Quote:
Originally Posted by Buster
Of course not, they haven't won for three years.
I never really considered them a dynasty. They won 3 SBs each by just a single FG, hardly dominant. Who'd they beat? The Eagles, Panthers and Rams...wow...really impressive. A team who is a dynasty doesn't rely on last-second FGs to win.
Pile on top of all of this the fact they've been found to have cheated, even on at least one SB...
Not a dynasty. Not even close.
|
First, they were as heavy an underdog against the Rams as the Giants were against the Patriots this year. That was an incredible win, and you can't take that away from them.
Second, the Eagles were good in 2004, remember? That wasn't a fluke SB team.
Third, I'll give you the Panthers - they sucked. But why should that count against the Pats? The AFC was nasty that year, and the Pats defense was silly. Is it their fault that the NFC sucked?
Fourth, the Pats' back-to-back years saw them go 14-2 each year. That's pretty dominant, even with their weak division.
Lastly, they haven't been found to have cheated on at least one SB. There are allegations, that's it. Allegations <> facts.
I don't like the Pats, but you have to give them credit for accomplishing something that wasn't supposed to be possible these days. I don't know if it's a dynasty or not, but "not even close"? That's just not supportable.