This is why i argued that the Warriors are nothing like the Patriots before the finals started. If Kerr and Curry are the equivalent of TB&BB, they are 1-6 in their last 7 Finals games without Durant. 8-1 with him. Without Durant taking the shortcut to titles, this is never a dynasty.
The Raptors are a lot better team than the Warriors minus Durant.
In one sense you are absolutely correct that they are nowhere near the Patriots dynastic level. But I root for them because what they've done in basketball is also incredibly hard to do, even if it hasn't been close to as long as the Patriots. They have a lot of players who could have much bigger roles on other teams (or at least, a lot of these guys could prior to recently when they've started to decline) but have bought into the collective good concept, which is hard to find in the diva NBA. People crap on them all the time, but I think what they've done is astonishing, to play as a team, without egos, when most NBA superstars are the most jealous, me-first, prima donas you'll find.
They've also revolutionized the way the game is played in many ways with their three-point loving, small ball emphasis (and Draymond Green's very unique role), which has been copied by so many teams now.
While your stat is true about their Finals record splits, you also skipped over that they won the 2014-15 championship without Durant and followed up with a 73-9 record and a game away from cementing the greatest team in the expansion era by resume. Curry played on a bum ankle throughout the playoffs; not trying to "make excuses," but this team was historically great even without him. This year's playoffs, they just swept the WCF without him as well.
I don't think it's fair to say they took a "shortcut" to titles because they signed KD. Durant joined the team and they had the cap space to sign him. Like the Patriots, they've played within the same salary cap as every other team. I don't know if they would have won the last two championships without Durant, but it's certainly not out of the question. They went 12-1 in the playoffs two years ago and then last year wiped the floor with the Cavs. With Durant, they are a super duper team; without Durant they are a super team. They clearly are not - at this moment - playing at their peak for multiple reasons. It's not realistic to expect any professional sports team to never go into a funk. As I posted a little while ago, their depth is a concern; the Raptors are also playing out of their minds.
I don't think anyone is comparing Kerr-Curry to Brady-Belichick. In the four major sports, there's the Patriots and everyone else. The Warriors have put together one heck of a run, and even if Durant leaves (I highly doubt Klay will), you'll probably have a team that, like the Patriots, will be in the mix year after year. To me, it's more about Thompson-Curry, the Splash Brothers, if you're looking for a duo who is carving out a place in NBA history.
As Pats fans we all know how difficult is to win a championship and the bar is set so high. If often comes down to which team is healthiest. But again, no sane person is comparing the Warriors to the Patriots. Maybe the 2014-present Warriors is a good comparison to the 2014-present Patriots in terms of success. The Patriots have dominated for almost twenty years. End of debate.
I hope the Warriors win, but if not, 3 titles and 5 Finals appearances in the 2010s, same as the Patriots. The Patriots should be team of the decade since they've been elite since the very beginning, have a wider gap between second place, haven't missed the playoffs, have 8 consecutive byes/ conference title games, etc.
One more Toronto please. 
