soxfan1468927
Well-Known Member
There's obviously a level of difficulty factor here though. 2 of those championships they had to win 1 game. 2 others they had to win 2 games. It's also a championship over 14 teams instead of 32, in 3 of those 5 years.Well for one thing winning 1 Super Bowl in the last 11 years in my opinion is no type of dynasty at all. Hell the Packers have one in the last 10 years.
I am not sure where you get 5 Super Bowls as all ic an find is 4 wins. But if a team has 1 Super Bowl win in the last 11 years and then a few more past the 11 year mark I still dont see that as a current dynasty. All i see on TV is the greatness the best ever a dynasty currently. 1 Superbowl in the last 11 years does not describe what is being talked about as far as all the greatness I am suppose to be seeing. Oh and you cant go back and add a few Super Bowl wins from over 11 years ago to make a current dynasty. Dynasties dont have 11 years between Super Bowl wins. So you better hope the Pats can pull it off on Sunday.
I would say that in the past the Pats had a short term Dynasty when they won a few over a 5 year time frame. But that has nothing to do with today. And that sort of dynasty is no different than the Pack winning 5 championships in the 60s, or the Steelers, or the 49ers, or Cowboys.
The Pats owned the 2000s'? What 3 out of 10 Super Bowls is owning a decade? They need to win at least half of them like the Pack did winning 5 in the 60s
The topic of this thread was why do you dislike the Pats. The biggest reason for me is this idea of the Pats owned the 2000's like way back in the early 2000's and if we win in Sunday we will still be owning the 2000s.
Ha Ha it does not work that way.