Russell Wilson will play last season of his deal w/ insurance policy in case he gets a boo boo.

[Rock Strongo]

I don't disagree. It IS too early to call them a dynasty.

Just trying to follow along with Rock's tortured logic.

its a fairly straight forward concept.

if you lose a superbowl, the dynasty ends. fin. end of discussion. stop typing.

just like when JR got shot.

 

[jakedog56]

I think Rock Trollgo is pretty funny. He certainly is overly obsessed. Maybe he should try to find some meaning in his life so he doesn't have to waste time trying his best to piss people off for a living.

Anyways, back to the subject: RW took out an insurance contract. Who cares? Many athletes do this. I really don't see what the problem is. He protects himself financially against future earnings lost due to possible injury. Seems like a damn smart thing to do if you ask me.

 

[Broncosr0k]

well, they wont...but i'll play along.

they would have gone to 3 straight superbowls and won 2. losing in the middle kills the "dynasty". i know dynastys, you dream of them.

3 in 4 years.

By your own logic there has not been a dynasty since 2005 and it only lasted 2 years.

3 in 4 years means nothing by your own logic. 2 in 2 years is all you can talk about.

2 in 2 is still great but you CANNOT claim dynasty beyond 2005.

Pats dynasty 2003-2005, or a decade ago.

 

[Rock Strongo]

By your own logic there has not been a dynasty since 2005 and it only lasted 2 years.

3 in 4 years means nothing by your own logic. 2 in 2 years is all you can talk about.

2 in 2 is still great but you CANNOT claim dynasty beyond 2005.

Pats dynasty 2003-2005, or a decade ago.

yeah, you cant read well.

or, at all.

go back and look at what i said about SUPERBOWL LOSSES vs just not making it to a SUPERBOWL.

3 in 4 is a dynasty (they didnt lose a SB)

it ended in 07 when they could have capped it with another recent title.

words...they CAN be your friend.

 

[jakedog56]

So this thread is pretty much derailed!

 

[Broncosr0k]

they would have gone to 3 straight superbowls and won 2. losing in the middle kills the "dynasty". i know dynastys, you dream of them

Explain then how going to 3 SBs and losing in between "kills the dynasty" but winning 1 NOT going and then winning 2 back-to-back and then not going until 2007 means the dynasty ends in 2007. Either way you cut it, pats "dynasty" ended in 2005.

Stop being a pompous asshat. You know you are wrong but cannot admit you are a fuck-up.

 

[Money]

they would have gone to 3 straight superbowls and won 2. losing in the middle kills the "dynasty". i know dynastys, you dream of them

Explain then how going to 3 SBs and losing in between "kills the dynasty" but winning 1 NOT going and then winning 2 back-to-back and then not going until 2007 means the dynasty ends in 2007. Either way you cut it, pats "dynasty" ended in 2005.

Stop being a pompous asshat. You know you are wrong but cannot admit you are a fuck-up.

You cannot win this. He is prepared to go to great lengths to prove what a gigantic asshat he is.

 

[Rock Strongo]

they would have gone to 3 straight superbowls and won 2. losing in the middle kills the "dynasty". i know dynastys, you dream of them

Explain then how going to 3 SBs and losing in between "kills the dynasty" but winning 1 NOT going and then winning 2 back-to-back and then not going until 2007 means the dynasty ends in 2007. Either way you cut it, pats "dynasty" ended in 2005.

Stop being a pompous asshat. You know you are wrong but cannot admit you are a fuck-up.

yeah, the dynasty ended in 05. i never said otherwise. i DID say they could have capped it in 07, in the greatest fashion in sports history. they failed.

a dynasty involves a consecutive string of SB appearances and wins....or at least highly in the mix for one...over a span of more than just 2 years. a SB loss vacates a dynasty.

i will even reference my hated wiki for you (open source sucks, but i will here):

A sportsdynasty is a team that dominates their sport or league for an extraordinary length of time. The definition of dynasty by academics implies a single leader over the bulk of that period, a great example being John Wooden who led the college basketball powerhouse UCLA Bruins. The word "dynasty" should not be used for a string of several dominant years in a row. It implies an extraordinary length of time like a decade. Such dominance is often only realized in retrospect. Some leagues maintain official lists of dynasties, often as part of a hall of fame (e.g., National Hockey League), but in many cases, whether a team has achieved a dynasty is subjective, and can be a frequent topic of debate among sports fans.

if you lose a SB, you do not dominate. thats you losing a title game.

as of right now, today...where we sit on 6/18./15...the hawks do not meet the above criteria one iota. its been 2 years of "success" (which is a relative term since they LOST the superbowl in a back to back attempt)...not long enough...and they lost a SB in feb if you recall.

 

[Rock Strongo]

interesting. this list seems to indicate the pats are STILL in the midst of a dynasty. i dont agree with that...but what a neat list for you to read.

