Can a Dynasty last or are all sports dynasties doomed to die out eventually?

[Fafnir]

If we're speaking purely hypothetically, does Randy Moss get aligator-arms after Ronnie Lott knocks him on his ass?

LOL

[Rondo2287]

OK and I think Tom Brady SuperBowl Shuffles all over the bears face.  And I think the niners would be a good game.  Hence why I said Arguably the best team of all time. 

I think its silly for you to compare an 07 team you were emotionally invested in, to two teams you never saw play as an adult and form an opinion. (You're around my age IRC Rondo, my apologies if I'm wrong.)

Im around your age I think, but I have also done my research since the 85 bears trounced the pats that year.  And ill thank you not to call my arguments stupid. 

[nickagneta]

Lets look at the facts
2001 Champion
2002 Missed playoffs in last week
2003 champion
2004 champion
2005 lost in second round of playoffs
2006 lost in afc championship
2007 lost in superbowl(undefeated season/arguably one of the best teams ever)
2008 missed playoffs in last week with 11-5 record(while losing the previous seasons mvp and starting a QB that hadnt started since High School)

In current NFL standards where there is supposed to be parody.  I would consider that a Dynasty without Question. 

Taking this further since 1996, a span of 13 years with 3 different coaches and mainly 2 different QBs, the New England Patriots have:

• Had 11 winning seasons, 1 .500 season and one losing season.
• Have won 140 regular season games, most in the NFL by 10 games.
• Have won 17 post season games, 5 more than anyone else.
• Have won 3 Super Bowls, more than anyone else
• Have appeared in 5 Super Bowls, more than anyone else
• Have a winning percentage of .679 in all games played, regular season and playoffs, easily the highest in the league

And no less than 5 of ESPN's 16 experts predict New England to win it all as does Peter King from SI and I'm sure more will this weekend during the inaugural  pre game shows of the 2009 season.

Not too shabby and maybe already a thirteen year dynasty going on 14.

[Fafnir]

OK and I think Tom Brady SuperBowl Shuffles all over the bears face.  And I think the niners would be a good game.  Hence why I said Arguably the best team of all time. 

I think its silly for you to compare an 07 team you were emotionally invested in, to two teams you never saw play as an adult and form an opinion. (You're around my age IRC Rondo, my apologies if I'm wrong.)

Im around your age I think, but I have also done my research since the 85 bears trounced the pats that year.  And ill thank you not to call my arguments stupid. 

What research? If you're making the argument that today's athletes are better you'd have to do an awful lot.

Have you watched game film of the 84 49ers or the 85 Bears for example? Why do you think they'd both be beaten, just Randy Moss?

[Fafnir]

Lets look at the facts
2001 Champion
2002 Missed playoffs in last week
2003 champion
2004 champion
2005 lost in second round of playoffs
2006 lost in afc championship
2007 lost in superbowl(undefeated season/arguably one of the best teams ever)
2008 missed playoffs in last week with 11-5 record(while losing the previous seasons mvp and starting a QB that hadnt started since High School)

In current NFL standards where there is supposed to be parody.  I would consider that a Dynasty without Question. 

Taking this further since 1996, a span of 13 years with 3 different coaches and mainly 2 different QBs, the New England Patriots have:

• Had 11 winning seasons, 1 .500 season and one losing season.
• Have won 140 regular season games, most in the NFL by 10 games.
• Have won 17 post season games, 5 more than anyone else.
• Have won 3 Super Bowls, more than anyone else
• Have appeared in 5 Super Bowls, more than anyone else
• Have a winning percentage of .679 in all games played, regular season and playoffs, easily the highest in the league

And no less than 5 of ESPN's 16 experts predict New England to win it all as does Peter King from SI and I'm sure more will this weekend during the inaugural  pre game shows of the 2009 season.

Not too shabby and maybe already a thirteen year dynasty going on 14.

Agreed, though I think you're stretching it to call it one dynasty. I think you have to call only the 2001 and on part of the dynasty. Since 1996 they've been a very good team, only upon their upset of the Rams would any "dynasty" talk start.

[nickagneta]

Lets look at the facts
2001 Champion
2002 Missed playoffs in last week
2003 champion
2004 champion
2005 lost in second round of playoffs
2006 lost in afc championship
2007 lost in superbowl(undefeated season/arguably one of the best teams ever)
2008 missed playoffs in last week with 11-5 record(while losing the previous seasons mvp and starting a QB that hadnt started since High School)

In current NFL standards where there is supposed to be parody.  I would consider that a Dynasty without Question. 

