PDA

View Full Version : Pats have won 0 Super Bowls in 9 years, but...



NYG6timeworldchamps
02-03-2013, 01:10 PM
The Giants have 2 in 5 years. The Pats are considered a dynasty and the Giants aren't. I don't think 2 in 5 years a dynasty, but 0 in 9 isn't either. Sorry for the topic, but I live near Foxboro, MA and these Pats fans still think they're the champs.

penguinfarmer
02-03-2013, 01:19 PM
Pats don't currently have one, but they did when they won 3 of 4. I don't know why a comparison to one team has to validate the other. Pats are perennial contenders in position to make the bowl almost every year albeit with a usually easier road. Giants like to climb the mountain, then nosedive to the canyon in between season.

brad
02-03-2013, 01:28 PM
I don't like the Pats anymore than anyone else on this forum, but you have to give respect to the record they have had under Belichick since 2000, they haven't had a losing season! Yes, ultimately rings are all that matter, and the Giants are the ones the prevented the Pats from getting two rings in their last two appearances, but few teams have been so dominant consistently for such a long period of time. This record is the very definition of dynasty, in my opinion.


2001 11-5 Super Bowl Champions
2002 9-7
2003 14-2 Super Bowl Champions
2004 14-2 Super Bowl Champions
2005 10-6
2006 12-4
2007 16-0 AFC Champions
2008 11-5
2009 10-6
2010 14-2
2011 13-3 AFC Champions
2012 12-4

NYG6timeworldchamps
02-03-2013, 01:39 PM
The record is great, but no longer a dynasty. If the Pats get credit towards there dynasty for great regular seasons and losing two Super Bowls. The Bills of the 90's should be considered a dynasty using that logic. 4 Super Bowl appearances in 4 years with stellar regular seasons.

The bottom line is they can't get the job done when it counts. They turne into an eArly to mid 2000's Colt team they mocked. The Pats fans were ready to jump down Peyton's throat when Denver lost to Baltimore. Now when Brady loses to Baltimore he still clutch. Plus since spygate they have 0 titles.

Rudyy
02-03-2013, 01:41 PM
Look at their resume from 2001 onward.
The Super Bowls might not be there anymore, but are constantly in the hunt.

bansaw
02-03-2013, 01:44 PM
that Bills team was a dynasty

Rusty192
02-03-2013, 01:45 PM
I think the OP's point is that they are no longer a "dynasty", not that they aren't a good team.

NYG6timeworldchamps
02-03-2013, 01:45 PM
I feel there are only 4 real dynasties in pro sports. Celtics (17) Yankees (27), Lakers (16), and Canadiens (24).

NYG6timeworldchamps
02-03-2013, 01:46 PM
I think the OP's point is that they are no longer a "dynasty", not that they aren't a good team.

Correct

primetime
02-03-2013, 01:48 PM
that Bills team was a dynasty
There will never be another NFL team to play in four straight super bowls.

NYG6timeworldchamps
02-03-2013, 01:50 PM
There will never be another NFL team to play in four straight super bowls.

Everyone killed them for it. It was a great achievement, but most people do not view that as a dynasty. Especially since the NFC owned the Super Bowl in those days. There only real shot was XXV.

BigBlue1971
02-03-2013, 01:56 PM
The Giants have 2 in 5 years. The Pats are considered a dynasty and the Giants aren't. I don't think 2 in 5 years a dynasty, but 0 in 9 isn't either. Sorry for the topic, but I live near Foxboro, MA and these Pats fans still think they're the champs.

1st you gotta expect that based on your residence!

if the topic comes up in your conversation you can boast your status and refer to 07 and 11! both against their team.

Rudyy
02-03-2013, 01:56 PM
Also, the word dynasty like the word elite, is subjective.

primetime
02-03-2013, 02:02 PM
My opinion of a dynasty in Professional sports is a team that dominates for multiple seasons. Now how many season does a team have to be better then the rest of the league to be considered a dynasty? I would think 5 seasons is the minimum.

For example look at the dynasties the NFL had.

Packers 1960's: 5 championships in 7 years
Steelers 1970's: 4 championships in 6 years
49ers 1980's: 4 championships in 9 years
Cowboys 1990's: 3 championships in 4 years
Patriots 2000's: 3 championships in 4 years

As for the Bills, yes they may not be considered a dynasty because they did not win the championship, but the point I believe is they went to four straight super bowls, that will never happen in todays NFL or anytime down the road. If only they would have won at least 2 they would have been considered a dynasty.

nhpgiantsfan
02-03-2013, 02:12 PM
If you equate the word dynasty only to championships then the dynasty is over. For me, it's a team that is dominant over a long period of time. For me the Pats are a dynasty that is still continuing even though they haven't won the big one in a while. They have been the most consistently successful team in the league.

