Frank Clark: Patriots Dynasty Dead...Chiefs "New Dynasty"

SHOWTIME15 · Feb 3, 2020

PATSYLICIOUS said:
If there was any recent sb team I would have thought was even worthy of ‘potential dynasty’ talk it was the 2013 seahawks. They never made it back,

SB 49? But you are right about the Seahawks. I thought the 2013 Seahawks were the best single season team of the 2010s along with the 2016 Patriots.

TB_Helmet · Feb 3, 2020

PATSYLICIOUS said:
If there was any recent sb team I would have thought was even worthy of ‘potential dynasty’ talk it was the 2013 seahawks. They never made it back, having to finally pay Wilson was a factor. Chiefs will have the same problem soon and I wouldn’t be suprised if they dont win again for a while even though Mahomes will keep them in the hunt.

Having to pay Wilson was a factor, but the real reason they never became a dynasty was that we ripped their souls out. They lost to us and imploded in a sea of infighting, blame, and heartbreak. Meanwhile we used their soul to grow stronger, we needed every last bit of it to come back down 25 two years later.

mgcolby · Feb 3, 2020

PatsFanNM said:
I think it's good for us to realize how insufferable the Pats have been all these years -- we're now on the receiving end. No fun at all!

Fortunately, these things have a way of working themselves out. Only one team ends up in the AFC Championship Gave over and over again. This year has been a huge aberration!

Maybe the fans found watching the Pats in the AFCCG every year or in the SB on average every other year. However, I don't recall anyone on the Pats in 2001 claiming they are going to be the next dynasty. As a matter of fact, only one player, that I know of claimed "tonight a dynasty will be born". How prophetic, unfortunately for him he had the teams mixed up.

But the Colts thought it was their "turn" in 2006, Seahawks in 2014 etc...it goes on and on. And people keep repeating history. I don't think its apples to apples here.

PatsFanInVa · Feb 3, 2020

Dynasties are best proclaimed after they are achieved. Ask Ricky Prohl. By the way, 2 in 3 years counted if you were the Rams, and they couldn't manage it.

Ross12 · Feb 3, 2020

mgcolby said:
Things that not only the fans and media tend to overlook, but apparently the players too. Remember when the Seahawks were going to be good for the next decade? Then they had to pay Russel Wilson and suddenly couldn't afford the legion of Boom anymore?

Its unreal, that people haven't figured this out yet, or at least keep falling for it. Team x (06 Chargers and 13 Seahawks come to mind) has a great draft that happens to include a true franchise QB, in year 2 & 3 of that draft they are either very good and go deep in the playoffs, causing the fans and media to anoint them, but ultimately fall short of a SB victory or the SB all together (Chargers). QB gets paid and then suddenly they are still a playoff caliber team, but not the super bowl caliber team they were thought to be prior to the QB eating 35% of the salary cap. Or like the Hawks they win the SB go back to another one and lose and then the ride is over, becoming just another team that pushes into the playoffs with a shot.

The Chiefs are now at the point where they are probably forced to renegotiate Mahomes. He just finished his 3rd year and I can't imagine he will be playing for his current salary when he takes his first snap of the season in 2020. Which will be interesting to watch, does Mahomes take a team friendly deal to maximize the talent on the roster or does he try to break the bank. From the way he seems to handle himself, I think he tries to middle it. But I can't imagine an argument, other than "hey look at how Brady handled contracts" the Chiefs could make to keep him from being the highest paid QB in the league.

That is my biggest fear about paying Brady so much this year and next (assuming the new CBA won't drastically up the Cap).

I think there’s about a negative 300% chance that Mahomes does not start the year as the highest paid QB by a wide margin. Winning the Super Bowl probably made his new contract even bigger.

PATSYLICIOUS · Feb 3, 2020

TommyBrady12 said:
SB 49? But you are right about the Seahawks. I thought the 2013 Seahawks were the best single season team of the 2010s along with the 2016 Patriots.

