Problem with Pats fans

[ExiledInIllinois]

I will bet you $100 right now that this insecure troll can not go without posting again on this thread.  $100 dollars, right now.  I gurarantee you that he is stomping his foot right now, trying desparately to craft a comeback that includes the either the word "hot pockets" or "ding".

363730[/snapback]

 

Give that man a 100 bucks!

[AKC]

You want to get into semantics about dynasties being defined by either time or margin of victory, thats fine. 

363925[/snapback]

 

Damn right that's fine since that was the conversation you interrupted, which ultimately left you exposed as a fool who can't hold down his end of an argument. Nice concession but no surprise. The difference between insects like you and contributing trolls of TSW like Des is simple- you have no argument because developing one is alien to your nature and hence why you don't populate a Pats board where the intelligent Pats fans discuss their team. Your destiny is to rudely interrupt actual discussions about the game of football and when flushed out rely on your default retreat of "but we won 3 Super Bowls!".

 

Let me share something with you Einstein- take a "we won 3 Super Bowls" and add a "John Kerry went to Vietnam" and you can buy yourself one big hot cup of Jack Squat here on The Stadium Wall. And a guy like you oughta' be used to that squatting position since it's the natural feeding orientation for your species .-)

[TheMadCap]

I notice he conveniently didnt mention the HUGE margin of victory teams like the Cowboys and Redskins enjoyed over the piss-poor Buffalo Bills.     

 

You want to get into semantics about dynasties being defined by either time or margin of victory, thats fine.  It doesnt make your grapes any less sour that you've pretty much been thoroughly embarassed in every Super Bowl you've played in.        And yes, Wide Right was embarassing.   

I'll continue to enjoy the run this magnificent team is on.  IN fact, should the Patriots win the Super Bowl this year, they will be on the same plane as the Greatest Teams of ALL TIME in the NFL.    Bet that doesnt sit too well with many of you.     

Looking forward to another 2 easy wins at the Jills' hands this year!

363925[/snapback]

 

 

The fact that you are now resorting to insults proves you have no intellegent arguments for your cause. You are just stacking the BS up thicker and higher, TROLL...

[bobblehead]

Give that man a 100 bucks!

363933[/snapback]

 

 

Eryn is a cheap bastard, so I ain't getting it. I hear that he steals bread crumbs from pidgeons just on principle alone.

[erynthered]

Eryn is a cheap bastard, so I ain't getting it.  I hear that he steals bread crumbs from pidgeons just on principle alone. 

364163[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

[OJ's Glove]

This entire argument (and I use the term very loosely), conveniently ignores the imbalance in the conferences that existed before the salary cap era.

 

The 1970's had AFC dominance, with the Dolphins, Raiders and Steelers (the Cowboys were the anomaly). Then the balance switches and the NFC rips off 13 SB wins in a row. Only in the salary cap era have the two conferences reached some level of parity, with the Rams and Bucs able to win in an era where the Broncos, Ravens and Pats also have.

 

This is why the argument about Super Bowl margin of victory defining a dynasty is completely insane. When the NFC was dominating (for example), the Super Bowl was NOT a matchup between the two best teams in football. It was a matchup between the number one team and perhaps the other team was the fifth or sixth best team - or worse. That's how imbalanced the conferences were. So the REAL Super Bowl - between the two best teams in the league - was almost always the NFC Championship Game. And those games were plenty competitive. Are we supposed to consider the 90's Cowboys a dynasty because they slaughtered the Bills? Or are we supposed to NOT consider them a dynasty because they were able to beat Steve Young's 49ers but not dominate them?

 

That being said, the great Bill Walsh won three Super Bowls, and two of them were on close, last minute drives against Cincinnati. According to your logic, that's not a dynasty. Foolish.

 

The whole premise is ridiculous and loaded with sour grapes, as others have said. The "dominance" speaks for itself. 34-4. A record 21-game winning streak. The Patriots average margin of victory last year was 14 points. The fact that the Eagles scored a garbage time touchdown that didn't amount to anything and made the game seen closer than it was is irrelevant.