For me the TC Giants wouldn't qualify as a dynasty because they simply were not a dominant team especially in the regular season. They kind of squeaked into the playoffs and got hot at the right time.

Nut as was said above it all depends on your own take on the word dynasty.

Rusty192
02-03-2013, 02:23 PM
Also, the word dynasty like the word elite, is subjective.The term dynasty is associated with teams winning multiple Superbowls in a short period of time. Like primetime pointed out: Lombardi's Packers, Steelers, niners, Dallas, and early 2000's Patriots.

You can't really say the same for any other franchises, therefore those few are considered dynasties.

Rudyy
02-03-2013, 02:26 PM
The term dynasty is associated with teams winning multiple Superbowls in a short period of time. Like primetime pointed out: Lombardi's Packers, Steelers, niners, Dallas, and early 2000's Patriots.

You can't really say the same for any other franchises, therefore those few are considered dynasties.Is that the official definition?

SweetZombieJesus
02-03-2013, 02:39 PM
3 in 4 years (2001-2003-2004) is what makes them a dynasty. Their domination and two more SB appearances since then doesn't hurt.

Rusty192
02-03-2013, 02:41 PM
Is that the official definition?There is no perfect definition because of the varying number of Superbowls a team could win in a small window of time. Yet, only few teams have achieved this. Too small of a selection for the term to be flung around on a whim.

Any other other teams you can think of that could be seriously considered dynasty tag worthy?

SweetZombieJesus
02-03-2013, 02:44 PM
Is that the official definition?

In other sports, "dynasty" means not only dominating for years at a time, but also with the next generation of stars coming in to replace the old without missing a beat. The blueprint is the Yankees -- Ruth and Gehrig gave way to Dimaggio and Yogi which gave way to Mantle. THAT's a dynasty. The Celtics and Lakers would be other good examples.

You don't really get that in football. The best examples you have are Lombardi's Packers, Knoll's Steelers, Walsh's 49ers. I'd have to put the 3-in-4 years Patriots and Cowboys in a 2nd tier.

Rudyy
02-03-2013, 02:45 PM
There is no perfect definition because of the varying number of Superbowls a team could win in a small window of time. Yet, only few teams have achieved this. Too small of a selection for the term to be flung around on a whim.

Any other other teams you can think of that could be seriously considered dynasty tag worthy?Well what I meant is some people look at the amount of success along with those Super Bowls, not just the Super Bowls themselves.

All the AFCCG's and the playoff wins as well as the appearances.

Rusty192
02-03-2013, 02:50 PM
Well what I meant is some people look at the amount of success along with those Super Bowls, not just the Super Bowls themselves.

All the AFCCG's and the playoff wins as well as the appearances.The success helps, but you have to keep in mind, nobody will remember you for long if you didn't win those Superbowls to go along with it. Winning the SB means immortality.

Rudyy
02-03-2013, 02:51 PM
The success helps, but you have to keep in mind, nobody will remember you for long if you didn't win those Superbowls to go along with it. Winning the SB means mortality.Yeah, true.

ELI_HOF_NYG
02-03-2013, 03:16 PM
The Giants have 2 in 5 years. The Pats are considered a dynasty and the Giants aren't. I don't think 2 in 5 years a dynasty, but 0 in 9 isn't either. Sorry for the topic, but I live near Foxboro, MA and these Pats fans still think they're the champs.

I think that the point is that the patriots are in the playoffs every year,,usually pretty deep,,and have a chance to win it,,,something the giants can not say.

Out of Exile
02-03-2013, 03:58 PM
Silly argument. You don't mention how they won 3 outta 4 years in a row. SMH.

SEAL Team 69
02-03-2013, 04:12 PM
It depends on what ur idea of a "dynasty" is. If you go by Super Bowl wins, then I agree with OP; however, if you go by team consistency and dominance and stuff, I guess they're still a "dynasty". They're always a contender for the Super Bowl

And I do believe the Giants are a dynasty right now even if they didn't make the playoffs. If we kept our cool in those last few games of the season and didn't get blown out, and made the playoffs, we would probably be looking at another Super Bowl

NYG6timeworldchamps
02-03-2013, 05:40 PM
Silly argument. You don't mention how they won 3 outta 4 years in a row. SMH.

Don't have to because that was almost a decade ago. I also did bring up the 40 years before they didn't sniff a title.

SweetZombieJesus
02-03-2013, 09:09 PM
Don't have to because that was almost a decade ago. I also did bring up the 40 years before they didn't sniff a title.

They lost Super Bowls in 1985 (Bears) and 1996 (Packers). I'd say that's "sniffing a title".

NYG6timeworldchamps
02-04-2013, 12:05 AM
They lost Super Bowls in 1985 (Bears) and 1996 (Packers). I'd say that's "sniffing a title".

You didn't see the scores of the games... did you?

