Patriots back-to-back-to-back AFC Conference Championships

[The Derski]

Yawn... This thread smells of insecurity. Honestly no one really cares whether you consider the Pats a dynasty or not.

 

[briz almighty]

SPY...GATE.

Patriots cant win without cheating, still to this day.

 

[HammerDown]

First this...

First, you can't make up your own definition of dynasty.

Then this...

A dynasty in the NFL would have to be any team that has won more than 2 Superbowls withion a 5-7 year period and/or has consistently played for the Championship more than 3 or 4 times in the same period.

What am I missing?

 

[BigKen]

What are you missing......................the point......I made it up to show why you can't make your own definition of anything.

The other things the Titans miss.........the playoffs.

 

[FlyerFinFan]

Briz doesn't seem to understand that the pats haven't actually won a SB since spygate even with very good teams. That should tell you something.....on another note this is comical because you can't be a dynasty without winning championships for years on end.

 

[Midnightangel]

The Packers were the dynasty of the 60's.

The Steelers in the 70's.

The 49er's of the 80's.

The 'Boys of the 90's.

And the Pats of the naughties. (See what I did there?)

Thus far this decade we haven't had one team distinguish themselves enough to be a dynasty. Packers in '10, Giants in '11 and Ravens last year. Three years and three teams. We'll have to wait and see. And who knows...there might not be a dynasty at all.

 

[tshirt]

By this time next week, the Patriots will have played more conference championship games in the last 13 years than all but three AFC teams have in 44 years. To put it another way: Since the 1970 AFL/NFL merger, only the Steelers (15), Raiders (11) and Broncos (now 9) have reached the AFC championship as many times, total, as the Pats have since 2001.

 

[Scooby-Doo]

but they havent exactly fallen off the map have they? they been to two more sb's since then and now three straight afc championships. you would think a dynasty that died would not be so close to adding to it. yea they havent won the sb and thats the ultimate goal, but you can say the dynaty is dead when they are still knocking on the door for more. if they get another sb it will just add to what they accomplished already, so the dynasty is still attacking. its rediculous to say only championships validate it, getting to the very top also adds to it.

Said the Buffalo Bills of the 90's.

 

[HammerDown]

By this time next week, the Patriots will have played more conference championship games in the last 13 years than all but three AFC teams have in 44 years. To put it another way: Since the 1970 AFL/NFL merger, only the Steelers (15), Raiders (11) and Broncos (now 9) have reached the AFC championship as many times, total, as the Pats have since 2001.

 

[RoboticDreams]

 

[tabascojet]

18-1......

 

[NEhomer]

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/...9X6TdgsWhGbPW4o9D6rl8IhFrMvlWmaADmID6nN1NeNN6

This pic is more recent.

 

[BobGnarly]

How's the dynasty doin there Briz?

 

[Sharkonabicycle]

IF Seattle wins this super bowl they may have something going in terms of dynasty. They get another year of super cheap players and can save a ton of cap by cutting Rice and Bryant.

We'll see. Seattle is in a far better shape than Denver who is solely reliant on Manning (40s) to do anything. Other NFC teams have too much rebuilding to do except for San Fran. Outside of their D-Line they have a pretty stacked team all around.

 

[cdumler7]

IF Seattle wins this super bowl they may have something going in terms of dynasty. They get another year of super cheap players and can save a ton of cap by cutting Rice and Bryant.

We'll see. Seattle is in a far better shape than Denver who is solely reliant on Manning (40s) to do anything. Other NFC teams have too much rebuilding to do except for San Fran. Outside of their D-Line they have a pretty stacked team all around.

Wow solely reliant on Manning? Guess some people forget that before Peyton came to the Broncos they were actually division Champions with a guy named Tebow starting at quarterback. There is talent on this team that doesn't have a last name Manning. Sorry he has been great this year but he has had a great team around him. He has a great OL (didn't get touched once this last game), great group of receivers and TE's, 2 good RB's. You don't put up the best numbers in NFL history on offense just having a good quarterback. Look at Brady this year and how much he was missing all the talent around him.

Defensively before injuries the Broncos had 4-5 pro bowl caliber players on the team. All of them have gone down with injury at some point this season except Knighton. All of those guys are expected to be healthy at the beginning of the season next year. Remember Broncos are missing 9 starters at this point in the season that are all expected back next year except maybe 1. This team when healthy was a top 5 defense the year before so they have an historic offense with a defense that can be top 10 easily when healthy. Good luck next year. Also good luck with that whole dynasty thing once guys like Wilson, Sherman, and Thomas all start demanding top money for their positions. There is a reason there hasn't really been a dynasty in the NFL for years. The best way to stay on top is to have a top flight quarterback. Impossible to keep a top flight defense together very long because of having to dish out so many big contracts.

 

[hockey878]

problem seattle is gonna have is in after next year they are going to owe a lot of people big money. Almost every impact player on that team is on a rookie deal. thats gonna change in a hurry.

the test for them will be to replace all the talent

 

[Lemon Harang Pie]

I don't dislike New England but a lot of that probably has to do with scheduling, not least of which is due to playing in the AFC East. I mean you see the Bills, Dolphins, and Jets *TWICE* a season! They're guaranteed a playoff sport just because they play in the worst division in sports history and there's always a solid chance that they're going to pick up 6 wins right off the bat before they leave their division.

 

[soxfan1468927]

I don't dislike New England but a lot of that probably has to do with scheduling, not least of which is due to playing in the AFC East. I mean you see the Bills, Dolphins, and Jets *TWICE* a season! They're guaranteed a playoff sport just because they play in the worst division in sports history and there's always a solid chance that they're going to pick up 6 wins right off the bat before they leave their division.

It certainly helps to play in a weak division, but since realignment in 2002 they are 91-29 outside of their division. That's a .758 winning percentage, which is about 12 wins per season.

 

[Lemon Harang Pie]

It certainly helps to play in a weak division, but since realignment in 2002 they are 91-29 outside of their division. That's a .758 winning percentage, which is about 12 wins per season.

I think they're a solid enough team but I also think the schedule always seems to offer them pretty favorable match ups. They probably had the easiest schedule in football this season and the two toughest games, maybe the only tough games, were both at home. I think it's pretty reasonable to believe they lose to Denver and New Orleans on the road.

That still puts them in the playoffs of course because they're in the same division as the Bills, Dolphins, and Jets.

 

[Rico&SkooterTwoPeasInAPod]

is the dynasty really dead?

guess the pats really havent won anything since spygate huh? maybe if we had the cameras we could go farther..

"Rings are the only thing that matters" - Briz (From 2001-2013)
"It's a team game. Tom Brady can't do it all by himself." - Briz (2014)