 

Think about what you are saying. You're basically promoting the idea that a team that doesn't dominate it's own conference playoffs but has a blowout Super Bowl is a dynasty, but a team that dominates it's conference playoffs but plays a competitive Super Bowl isn't. That's a good one. Pull my other leg while you're at it. It's all dependent on how much balance exists between the conferences, something that no one is acknowledging.

 

The bottom line is that salary-cap era Super Bowls are much more likely to be competitive because there is a better chance that the two best teams in the league end up playing in that game. You can't say that about 1981-1995. You can still sometimes get a blowout, but the trend is clear. It has absolutely no bearing on whether the "dynasty" word should be used. You get the ring and the trophy no matter what the margin is. Teams in the 80's don't get more right to use the word "dynasty" just because they were playing the survivor of a second-rate conference in the Super Bowl.

[IDBillzFan]

The bottom line is that salary-cap era Super Bowls are much more likely to be competitive because there is a better chance that the two best teams in the league end up playing in that game.

364211[/snapback]

Or the two best teams based on having to play with one hand tied behind your back. Again, if you want to define your team as a dynasty, you have to consider whether you could have beaten the other teams that ARE dynasties. And we both know the likes of the Niners and Cowboys would thrash your Patriots roster like BF rummaging through a barrel labled "Excuses to give when explaining why the Pacers suck so badly."

 

On the other hand, at least you make an effort to make an argument, and I'm impressed with the fact that a Patriot's fan on this board was able to not only keep the insults at bay, but also complete a full sentence.

[BF_in_Indiana]

That being said, the great Bill Walsh won three Super Bowls, and two of them were on close, last minute drives against Cincinnati. According to your logic, that's not a dynasty. Foolish.

364211[/snapback]

 

Actually only 1 was a last minute drive.

 

Super Bowl XXIII

SF- 20

Cincy-16

 

John Taylor catches TD with 34 seconds left.

 

Super Bowl XVI

SF-26

Cincy- 21

 

SF maintains 20-0 halftime lead.

[AKC]

This is why the argument about Super Bowl margin of victory defining a dynasty is completely insane.

364211[/snapback]

 

While we appreciate Trolls with the good sense to actually enter genuinely into the discussion, it's important you accurately represent my original points:

 

A) The margins are simply an indication of dominance, only one criteria one might consider when assessing a "Dynasty". On margins only one team has a more dismal record among league champs than the Pats, one of only two champs with negative margins in the big game. Being on the average minus 8 points in Super Bowls is hardly a signifier of "dominance".

 

B) Dyanastics have a multigenerational foundation, and since the whole meaning of the word is based on this it is only logical that multiple generations of the same team would have to win the championship. That situation exists among some teams (Steelers/Boys/9ers/Packers/etc.) but it simply is non-existent with the Pats, hence their disqualification IMO as a dynasty. Make an argument perhaps that the unique nature of changing rosters makes even a separate year another "generation" in football; I won't bite but you might gain some traction if you can fashion a cohesive position like that. At the same time no sane person one would argue the Pats "dominance" in the big game and I'd take the position that that is exclusionary in and of itself to attain the exalted level of "Dynasty".

[OJ's Glove]

Or the two best teams based on having to play with one hand tied behind your back. Again, if you want to define your team as a dynasty, you have to consider whether you could have beaten the other teams that ARE dynasties. And we both know the likes of the Niners and Cowboys would thrash your Patriots roster like BF rummaging through a barrel labled "Excuses to give when explaining why the Pacers suck so badly."

 

364241[/snapback]

 

 

I'll ignore your insult and continue.

 

Again, we can't say a damned thing about what would happen if "dynasties" played each other because it's a hypothetical exercise that can't happen. What Bills fans want to be true to make themselves feel better is irrelevant.

 

The 90's Cowboys are considered "dominant" because they whipped the Bills (I'll ignore a much closer game against the Steelers for the moment). Though the Cowboys managed to beat the Packers and 49ers, they never dominated them. Sometimes they lost.