I meant to say they never won another one. If someone told me that they wouldn’t get another ring after they had just mopped the floor with the 13 Broncos, another very good team, id have been suprised.

aluminum seats · Feb 3, 2020

TB_Helmet said:
by definition you can't have overlapping dynasties

Sure you can. Twenty year stretch, two teams win 12-14 games every year and each win two Super Bowls, they’re not dynasties?

But the bigger point is how the use of the word “dynasty” is so undefined, it’s just everyone talking past one another. The Chiefs’ dynasty? Some team has to win every year. They have to. Winning one is just happenstance.

mgcolby · Feb 3, 2020

Ross12 said:
I think there’s about a negative 300% chance that Mahomes does not start the year as the highest paid QB by a wide margin. Winning the Super Bowl probably made his new contract even bigger.

And rightfully so...but he also comes across as a kid that wants to win and probably realizes his contract will affect the overall talent on the roster. I can see him taking a few million less to help the roster. But I am probably putting to much faith in the kid and his camp. Either way he deserves to be paid the highest. Hard to argue he isn't the most talented QB in the game right now...

Ice_Ice_Brady · Feb 3, 2020

The Chiefs have the best chance to build a dynasty of any team in the league. Mahomes is a generational talent. But I heard the exact same thing about Aaron Rodgers, and his decisions (highest paid player in football, as fame accumulated became a d-bag and alienated everyone, insisted the team spends about half their cap space on him and a handful of skill players) have led to a crashing and burning.

I’m sure KC will call any contract with Mahomes “team-friendly” and “cap friendly” but mostly that’s largely BS. They can probably kick the can down the road and have 2-3 years max with some clever maneuvering, and then hail him when he restructures, but the cap is the cap and you can’t avoid a massive hit. If he signs for somewhere around $30M I’ll be impressed that he values winning over breaking the bank.

There was a recent story that Scott Pioli talked about with Brady where he said, to paraphrase, if I can’t live on this ungodly amount of money, I have a problem. That was before he met Gisele.

carmelo15 · Feb 3, 2020

Ice_Ice_Brady said:
The Chiefs have the best chance to build a dynasty of any team in the league. Mahomes is a generational talent. But I heard the exact same thing about Aaron Rodgers, and his decisions (highest paid player in football, as fame accumulated became a d-bag and alienated everyone, insisted the team spends about half their cap space on him and a handful of skill players) have led to a crashing and burning.

I’m sure KC will call any contract with Mahomes “team-friendly” and “cap friendly” but mostly that’s largely BS. They can probably kick the can down the road and have 2-3 years max with some clever maneuvering, and then hail him when he restructures, but the cap is the cap and you can’t avoid a massive hit. If he signs for somewhere around $30M I’ll be impressed that he values winning over breaking the bank.

There was a recent story that Scott Pioli talked about with Brady where he said, to paraphrase, if I can’t live on this ungodly amount of money, I have a problem. That was before he met Gisele.

even if mahomes doesn’t take a record breaking deal no way he settles for anything less than top 3 salary. Kelce/Hill have to get paid in the next 2 years there both gonna be top 3 at there positions add Chris Jones whose getting paid this year. That’s a lot of money to 4 guys there gonna have to pick between kelce/Hill the minute that happens that offense won’t be explosive anymore. This isn’t a team that dominated there we to a ring they were down every game now try that after losing players.

oh add Fisher, Mathieu, and Sorenson have to get paid by next offseason.

Pat the Pats Fan · Feb 3, 2020

They won two after 50 years....and they’re a dynasty. Heck that means the jets are halfway there.

TB_Helmet · Feb 3, 2020

aluminum seats said:
Sure you can. Twenty year stretch, two teams win 12-14 games every year and each win two Super Bowls, they’re not dynasties?

But the bigger point is how the use of the word “dynasty” is so undefined, it’s just everyone talking past one another. The Chiefs’ dynasty? Some team has to win every year. They have to. Winning one is just happenstance.

I agree that obviously “dynasty” has no set definition, and it’s an interesting discussion to try to wrangle it. But I personally would not call the example you give “dynasty” in any sense of the term. If two teams played each other six times in a row in the Super Bowl and each won three, I think mostly people would be hard pressed to call either of those teams dynasties. There can be only one.

