Next Dynasty?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Dessalines. Show Dessalines's posts

    Re: Next Dynasty?

    What p-mike said.
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: Next Dynasty?

    The point was made on PTI yesterday -- heaven help us if Tony Kornheiser ever becomes the voice of reason -- that teams usually win the Super Bowl when everything comes together for them . . .   and Green Bay won it despite a rash of injuries. That would appear to augure well for the Packers, but to me it's still a case of being in the right place at the right time. The Packers squck into the playoffs by the hair on their chinny-chin-chins, but if they hadn't, no one would have batted an eye and we might now be talking about the Philadelphia Iggles' or the Blue New Jersey "dynasty."

    It's easy to sit back and say, "Well, Green Bay is getting this guy and that guy and the other guy back, and there is no other dominant team in the NFC . . . " but leave us not forget that last year's darlings and defending champions got rolled by one of the dregs of the league this year. Now . . .   you may reasonably ask yourself, "How is one of the dregs of the league in a position to punk the defending champions in the playoffs?"

    A valid question, and another discussion for another time, but it does remind me of the Dick Vermeil on Spygate thread, where old friend MVPKilla used the word "parody" when he meant "parity." An honest and excusable mistake, but pretty funny when considered in certain contexts.

    As Pats fan should well know, the league is not designed to support behemoths. If I'm Packer fan, I'm pretty happy about thing the way they are right now, but I wouldn't go counting my eggs before they get laid.

  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rerun85. Show Rerun85's posts

    Re: Next Dynasty?

    In Response to Next Dynasty?:
    People were hyping up PIT as the next dynasty, but its looking like it could be GB.  Theyve got a long way to go, as I think most of us agree that you need at least 3 titles in a short time span to be considered a dynasty.  What they have going for them in no particular order: 1. Good Head Coach 2. Relatively Young Team 3. Good G.M. 4. Won title his seasonwith 15 on I.R and 6 of them of them being Finley who I think when healthy, totally transforms their offense. 5. They have an elite young QB The draft, FA, plus the injured players they get back should really reload this team.  Only thing really holding them back next season are more potential injuries and a super bowl hangover.  I think theyve shown they can overcome injuries, its all about the hangover.  Pretty soon we might be hating them to
    Posted by dapats1281

    My definition of dynasty would be that of the Celtics, Yankees or Canadians.
    It's pretty hard to keep a quality team together for a span of over a decade with Free agency and a salary cap so I don't think GreenBay will be able to do it. In fact unless the term Dynasty is redifined to mean a team that wins a few championships I don't think we'll ever see another.
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: Next Dynasty?

    The Steelers won 3 SBs in 4 years. As did Dallas.  Neither won 3 SBs in 4 years in the cap era. 

    Dallas's 1992 title came one year prior to the cap era even unfolding.

    Dallas compiled a series of All Star teams and then fell off the map in the late 1990s. 

    They started to gain a footing in the mid '00s and then have had trouble getting over the hump ever since.  So, that dynasty pretty much died.

    But, it was still a dynasty.

    A dynasty to me can be longstanding success with championships and it can be a small sample size of completely rare high end performance with championships like we have seen with an organization like the Detroit Red Wings (covers both examples) in hockey or the Patriots in the NFL.

    I think this is why people ask if NE's dynasty is still in place.

    Case in point, the Red Wings didn't win a Cup from 2002-- />2008, but were they not really good and a step away from winning one in those seasons?

    Yes, they were, generally speaking.

    The Pats are like the Red Wings of the NHL and vice versa.

    Also, the San Antonio Spurs formed a dynasty this past decade.  All very impressive runs in the cap era of the NBA.

  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Wildwillis. Show Wildwillis's posts

    Re: Next Dynasty?

    Just as long as they dont bring back Farve to flash their PTs they should be in good shape
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from newenglanderinexile. Show newenglanderinexile's posts

    Re: Next Dynasty?

    Every year people say team X looks like it is going to be in plenty of Super Bowls in the next few years.  And it almost never happens. 
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from brughj121212. Show brughj121212's posts

    Re: Next Dynasty?

    I think they very well could become one. Great offense, Great defense, and young.
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from boomerst3. Show boomerst3's posts

    Re: Next Dynasty?

    Lot of good teams out there. I don't care as long as the Pats win.  The Saints were a dynasty after last year. Now it is GB. Only time will tell.  The top teams dominate but that does not make them a dynasty.
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Stommmper. Show Stommmper's posts

    Re: Next Dynasty?

    DYNASTY hasnt been the same since John Forsythe died, but it is coming back this fall on telivision, are you going to watch it? Foot in mouth