 

The Cowboys look better overall because they were allowed to beat up on the weak-sister AFC representative in front of 100 million people. While real football fans know that the Cowboys had actually competitively beaten the real second-best team in football two weeks earlier.

 

The fact that the top teams were loaded in one conference is NOT an argument that earlier dynasties were better. But that's what people in this thread are doing because of the artefact that the Super Bowl was normally uncompetitive back then.

 

The Cowboys waste the Bills but have a tough time with the 49ers.

 

The Patriots beat the Colts convincingly every time but don't blow out the Eagles.

 

The last two statements are simply reflective of which conferences house the best teams, not on the quality of which "dynasty" should be favored over another.

 

It isn't the Cowboys or the 49ers' fault that the toughest teams were in their own conference, and it isn't the Patriots fault that the tough teams are more spread out league-wide. It has no bearing on what is being argued here by you people. It's bad logic and bad reasoning.

[OJ's Glove]

A) The margins are simply an indication of dominance, only one criteria one might consider when assessing a "Dynasty". On margins only one team has a more dismal record among league champs than the Pats, one of only two champs with negative margins in the big game.

 

 

The margins are not an indication of dominance, as the level of compeition needs to be taken into account. The AFC was extremely weak in the 80's and 90's. You're falsely discounting that. Dominating the SB doesn't mean anything if the team you're playing doesn't even belong there, and you had a tough time winning against an excellent team in your own conference two weeks earlier.

 

Another bad use of stats is lumping in the 85 Patriots who got schooled by the Bears in with the current team. Irrelevant. You're only doing it to make your stats look artificially better.

 

B) Dyanastics have a multigenerational foundation, and since the whole meaning of the word is based on this it is only logical that multiple generations of the same team would have to win the championship. That situation exists among some teams (Steelers/Boys/9ers/Packers/etc.) but it simply is non-existent with the Pats, hence their disqualification IMO as a dynasty. Make an argument perhaps that the unique nature of changing rosters makes even a separate year another "generation" in football; I won't bite but you might gain some traction if you can fashion a cohesive position like that. At the same time no sane person one would argue the Pats "dominance" in the big game and I'd take the position that that is exclusionary in and of itself to attain the exalted level of "Dynasty".

 

I might agree with the Packers, but Tom Landry's Cowboys have nothing to do with Jimmy Johnson's, and the team was crappy in the interim. There's no connection but the name. Even the front office is completely different. Same thing with Bart Starr and Brett Favre. Lombardi's tenure alone was dynastic, but Favre has nothing to do with that, and he only won the SB once. Even the Steve Young 95 team doesn't have much in common with that first Montana team that beat Cincinnatti in 81. The only link is the front office. The Niners have five Super Bowls, but it took them 14 years to do it. Good for them, but to argue that that is objectively better than what NE is doing now just because you feel like saying it is where I cry foul.

 

Another example is how the Steelers were able to outclass the Vikings, Rams and even the Cowboys. But it took them six years to win four Super Bowls, and they never won three out of four. And they always had difficulty in their own conference, especially with the Raiders and Dolphins - truly great teams that happened to be on the playoff schedule befor the Super Bowl. Again, just an artefact of scheduling and which teams play in which conference.

 

You might want to try the Bob Ryan theory that the only truly multigenerational dynasties are the Yankees, Celtics, Lakers, Canadiens and Packers (not because of Favre, but because they won Titles before Lombardi and when you add that to Lombardi's tenure, it qualifies). I don't really see you arguing that though, since you seem to be talking up the Niners, Steelers and Cowboys. I assume your definition of dynasty is more liberal than that.

 

I disagree that they Steelers qualify as multigenerational. They don't. They sucked for 40 years, then dominated the late 70's. They've been back to the Super Bowl once since then and lost. How on earth does that qualify? It doesn't.

[OJ's Glove]

Actually only 1 was a last minute drive.

 

Super Bowl XXIII

SF- 20

Cincy-16

 

John Taylor catches TD with 34 seconds left.

 

Super Bowl XVI

SF-26

Cincy- 21

 

SF maintains 20-0 halftime lead.

364252[/snapback]

 

 

I stand corrected, but still a close game. The Bengals had their chances and were not outclassed.

