Im ready for history to be made

[TruthSeeker]

If the pats win the Super Bowl this year I don't think it counts as part of the dynasty, the only player still here from 01 is brady, the only ones from 03 are brady and branch (as of now), and the only ones from 04 are brady branch and wilfork.

Not only that but the style of play for this team vs those teams is night and day. This team is forging its own identity apart from the dynasty teams.

It is indeed unfortunate that the meaning of the term "dynasty" which explicitly refers to reigns over multiple successors has turned 180 degrees in many peoples eyes to mean a reign by one intact individual or group.

In point of fact, the Patriots won't have a dynasty until they succeed without Belichick and Brady.

"The king is dead; long live the king" is the appropriate slogan for dynasties.

 

[BradyManny]

If the pats win the Super Bowl this year I don't think it counts as part of the dynasty, the only player still here from 01 is brady, the only ones from 03 are brady and branch (as of now), and the only ones from 04 are brady branch and wilfork.

Not only that but the style of play for this team vs those teams is night and day. This team is forging its own identity apart from the dynasty teams.

Belichick + Brady is the dynasty. As long as one of them here, it all counts.

Their accomplishments are tremendous in the last five years - but they mean little until they have the fourth ring to cement their legacy.

If they ever acquire that ring, then all our valiant efforts in defeat - carrying a team without a WR to within a minute of reaching the Super Bowl; coming up 40 seconds short of a perfect season; dragging a flawed, banged-up team with a young, porous defense to within a minute of a title - will no longer be painful reminders of what could've been, but just more bullet points on the most impressive resumes the NFL has ever seen.

 

[VJCPatriot]

This thread is crazy. 19-0 are you insane. You have 2 new WR you have never seen in action with the Patriots, and Welker might not sign. No one knows if your defense won't be crap next year.

Im just saying this because they picked on Brees, but its not like its not accurate,lol.

Huh? Welker signed his franchise tender. The extension has nothing to do with anything unless he holds out. The defense has questionmarks but has been restocked with talent from the draft and free agency. The offense will be legendary. Just enjoy the lasershow. LOL

 

[shmessy]

This thread is crazy. 19-0 are you insane. You have 2 new WR you have never seen in action with the Patriots.........

You're 100% correct, Pherein.

The last time the Pats had that situation they only went 18-1.

 

[Steve102]

You're 100% correct, Pherein.

The last time the Pats had that situation they only went 18-1.

I am with a bunch of folks in here, the regular season doesn't mean squat. Gimme a #2 seed and a 3-0 playoff run and that'd be ideal. 9-7 and 4-0 in the post season would be just as good, albeit a little more frustrating during the regular season.

 

[N.Eman]

Im over the loss. Now i look at it as it just added to the resume when we win #4 this year. Brady becomes the all time playoff win leader with one more win. If they make the Super Bowl Belichick ties Shula with 6 and Brady becomes the all time leader. If they win the Super Bowl Belichick ties Landry with 20 playoff wins and Patriots dynasty can stand up to the Steelers and 49er dynasties. Im so ready. Lloyd,Welker,Gronk and Hernandez wont be stopped. The defense which improved so much at the end will only get better with draft picks. Bring..it..on!!!

I second this motion..I got a strong feeling we'll start great and only become better...They say our backfield wasnt fixed but with Belichick at the helm he'll defenitely move pieces around and make it work...Bring it on indeed !!!!!!!!

 

[PatsFanSince74]

...

Their accomplishments are tremendous in the last five years - but they mean little until they have the fourth ring to cement their legacy.

...

Dare ya, double dare ya, triple dare ya to say that to Tom Brady's or Bill Belichick's face...

 

[RobertWeathers]

It is indeed unfortunate that the meaning of the term "dynasty" which explicitly refers to reigns over multiple successors has turned 180 degrees in many peoples eyes to mean a reign by one intact individual or group.

In point of fact, the Patriots won't have a dynasty until they succeed without Belichick and Brady.

"The king is dead; long live the king" is the appropriate slogan for dynasties.

You are 100% accurate but for sports teams that win titles frequently during a specific period of time, the term is clearly used loosely to acknowledge their dominance.

 

[lillloyd]

I think you guys already have a dynasty -- at least, the closest thing to a "dynasty" that you can possibly have in the FA era. Your '-01 to '04 run (3 SBs in 4 years) is particularly impressive in light of all of the player movement.