Vindicate · Feb 3, 2020

AFC as a whole doesn't have to be weak, I thinks it's actually more important that your division is weak. And, well, the AFC West is... At best showing some potential? Maybe? I mean, it's Raiders, River-less Chargers, Everything-less Broncos and The Chiefs.

An easy division, with nearly guaranteed wins, is a great starting spot. The Chiefs have the personnel (as of right now, obviously contract negotiations might change that) and a top 3 coach to take advantage.

The Chiefs have been a tough team for awhile now, even without Mahomes, because of Reid. 2014/2015 they fielded a top 5 defense because Reid, like BB, knows how to build a team around their strengths.

Some things they'll battle is if one of their divisional rivals randomly gets great again (this seemed to not happen all that often post 2010 for AFCE, correct me if I'm wrong), injury-riddled seasons, drafting low, contract negotiations, and how the ball can bounce in either direction any given Sunday.

I don't think it's wild to say that they're the best candidate for a dynasty at the moment. But it will take a lot. And honestly, wtf else is Clark supposed to say? Dude just won big and made some good plays.

LuRkeR1978 · Feb 3, 2020

How's that Seattle Dynasty doing?

Flash · Feb 3, 2020

As long as Mahomes and Tyreek Hill are playing together, it is more likely than not that they will be the team to beat in the forseeable future.

bormio · Feb 3, 2020

Like us last year, KC had really good health this year. Lot of things went right for them, including being able to come back from 3 double digit deficits in the playoffs. That is not likely to happen again for a while. Winning the SB is hard, and right now they have to deal with the prolonged distraction of winning it.

SHOWTIME15 · Feb 3, 2020

bormio said:
Like us last year, KC had really good health this year. Lot of things went right for them, including being able to come back from 3 double digit deficits in the playoffs. That is not likely to happen again for a while. Winning the SB is hard, and right now they have to deal with the prolonged distraction of winning it.

Their biggest acquisitions were hiring Steve Spagnuolo, who is an underrated DC, and signing Tyrann Mattieu.

aluminum seats · Feb 3, 2020

TB_Helmet said:
I agree that obviously “dynasty” has no set definition, and it’s an interesting discussion to try to wrangle it. But I personally would not call the example you give “dynasty” in any sense of the term. If two teams played each other six times in a row in the Super Bowl and each won three, I think mostly people would be hard pressed to call either of those teams dynasties. There can be only one.

Yeah, that’s why I said 20 years. I think they would have dueling dynasties. One of the reasons that the word is so wildly overused is that people don’t take the time element into account enough I don’t think. A DYNASTY should be at least like 10 years of sustained excellence.

bormio · Feb 3, 2020

People do not give the Steelers of the first 15 years of this century enough credit (maybe cause the Pats have owned them). 2 SB wins, could have been a 3rd (in 6 years in 2010). Plus AFCCG losses to the Pats in ‘01, ‘04 and ‘16. If not for the Pats ... the Colts were not “hands down” the other team of the 2000’s decade.

TB_Helmet · Feb 3, 2020

aluminum seats said:
Yeah, that’s why I said 20 years. I think they would have dueling dynasties. One of the reasons that the word is so wildly overused is that people don’t take the time element into account enough I don’t think. A DYNASTY should be at least like 10 years of sustained excellence.

Fair enough. Probably only two dynasties in NFL history then? Us and the 49ers (barely). And unlikely to ever have one again given the salary cap era.

Frank Clark: Patriots Dynasty Dead...Chiefs "New Dynasty"

No asterisks

In the Starting Line-Up

Woohoo, I'm a VIP!!!

PatsFans.com Supporter

Moderator

PatsFans.com Supporter

Pro Bowl Player

Woohoo, I'm a VIP!!!

I heard 10,000 whispering and nobody listening

In the Starting Line-Up

PatsFans.com Supporter

In the Starting Line-Up

2nd Team Getting Their First Start

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

No asterisks

Pro Bowl Player

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

In the Starting Line-Up

Similar threads