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

[SHOWTIME15]

the literal point of my post is that dynasty possibilities shouldn’t start until a 2nd title is won because it takes atleast 3 to be a dynasty

Most NFL experts seem to think that 3 SBs within a short period of time is the benchmark to be one of the top dynasties...Packers (60s), Steelers (70s), Niners (80s), Cowboys (90s), and NE (2000s and 2010s) all satisfy this. Below this (but are still considered by many to be dynasties) are teams that won 3 SBs over a period that was more spread out. The 80s Redskins and 70s/80s Raiders fall in this bucket. I've never seen anyone say 2 SBs within a short time frame constitutes a dynasty.

 

[TheRainMaker]

I was wrong in the off-season predicting the Chiefs would not be better than the Pats and end up winning it all. I thought the Frank Clark signing was terrible along with the scheme change. While they weren’t world beaters, they were a lot better than I anticipated. The drafting of Mecole Hardman was a big boost to an already potent offense. They were able to overcome any deficit.

 

[carmelo15]

I was wrong in the off-season predicting the Chiefs would not be better than the Pats and end up winning it all. I thought the Frank Clark signing was terrible along with the scheme change. While they weren’t world beaters, they were a lot better than I anticipated. The drafting of Mecole Hardman was a big boost to an already potent offense. They were able to overcome any deficit.

We’d have beat them if we matched up

 

[fightingirish595]

I'm not arguing with your position, and I think you're on to something with the bold, but I do want to point out that what constitutes an NFL dynasty is a matter of opinion, and there's no rule requiring 3 titles.

I feel like it’s an unwritten rule. Maybe some people think you need more than 3 which is partially why I said atleast 3? I’ve never seen it been used with just 2 though

 

[aluminum seats]

I don't make the rules. The above is what is generally accepted by all football pundits

Most NFL experts seem to think that 3 SBs within a short period of time is the benchmark

You guys seem to be kind of deferential here to some mythical wisdom of NFL “pundits” and “experts.” Your opinions are just as valid as whatever these knucklehead “experts” think.

I’ve made my opinion clear that I think the word is WAY overused. Dynasties happen very rarely. I would even say that if any team requires too much agonizing over whether or not they’re a dynasty, they’re probably not.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

You guys seem to be kind of deferential here to some mythical wisdom of NFL “pundits” and “experts.” Your opinions are just as valid as whatever these knucklehead “experts” think.

I’ve made my opinion clear that I think the word is WAY overused. Dynasties happen very rarely. I would even say that if any team requires too much agonizing over whether or not they’re a dynasty, they’re probably not.

If the Pats of the early 2000s were a dynasty, which pretty much everyone here agreed before 2014, then the Packers, Steelers, Niners, and Cowboys also are dynasties because they meet the same criteria. If you want to argue that the Pats were never a dynasty, it's a different story. In my view, at a minimum, the teams I cited are dynasties.

 

[TheRainMaker]

We’d have beat them if we matched up

The same team that lost to Miami at home and then lost to the Titans a week later? Okay

 

[jimnance]

I'm not arguing with your position, and I think you're on to something with the bold, but I do want to point out that what constitutes an NFL dynasty is a matter of opinion, and there's no rule requiring 3 titles.

What constitutes a dynasty is NOT really a matter of opinion.
There is very general agreement by the vast majority of NFL experts ( coaches, players, front office, media) of what the NFL dynasties are/were. They are the ones I listed. And you know it. As usual,you're being your disingenuous self.
Since 1960, 60's Packers, 70's Steelers, 80's Niners, early 90s cowboys, 01-04 Patriots,14-18 Patriots and 01-18 Patriots( yes 3 Patriots dynasties).
Not even Joe Gibbs or Joe Thiesman considers the Redskins successful teams a dynasty.
So it may be a opinion, but it's a widely held opinion by people who know.
Fans opinions don't count for obvious reasons.
But,of course, you already knew this.
You're just being your usual, weird contrarian self.
I'm a Celtics fan but there's only been one C's dynasty. A Very very long one with Russell. As much as I love the Bird and Cowens C's, they weren't dynasties.
Raiders had a long run of great success but never a dynasty. Because not enough championships close enough together.
The 90's Yankees were the last mlb dynasty. Any knowledgeable sports fan knows what the dynasties were. There's virtually no debate about it.

 

[Deus Irae]

What constitutes a dynasty is NOT really a matter of opinion.

So it may be a opinion, but it's a widely held opinion by people who know.