That said, IMHO a run like the Steelers' in the 70s will remain unique (4 SBs in 6 years) and pretty much unattainable in the modern era. This isn't meant as disrespect to the Pats, it's just a comment on how different the rules were then--when you could actually build a team and *keep* it--but if anything, it further underscores how impressive the early 2000s run was by NE.

I don't know about 19-0--way too much has to break right for this to happen IMO--but I certainly can't blame you all for feeling hugely optimistic. I'm very curious to see how your defense rebounds after all of last year's injuries, as well as your more recent additions. If I were a Pats fan, I might have liked a bit more FA attention to the defensive side than was given...but then again maybe the NE FO is simply banking on improvements from within, due to younger players maturing and a much healthier roster.

I've got to believe that the D will be significantly improved (and let's face it, there's nowhere to go but up! , and if that's the case you'll be the prohibitive favorites in the AFC. On paper at least your schedule should help as well, with seemingly mediocre-at-best competition in the AFCE. Whether you get through an NFC opponent in the SB is another matter, as that seems to be where the balance of power has shifted of late...but NE seems as good a bet as any.

 

[Deus Irae]

I think you guys already have a dynasty -- at least, the closest thing to a "dynasty" that you can possibly have in the FA era. Your '-01 to '04 run (3 SBs in 4 years) is particularly impressive in light of all of the player movement.

That said, IMHO a run like the Steelers' in the 70s will remain unique (4 SBs in 6 years) and pretty much unattainable in the modern era. This isn't meant as disrespect to the Pats, it's just a comment on how different the rules were then--when you could actually build a team and *keep* it--but if anything, it further underscores how impressive the early 2000s run was by NE.

I don't know about 19-0--way too much has to break right for this to happen IMO--but I certainly can't blame you all for feeling hugely optimistic. I'm very curious to see how your defense rebounds after all of last year's injuries, as well as your more recent additions. If I were a Pats fan, I might have liked a bit more FA attention to the defensive side than was given...but then again maybe the NE FO is simply banking on improvements from within, due to younger players maturing and a much healthier roster.

I've got to believe that the D will be significantly improved (and let's face it, there's nowhere to go but up! , and if that's the case you'll be the prohibitive favorites in the AFC. On paper at least your schedule should help as well, with seemingly mediocre-at-best competition in the AFCE. Whether you get through an NFC opponent in the SB is another matter, as that seems to be where the balance of power has shifted of late...but NE seems as good a bet as any.

It's entirely possible that the Patriots would have won the 2006 Super Bowl (4 in 6) if the Ref didn't call a non-existent penalty (faceguarding penalty when it hadn't been a penalty for years).

 

[PlainOldEd]

Would love to see a 19-0 season.

Would equally love to see a 9-7 season and go 4-0 in the playoffs.

I would be very happy as long as it ended in a superbowl victory, as you are saying.

I'm not sure I would say "equally" though.

Suffering through those 7 regular season losses and and fearing not even making the playoffs would probably give me an ulcer.

 

[PlainOldEd]

It is indeed unfortunate that the meaning of the term "dynasty" which explicitly refers to reigns over multiple successors has turned 180 degrees in many peoples eyes to mean a reign by one intact individual or group.

In point of fact, the Patriots won't have a dynasty until they succeed without Belichick and Brady.

"The king is dead; long live the king" is the appropriate slogan for dynasties.

Actually a dynasty is made up of a series of leaders from the same family. i.e. the Ming Dynasty. So it looks like Steve will have to take over when dad is done.....

 

[BradyManny]

It is indeed unfortunate that the meaning of the term "dynasty" which explicitly refers to reigns over multiple successors has turned 180 degrees in many peoples eyes to mean a reign by one intact individual or group.

In point of fact, the Patriots won't have a dynasty until they succeed without Belichick and Brady.

"The king is dead; long live the king" is the appropriate slogan for dynasties.

Technically it would have to be within the same family - which is why "dynasty" has a different meaning in sports (as it's true meaning would have little relevance, unless of course Ben Brady and Steve Belichick are next in line) and is open to some interpretation.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Just had a horrible thought. Are we going to be the "Sixburgh" fans one day, insisting our 2025 Super Bowl is part of the same Brady/Belichick "dynasty"? (I mean after the next three we win this coming three years of course.)

 

[brdmaverick]

While the end result is certainly a huge measure of success, it shouldn't be the only one. Let's face it, if you are a superfan like me every loss during the season stings. It stings for the whole week until the next game is played.

