TheFlyingWedge
In the Starting Line-Up
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2007
- Messages
- 2,146
- Reaction score
- 2,612
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.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.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.
Tomlin, Elway, Oakland. They need to refocus.
Steelers are better than Oakland.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.
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.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
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 )It would help to stop pretending this franchise was not mostly competitive and legitimate since its inception in 1960 through 1992.
Eh.Steelers are better than Oakland.
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).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."
Rams one certainly did.. Just ask Ricky Proehl....
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.
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.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?"Chinese dynasties changed when the emporer changed or was overthrown. As far as I'm concerned BB and Brady are the dynasty.