coach, and then when Mo Lewis cleared the depth chart for the GOAT QB.

Plus, then, Mangini as HC of the Jets started the "if you can beat them, undermine them" strategy, which found apostles in Indianapolis and Baltimore. You can't have a hero story without a villain.

I feel nothing but vague goodwill for Oakland. I hope they continue to improve around their young core.

 

[lurker1965]

It would help to stop pretending this franchise was not mostly competitive and legitimate since its inception in 1960 through 1992.

Seriously? OK, 1963, 1976, 1978, 1985, 1986, are we counting the Bledsoe/Parcells/Carol era or just the red coat era. OK, I'll give you 1994 1996 1997 and 1998 (It is a Trojan horse, beware )
1986- 5 playoff appearances leave 21 non-playoff years for the "competitive" team. OK let's use up to the Parcells/Bledsoe/Carol era. 1998-9 playoff appearances since 1960 is 31 non-playoff years for the "competitive" team.
Maybe using made the playoffs is too harsh, let's use over .500
My count is 21 of 40 seasons until Brady. My count maybe off and slightly under 50% for going 50% means the "competitive" team had aspirations of mediocrity.

Before Brady the highlights were losing in a "close" Super Bowl, being blown out in a Super Bowl, using a snowplow -there were no rules against it , getting screwed by refs is 1976, and a guy getting paralyzed.

Yeah everybody is "pretending."

 

[TommyD4207]

Steelers are better than Oakland.

Eh.

I dunno about that. Their defenses are pretty equally terrible. Oakland at least has some youth on their side, and a better HC.

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

Seriously? OK, 1963, 1976, 1978, 1985, 1986, are we counting the Bledsoe/Parcells/Carol era or just the red coat era. OK, I'll give you 1994 1996 1997 and 1998 (It is a Trojan horse, beware )
1986- 5 playoff appearances leave 21 non-playoff years for the "competitive" team. OK let's use up to the Parcells/Bledsoe/Carol era. 1998-9 playoff appearances since 1960 is 31 non-playoff years for the "competitive" team.
Maybe using made the playoffs is too harsh, let's use over .500
My count is 21 of 40 seasons until Brady. My count maybe off and slightly under 50% for going 50% means the "competitive" team had aspirations of mediocrity.

Before Brady the highlights were losing in a "close" Super Bowl, being blown out in a Super Bowl, using a snowplow -there were no rules against it , getting screwed by refs is 1976, and a guy getting paralyzed.

Yeah everybody is "pretending."

My statement is astronomically closer to reality than the dismissive, league/media concurring, denigrating statements made right here by fake Patriot fans about the team's on-field performance prior to Kraft's purchase. Yes, it did have its share of bottom-dwelling seasons ('72, '81, '90 come to mind).

But the Buccaneers, Cardinals, Falcons, Saints, Jets, Bengals, Lions, Bills, Oilers, Eagles, Rams, Chargers, Browns, Seahawks, and Chiefs had maybe a title or two in the old AFL, but post-merger none of them could be labeled better than the Patriots in terms of consistent winning and being legitimately World Champion material. Further, the Colts, Bears, Giants and Packers were terrible for most of their non-title winning seasons. The Broncos and Vikings won four conference titles each; but were simply not competitive in their Super Bowl appearances. Yes, emphasis on the one or two best seasons in each decade isn't entirely indicative, but the Patriots' run from 1974-88 is more impressive if you take into account the AFC's superiority during most of that time.

So, Billy Sullivan can be described as a financially inept guy who did make some good decisions: Holovak, Fairbanks, even Ron Meyer (unless you'd like to erase Scar from the equation-no real fan in their right mind would).

Bob Kraft can be described as a financially astute guy who made some critically important, correct decisions, but who allowed himself to be consumed solely with being better than Sullivan, blinding himself to the reality of the league and media's malevolently biased treatment of the team, preventing it from taking its rightful place alongside the great dynasties in the modern history of the sport.

 

[Tony2046]

Rams one certainly did.. Just ask Ricky Proehl....

Poor Proehl. Caught the last TD in two Super Bowls against the Pats and lost both.

 

[Tony2046]

Definition of DYNASTY

The entire definition of a dynasty is that it includes changeover. There are no separate Patriot dynasties here; they've never gotten bad. 2001-whenever they slow down is dynasty, not multiple, per the definition of the word.

Chinese dynasties changed when the emporer changed or was overthrown. As far as I'm concerned BB and Brady are the dynasty.

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

Chinese dynasties changed when the emporer changed or was overthrown. As far as I'm concerned BB and Brady are the dynasty.

This is really gonna piss off our opponents; but I see titles in our future after both have retired. As long as their successors are wisely chosen, and the environment remains the same. The Patriots are light years ahead of everybody else in that department.

 

[BobDigital]

Well the Raiders will be the team to give the Pats the most trouble over the next few years. They are going to be what everyone thought the Colts would be with Luck.

If not for bad luck they would have grabbed the #2 seed and seen us in the AFFCG I have no doubt. That is how i think it plays out this year.

The Pats will likely see the Raiders 1-2 times a year from here on out.

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

Chinese dynasties changed when the emporer changed or was overthrown. As far as I'm concerned BB and Brady are the dynasty.

"So sorry, but I cannot reveal successor to Brady Dynasty prior to its existence. You wish me to spoil all the fun?"

-Confucius