So think about it, the Giants won the Super Bowl after going 9-7. The Patriots lost the Super Bowl after going 13-3. So netting everything out (including Super Bowl), the Giants and their fans suffered a week of defeat three more times than Pats fans. That's three more WEEKS of suffering as fans, almost an entire month. Therefore, one could argue that even though the Giants won the big game, the Patriot's fans had a more enjoyable season.

Of course, I have no defense against the agrument of "A Super Bowl loss doesn't equal just one week of pain, but a whole offeason at the very LEAST". I know I'm not over it yet, but let's just remember that we got to celebrate more victories than they did.

 

[crew1954]

This thread is crazy. 19-0 are you insane. You have 2 new WR you have never seen in action with the Patriots.

Moss and Welker?

 

[crew1954]

Just had a horrible thought. Are we going to be the "Sixburgh" fans one day, insisting our 2025 Super Bowl is part of the same Brady/Belichick "dynasty"? (I mean after the next three we win this coming three years of course.)

What if Brady is HC?

 

[supafly]

It's entirely possible that the Patriots would have won the 2006 Super Bowl (4 in 6) if the Ref didn't call a non-existent penalty (faceguarding penalty when it hadn't been a penalty for years).

But we got a nice letter of apology from the NFL in consolation, so that should make up for it, right?

 

[supafly]

This thread is crazy. 19-0 are you insane. You have 2 new WR you have never seen in action with the Patriots, and Welker might not sign. No one knows if your defense won't be crap next year.

Im just saying this because they picked on Brees, but its not like its not accurate,lol.

I do think the thread is crazy, Pherein. No one should be bringing up 19-0 right now, nor should they if the Pats win the first 10 games either. Let's "worry" about that if it actually comes down to week 14, 15 or so.

As far as the "2 new WR's who have never seen action with the Pats," who? Welker (he signed the franchise tag way back in April or May, and is quite happy about making almost 10 million this year), Gronkowski, and Hernandez will still be the top 3 targets, just as they were last year, only now we actually have a downfield threat again to add to the mix.

All they did was add Llyod, who has major knowledge and success in Josh McDaniel's system as an intermediate/downfield threat to open up the underneath and middle routes more. They also brought back Gaffney (he has amazing chemistry with Brady from prior seasons and is coming off back to back 65-70 catch seasons with the lowly Broncos and Redskins throwing him the ball), and Stallworth (who also succeeded here in his role during the 2007 18-1 season). Those two guys have plenty of experience with all 3 of Brady, Belichick, and McDaniels. The number 4, 5, and 6 targets have certainly improved from last year; especially considering it was Branch, Kid n play, and Ochocinco in 2011.

Add in Fells as the 3rd TE, and an expectation that the RB's will also contribute as last year was the only year in about 7-8 where they didn't catch at least 50+ passes, and the offense is pretty well set again.

If they can keep the QB upright, they should almost certainly be in serious SB competition, as they have improved in many other areas of the offense from last yr's freakshow already.

To wrap it up though, I certainly agree with you that any talk of 19-0 is completely ridiculous at this point. I have a feeling that some folks on the Packers sites are likely doing the same thing though, although that is no excuse either. The Saints will likely be right there in January, just as they usually are too, but no team/fanbase should be squaking about 19-0 right now.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

This thread is crazy. 19-0 are you insane. You have 2 new WR you have never seen in action with the Patriots, and Welker might not sign. No one knows if your defense won't be crap next year.

...

"crazy?" "insane?" Of course it is!

What the heck else is a fan? It's our natural born right!

And, if you read to the bottom of the definition below, I think that Churchill must have traveled through time and visited Patsfans.com, because he sure is describing many posts in a lot of our threads (see my underline)!

Personally, I'm partial to the definition of the word "fan" that traces its origins to "fanatic."

fanatic (n.)
1520s, "insane person," from L. fanaticus "mad, enthusiastic, inspired by a god," also "furious, mad,"...Meaning "zealous person" is mid-17c. As an adj., in English, 1530s, "furious;" meaning "characterized by excessive enthusiasm,"...

A fanatic is someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. [attributed to Winston Churchill]

PS: Of course Santayana might have also been here, as he once described fanaticism as "redoubling your efforts when you've forgotten your aim." How many of our posts does that describe!?! (mine, of course, included).