If the Niners are excused for allowing Cincinnati to make a comeback, I don't think NE should be penalized for the same thing. IIRC, it's the Bengals that were trying to come back to win 28-26 but couldn't score.

[William The Conqueror]

In the end, the question asked is "how many championships did you win", not 'how much did you win them by'?

 

Because the Bills beat the Raiders 51-3 in the AFCCG doesn't mean they were given the Lombardi.

[Alaska Darin]

Sweet! Even more friggin' trolls who can't use google.

[BF_in_Indiana]

I stand corrected, but still a close game. The Bengals had their chances and were not outclassed.

If the Niners are excused for allowing Cincinnati to make a comeback, I don't think NE should be penalized for the same thing. IIRC, it's the Bengals that were trying to come back to win 28-26 but couldn't score.

364330[/snapback]

 

The Bengals scored with I believe 14 seconds left to make it 26-21. They never held the ball with a chance to win.

[Bill from NYC]

The Bengals scored with I believe 14 seconds left to make it 26-21.  They never held the ball with a chance to win.

364394[/snapback]

 

I think you are wrong BF. As I recall, Montana led a late comeback. Are you sure?

He hit Turner for the winning TD, no?

[BF_in_Indiana]

I think you are wrong BF. As I recall, Montana led a late comeback. Are you sure?

He hit Turner for the winning TD, no?

364395[/snapback]

 

Nope. The 49er's were up 20-0 at halftime and the Bengals scored a late TD (with 14 seconds left I believe) to cut it to 5. They didn't get the onside kick and it was over.

 

The 49er's did have a goal line stand up 20-7 in the third quarter that could have made a difference though. Bengals came away with nothing.

[JinVA]

Nope.  The 49er's were up 20-0 at halftime and the Bengals scored a late TD (with 14 seconds left I believe) to cut it to 5.  They didn't get the onside kick and it was over.

 

The 49er's did have a goal line stand up 20-7 in the third quarter that could have made a difference though.  Bengals came away with nothing.

364403[/snapback]

Here is the recap

[AKC]

The margins are not an indication of dominance, as the level of compeition needs to be taken into account.

 

Another bad use of stats is lumping in the 85 Patriots who got schooled by the Bears in with the current team. Irrelevant. You're only doing it to make your stats look artificially better.

 

Lombardi's tenure alone was dynastic, but Favre has nothing to do with that, and he only won the SB once. Even the Steve Young 95 team doesn't have much in common with that first Montana team that beat Cincinnatti in 81. The only link is the front office. The Niners have five Super Bowls, but it took them 14 years to do it. Good for them, but to argue that that is objectively better than what NE is doing now just because you feel like saying it is where I cry foul.

 

 

I disagree that they Steelers qualify as multigenerational. They don't. They sucked for 40 years, then dominated the late 70's. They've been back to the Super Bowl once since then and lost. How on earth does that qualify? It doesn't.

364320[/snapback]

 

Take into account anything you want, there's simply no way a 3-point win in football qualifies as "dominant" in my dictionary or yours regardless of the level of competition. You either dominate an opponent or you don't, and a field goal kicker's margin of error will never crest the level of "dominant". Jan Stenerud never dominated a game anymore than Adam Viniatieri, and your championships were won by AV- whether you are willing to admit that or not.

 

5 Super Bowls over 14 years- I'd argue THAT'S exactly what the term "dynasty" means-

 

Lombardi won three consecutive championships with the same team- not a dynasty until another generation of Packers went on to win the trophy.

 

The SB9 Steelers were a whole lot different team than the SB14 version- completley different receiving corps/only two of the same OLinemen and over half the defense changed over- but I'm willing to entertain your definition that 5 years in football does not constitute multi-generational and therefore disqualifies the Steelers from the lofty height of "NFL Dynasty". Go on with your thesis and I appreciate the discussion; we'll explore that multiple personality disorder in another thread ;-)

[BF_in_Indiana]

Here is the recap

364412[/snapback]

 

Wrong game. We're talking about Super Bowl XVI.