Money
Well-Known Member
yes. very. you drop your pants at a urinal.
You do understand that those points are exact quotes from you? Right???
yes. very. you drop your pants at a urinal.
im being serious here:You do understand that those points are exact quotes from you? Right???
no they dont "given my definition".His point is, given your definition, the Ravens have a dynasty.
im being serious here:
youre just not a bright guy, holmes. it happens.
You are literally too stupid to argue with. When you have a couple free days, go back and try to re-read your posts.
no they dont "given my definition".
10-6 and second place isnt dominance.
for more on football, message me.
right now?So, you're saying that there is no such thing as a dynasty that last more than 2-3 seasons?
So this thread is pretty much derailed!
right now?
no.
definitely not.
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.
You are literally too stupid to argue with. When you have a couple free days, go back and try to re-read your posts.
like i said, its my opinion. luckily, by definition, opinions cant be wrong...only disputed.I see, so the dynasties of the NFL Super Bowl era are (must be dominate, better than 10-6, win their division, not lose the Super Bowl during time frame, won multiple titles):
Green Bay Packers 1966-1967
Miami Dolphins 1972-1975 (if you count 10-4 as being better than 10-6)
Pittsburgh Steelers 1974-1976
Pittsburgh Steelers 1978-1979
San Francisco 49ers 1988-1990
Dallas Cowboys 1992-1995
New England Patriots 2003-2004
Sound about right?
yeah, that game sucked.The same Plummer that ended the Pats "dynasty" (can't tell what defines it according to you) and handed your godsend his first playoff loss?
Do people still use oh snap? Being trapped in the early 2000s would explain that and your hard-on for the pats. All the wins and the cheating scandals are still in the closet.
I think he has all the free time in the world as evidenced by the hundreds posts deflecting and claiming pats dominance.
the last dynasty was the pats and it ended in 05. could have stretched it to the undefeated 07 season but they failed.
yeah, you are slow.When exactly did that dynasty start??? According to your definition, it would have to had to have been 1995. Yet...they lost a SB in 1996 and were far from dominate from 1998-2000.
yeah, you are slow.
what was the pats record in 2000?
i asked you because you were trying to play the dynasty game...and at 5-11, i was trying to dick slap you about "they were 5 and fucking 11 in 2000, how did it start in 96?"5-11...how do you not know that???
Makes sense to me.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???
i asked you because you were trying to play the dynasty game...and at 5-11, i was trying to dick slap you about "they were 5 and fucking 11 in 2000, how did it start in 96?"