Fans opinions don't count for obvious reasons.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

What constitutes a dynasty is NOT really a matter of opinion.
There is very general agreement by the vast majority of NFL experts ( coaches, players, front office, media) of what the NFL dynasties are/were. They are the ones I listed. And you know it. As usual,you're being your disingenuous self.
Since 1960, 60's Packers, 70's Steelers, 80's Niners, early 90s cowboys, 01-04 Patriots,14-18 Patriots and 01-18 Patriots( yes 3 Patriots dynasties).
Not even Joe Gibbs or Joe Thiesman considers the Redskins successful teams a dynasty.
So it may be a opinion, but it's a widely held opinion by people who know.
Fans opinions don't count for obvious reasons.
But,of course, you already knew this.
You're just being your usual, weird contrarian self.
I'm a Celtics fan but there's only been one C's dynasty. A Very very long one with Russell. As much as I love the Bird and Cowens C's, they weren't dynasties.
Raiders had a long run of great success but never a dynasty. Because not enough championships close enough together.
The 90's Yankees were the last mlb dynasty. Any knowledgeable sports fan knows what the dynasties were. There's virtually no debate about it.

If you find a definition of an NFL dynasty in the League Handbook, please let us know...

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

What constitutes a dynasty is NOT really a matter of opinion.
There is very general agreement by the vast majority of NFL experts ( coaches, players, front office, media) of what the NFL dynasties are/were. They are the ones I listed. And you know it. As usual,you're being your disingenuous self.
Since 1960, 60's Packers, 70's Steelers, 80's Niners, early 90s cowboys, 01-04 Patriots,14-18 Patriots and 01-18 Patriots( yes 3 Patriots dynasties).
Not even Joe Gibbs or Joe Thiesman considers the Redskins successful teams a dynasty.
So it may be a opinion, but it's a widely held opinion by people who know.
Fans opinions don't count for obvious reasons.
But,of course, you already knew this.
You're just being your usual, weird contrarian self.
I'm a Celtics fan but there's only been one C's dynasty. A Very very long one with Russell. As much as I love the Bird and Cowens C's, they weren't dynasties.
Raiders had a long run of great success but never a dynasty. Because not enough championships close enough together.
The 90's Yankees were the last mlb dynasty. Any knowledgeable sports fan knows what the dynasties were. There's virtually no debate about it.

 

[captain stone]

speaking of having to take hits one day, nobody had anything against him in 2019. Hell, the other teams were probably rooting for him. Fresh face. Great young kid.

Now he's won something.

And he's a running quarterback.

Hell, Balmer might cripple him because he's not their running quarterback.

Don't blame me, I like the kid.

What exactly makes this smug, entitled, jumpy punk a "great young kid" and so feckin "likable"?

Never mind, I think I already know what your answer would be...

 

[captain stone]

The same team that lost to Miami at home and then lost to the Titans a week later? Okay

We should've won both games, easily.

 

[jimnance]

Ok, that made me laugh. Well done

 

[PatsFanInVa]

What exactly makes this smug, entitled, jumpy punk a "great young kid" and so feckin "likable"?

Never mind, I think I already know what your answer would be...

Holy crap, I thought you downvoted me b/c I said running QBs break.

Whatever your problem with him is, he's really good and he's young and he hasn't done anything vile that I know of, so to me, that's likable.

Holy crap.

 

[RobertWeathers]

We should've won both games, easily.

Does saying that make you feel better?

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Oh thou NFL Dynasties of the 21st Century, how many of there have you been?
Let me count thy names.

The Rams of St. Louis...Greatest Show on Turf...poised to take their place among the 'Niners and Cowboys and Steelers of decades past going for their second ring in three years...but Tom Brady got the ball on his 16 with no timeouts and a little over a minute left in the game and #4 put an end to those dreams.

The Seahawks...looking for their second with Wilson and Pete....but along came two 14 point comebacks led by that guy Brady and an UDFA named Butler...

The Falcons...the Rams of Los Angeles...28--3 in one game and an unstoppable Offense in the other...but that pesky guy Brady did it again....Matty Ice melted and Goff couldn't put up a single TD.

And then of course there was Peyton, who eked out two trophies, but could never really stop Brady....and Eli, oh Eli, two great runs late in two seasons...a one in ten million catch, a drop by Welker followed by the best pass of your life...but your regular season record was just around 0.500...hardly the stuff of Dynasties.

A-Aaron? Big Ben? Brees ( a good guy). More dynasties in waiting....but Brady still has more rings than the three of you together...with a couple to spare.

And now, it's Mahomes and the Chiefs...and who's to say that maybe they won't put together two or three runs? They just might do that....but history suggests that we shouldn't crown them just yet. Maybe it won't be Brady to stop them this time...but there is some fine talent in the League and winning in February requires just the right combination of skill players, smart coaching, and a few calls that go your way along with a lucky break or two down the stretch...in other words, I'm not holding my breath.

I think it's a pretty safe bet that we shall not see the likes of the Belichick Brady Dynasty in our lifetime...or in the lifetimes of our kids.

 

[BTTA]

The problem with definition here is that in every other use but sports, the word dynasty is used to describe a much longer period of time. Only in sports are things so fickle that four years might be considered a legit dynasty.

 

[captain stone]

Does saying that make you feel better?

Actually, it doesn't.

 

[XLIX]

A very well timed episode of the Draw Play for this thread....