SweetZombieJesus
02-04-2013, 12:07 AM
You didn't see the scores of the games... did you?

You said they didn't sniff a title. They were in the championship game.

NYG6timeworldchamps
02-04-2013, 12:18 AM
You said they didn't sniff a title. They were in the championship game.

OK they didn't sniff the title 38 out of 40 years.

GiantGremlin
02-04-2013, 02:50 AM
The Giants have 2 in 5 years. The Pats are considered a dynasty and the Giants aren't. I don't think 2 in 5 years a dynasty, but 0 in 9 isn't either. Sorry for the topic, but I live near Foxboro, MA and these Pats fans still think they're the champs.

The Pats have been plenty good & dominant at times throughout the Belichick/Brady era, and no team has been more consistent or have overcome injuires better then them, but let's face facts here - they've had a huge advantage playing in such a weak division, which subsequently has given them, and will continue to give them a huge boost in regard to playoff seeding and homefield advantage in the playoffs. Not to say that it's their fault, or that they're simply doing what the good team's do, but wow...how many times have you looked at the Pats schedule in a given year and said to yourself 'man, that's a pretty soft schedule." The way I look at it the Pats should have the success that they've had, and I'll take a 4-1 SB record, 8 total championships and the long, storied history of the NY football Giants than a sample size of success that the Pats have had in comparison.

AllHailEli
02-04-2013, 02:57 AM
There are a handful of teams who won the Super Bowl since the Patriots last won it and they won it almost a decade ago, so their dynasty was over a long time ago. I can't call the Knicks of the 90s a dynasty because they made the playoffs every year and went to a couple of championships though never winning one because you got to be reigning one for consecutive years in the first place. And I wish I could say I'd trade a decade of mediocrity to win one, but we've already lost a decade of mediocrity and we're still looking for that elusive title which hopefully would come soon enough, as in this year. That's why getting 2 from the Giants recently is a big deal, because there are teams that could go on for decades without winning one. And you can start with the Eagles.

Buddy333
02-04-2013, 10:00 AM
Rather have a year or two with no post season and then win the Super Bowl than win 10 games a year and lose in the post season. Hey, nothing since "spy gate". Just saying.

Flip Empty
02-04-2013, 10:20 AM
Christ, you think spying would enable them to protect their quarterback better? You think spying would enable them to better perform a hail mary? Come on.

JJC7301
02-04-2013, 11:24 AM
They were a dynasty...10 years ago. Over the past 10+ years, they've been the best organization in the NFL, hands down. 5 SB appearences with 3 victories, and in the playoffs year-in-and-year out. They know what they're doing.

NYG6timeworldchamps
02-04-2013, 05:33 PM
There are a handful of teams who won the Super Bowl since the Patriots last won it and they won it almost a decade ago, so their dynasty was over a long time ago. I can't call the Knicks of the 90s a dynasty because they made the playoffs every year and went to a couple of championships though never winning one because you got to be reigning one for consecutive years in the first place. And I wish I could say I'd trade a decade of mediocrity to win one, but we've already lost a decade of mediocrity and we're still looking for that elusive title which hopefully would come soon enough, as in this year. That's why getting 2 from the Giants recently is a big deal, because there are teams that could go on for decades without winning one. And you can start with the Eagles.

Big Knicks fan too. The 90's were great, but I may have traded it all to be Champs one year. I have a pennent in my office that states the Knicks 1994 WORLD CHAMPIONS on it. I so wanted that title. Starks was 2-18 in that game 7. Man that still hurts.

NYG6timeworldchamps
02-04-2013, 05:34 PM
They were a dynasty...10 years ago. Over the past 10+ years, they've been the best organization in the NFL, hands down. 5 SB appearences with 3 victories, and in the playoffs year-in-and-year out. They know what they're doing.

I agree with this.

NYG6timeworldchamps
02-04-2013, 05:35 PM
Christ, you think spying would enable them to protect their quarterback better? You think spying would enable them to better perform a hail mary? Come on.

You have to admit it does help to know the play. Ask Marshall Faulk about it. They were calling their plays out. The Rams started to come back once they ditched their game plan.

Buddy333
02-04-2013, 05:54 PM
You have to admit it does help to know the play. Ask Marshall Faulk about it. They were calling their plays out. The Rams started to come back once they ditched their game plan.Why would they do it if it didn't help and why have they only won 2 post season games since then?

NYG6timeworldchamps
02-04-2013, 09:43 PM
[QUOTE=Buddy333;677389]Why would they do it if it didn't help and why have they only won 2 post season games since then?[/QUOTE

My point exactly... if it didn't help they wouldn't have wasted so much effort and time.

45Jones
02-05-2013, 12:39 PM
Also, the word dynasty like the word elite, is subjective.

Yup. Makes for endless fodder for the 24/7 Sports News/Talk cycle.