American football[edit]
National Football League[edit]

• Green Bay Packers 1929–1931 (three straight NFL Championships) [81]
• Chicago Bears of the 1940s (“Monsters of the Midway”) (three championships in four seasons)[82][83]
• Cleveland Browns of the early 1950s (three NFL championships and six consecutive title game appearances from 1950 to 1955)[10][82]
• Detroit Lions of the 1950s (three championships and four title game appearances in six years)[84]
• Green Bay Packers of the 1960s (five championships in seven years, including Super Bowls I and II)[81][82][85][86][87][10][88]
• Pittsburgh Steelers of the 1970s (only team in NFL History to win four Super Bowl titles in six years ('74, '75, '78, '79), 6 straight division titles, 7 total)[10][82][86][87][88][89]
• San Francisco 49ers of the 1980s. This dynasty is usually considered to cover 1981 through 1989, a period in which the team won four Super Bowl championships (1981, 1984, 1988, 1989) and 8 division titles,[82][86][87][88] but sometimes the 1994 Super Bowl championship is also included.[89]
• Dallas Cowboys 1991–1997 (First team to win three Super Bowls in four years (1992, 1993, 1995), 3 conference championships in 4 straight appearances, 5 straight division titles, 6 total)[82][86][87][88][89] The Cowboys also had aNational Football Conference dynasty from 1970-1982, in which they won 8 division titles (1970, 1971, 1973, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1981), 10 NFC Championship game appearances (1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1978, 1980, 1981, 1982), 5 Super Bowl appearances (1970, 1971, 1975, 1977, 1978), and 2 Super Bowl championships (1971, 1977). The Cowboys were the only NFC team to win a Super Bowl during the 1970s.
• New England Patriots 2001–Present. Three Super Bowl titles in four years (2001, 2003, 2004) and a fourth in 2014, two other Super Bowl appearances (2007, 2011), and nine AFC title game appearances (2001, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2011-2014). Twelve AFC East Division titles (2001, 2003-2007, and 2009-2014). The 2007 season also saw the Patriots become only the second team in NFL history to record a perfect regular season and the first to do so in a 16-game season. During this time, the Patriots set the NFL's #1 and #2 record for most consecutive games won; 18 from 2007-2008, and 21 from 2003-2004. From 2001-2014 the Patriots have averaged over 12 wins per season and a .759 win percentage, the highest in any of the four major American sports.[82][86]

 

[chf]

not getting to the superbowl > getting to the superbowl and losing

Yes, tortured logic.

 

[blstoker]

if you lose a SB, you do not dominate. thats you losing a title game.

So, it's ok to lose less meaningful games as long as you don't lose the title game? So, missing the playoffs is better than losing the Super Bowl?

The irony, is in this particular argument, everyone is trying to tell Rock that the Patriots look better than he thinks they do.

 

[Rock Strongo]

So, it's ok to lose less meaningful games as long as you don't lose the title game? So, missing the playoffs is better than losing the Super Bowl?

The irony, is in this particular argument, everyone is trying to tell Rock that the Patriots look better than he thinks they do.

yes. thats my standard.

and FYI...thats not irony.

 

[Rock Strongo]

not getting to the superbowl > getting to the superbowl and losing

Yes, tortured logic.

sorry, it is what it is.

you lose a SB, the dynasty ends.

lebrons in the midst of a dynasty i suppose?

 

[Broncosr0k]

yes. thats my standard.

I can be okay with this. Broncos dynasty lasted '97-'13. Heck of a run.

 

[blstoker]

and FYI...thats not irony.

True, I was stretching the meaning of a word. I was using the term to describe a situation that appears to be backward, how horrible of me.

lebrons in the midst of a dynasty i suppose?

Can't be, he lost the championship.

 

[Rock Strongo]

I can be okay with this. Broncos dynasty lasted '97-'13. Heck of a run.

well, since you cant read...it DID (and i did) say "a period of sustained dominance". you must have slept thru tebow, cutler, griese and plummer...

go figure.

was that an attempt at an "oh snap?" i bet you laughed as you typed that too.

 

[Rock Strongo]

True, I was stretching the meaning of a word.



Can't be, he lost the championship.

good, then we agree.

 

[blstoker]

good, then we agree.

No, I don't agree, but at least I can understand what you're getting at.

 

[Money]

So...to recap:

If you lose a SB, the dynasty ends. Of course a dynasty must be for an extraordinary length of time (like a decade), so in actuality, a dynasty has never begun. So there never has been, nor ever will be, a dynasty in the NFL.

Everyone clear???

 

[Rock Strongo]

So...to recap:

If you lose a SB, the dynasty ends. Of course a dynasty must be for an extraordinary length of time (like a decade), so in actuality, a dynasty has never begun. So there never has been, nor ever will be, a dynasty in the NFL.

Everyone clear???

yes. very. you drop your pants at a urinal.