Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pats have won 0 Super Bowls in 9 years, but...

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Pats have won 0 Super Bowls in 9 years, but...

    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.
    sigpic

  • #2
    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.

    Comment


    • #3
      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
      My goal had been to win a championship, work toward the Hall of Fame, have my jersey retired by the team and I`d go in as a lifelong New York Giant, but I`m now resigned to the fact that this won`t happen. -- Michael Strahan, just when you think you're down...

      Comment


      • #4
        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.
        sigpic

        Comment


        • #5
          Look at their resume from 2001 onward.
          The Super Bowls might not be there anymore, but are constantly in the hunt.
          Mood: WOOF!

          Comment


          • #6
            that Bills team was a dynasty

            Comment


            • #7
              I think the OP's point is that they are no longer a "dynasty", not that they aren't a good team.

              Comment


              • #8
                I feel there are only 4 real dynasties in pro sports. Celtics (17) Yankees (27), Lakers (16), and Canadiens (24).
                sigpic

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Rusty192 View Post
                  I think the OP's point is that they are no longer a "dynasty", not that they aren't a good team.
                  Correct
                  sigpic

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by bansaw View Post
                    that Bills team was a dynasty
                    There will never be another NFL team to play in four straight super bowls.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by primetime View Post
                      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.
                      sigpic

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by NYG6timeworldchamps View Post
                        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.
                        sigpic

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Also, the word dynasty like the word elite, is subjective.
                          Mood: WOOF!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            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.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              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.
                              #80

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X