Taking this further since 1996, a span of 13 years with 3 different coaches and mainly 2 different QBs, the New England Patriots have:

• Had 11 winning seasons, 1 .500 season and one losing season.
• Have won 140 regular season games, most in the NFL by 10 games.
• Have won 17 post season games, 5 more than anyone else.
• Have won 3 Super Bowls, more than anyone else
• Have appeared in 5 Super Bowls, more than anyone else
• Have a winning percentage of .679 in all games played, regular season and playoffs, easily the highest in the league

And no less than 5 of ESPN's 16 experts predict New England to win it all as does Peter King from SI and I'm sure more will this weekend during the inaugural  pre game shows of the 2009 season.

Not too shabby and maybe already a thirteen year dynasty going on 14.

Agreed, though I think you're stretching it to call it one dynasty. I think you have to call only the 2001 and on part of the dynasty. Since 1996 they've been a very good team, only upon their upset of the Rams would any "dynasty" talk start.

The reason for that is that after last year's SB people were saying the Steelers were the greatest NFL team ever and have basically been a dynasty since the 70's because they have never been bad for an extended time. I read similar stuff about the Lakers after last year. The Pats may not have won SB's before 2001 but they were clearly one of the best teams in  the league during most of those years.

[nickagneta]

Lets look at the facts
2001 Champion
2002 Missed playoffs in last week
2003 champion
2004 champion
2005 lost in second round of playoffs
2006 lost in afc championship
2007 lost in superbowl(undefeated season/arguably one of the best teams ever)
2008 missed playoffs in last week with 11-5 record(while losing the previous seasons mvp and starting a QB that hadnt started since High School)

In current NFL standards where there is supposed to be parody.  I would consider that a Dynasty without Question. 

Taking this further since 1996, a span of 13 years with 3 different coaches and mainly 2 different QBs, the New England Patriots have:

• Had 11 winning seasons, 1 .500 season and one losing season.
• Have won 140 regular season games, most in the NFL by 10 games.
• Have won 17 post season games, 5 more than anyone else.
• Have won 3 Super Bowls, more than anyone else
• Have appeared in 5 Super Bowls, more than anyone else
• Have a winning percentage of .679 in all games played, regular season and playoffs, easily the highest in the league

And no less than 5 of ESPN's 16 experts predict New England to win it all as does Peter King from SI and I'm sure more will this weekend during the inaugural  pre game shows of the 2009 season.

Not too shabby and maybe already a thirteen year dynasty going on 14.

Agreed, though I think you're stretching it to call it one dynasty. I think you have to call only the 2001 and on part of the dynasty. Since 1996 they've been a very good team, only upon their upset of the Rams would any "dynasty" talk start.

The reason for that is that after last year's SB people were saying the Steelers were the greatest NFL team ever and have basically been a dynasty since the 70's because they have never been bad for an extended time. I read similar stuff about the Lakers after last year. The Pats may not have won SB's before 2001 but they were clearly one of the best teams in  the league during most of those years.

Technically speaking, however, you are right. They have only been a dynasty since 2001.

[Rondo2287]

OK and I think Tom Brady SuperBowl Shuffles all over the bears face.  And I think the niners would be a good game.  Hence why I said Arguably the best team of all time. 

I think its silly for you to compare an 07 team you were emotionally invested in, to two teams you never saw play as an adult and form an opinion. (You're around my age IRC Rondo, my apologies if I'm wrong.)

Im around your age I think, but I have also done my research since the 85 bears trounced the pats that year.  And ill thank you not to call my arguments stupid. 

What research? If you're making the argument that today's athletes are better you'd have to do an awful lot.

Have you watched game film of the 84 49ers or the 85 Bears for example? Why do you think they'd both be beaten, just Randy Moss?

Yes I have watched game film on the 1985 bears and I think the Patriots would beat them. 

And when it comes to todays athletes being better than the 1980s consider this..

From 1920 to 1984, there were never more than eight players in any season who weighed 300 pounds or more. This year, there were 570 players who weighed 300 or more listed on 2006 NFL training camp rosters, nearly 20 percent of all players.

Other super-sized findings:

Z Since the NFL-AFL merger in 1970, the average player is nearly 25 pounds heavier, averaging 245.

Z Over the same period, the average offensive lineman is 62 pounds heavier; defensive lineman, 34 pounds.

Now in a game where two groups of players try to push the opposing group, which side will usually win in that shoving match?  Im going with the heavier guys.  So while this argument may be, "Stupid,"  to think that the offensive and defensive lines of the past can keep up with today's I think is ignoring the facts. 

[nickagneta]

OK and I think Tom Brady SuperBowl Shuffles all over the bears face.  And I think the niners would be a good game.  Hence why I said Arguably the best team of all time. 

I think its silly for you to compare an 07 team you were emotionally invested in, to two teams you never saw play as an adult and form an opinion. (You're around my age IRC Rondo, my apologies if I'm wrong.)

Im around your age I think, but I have also done my research since the 85 bears trounced the pats that year.  And ill thank you not to call my arguments stupid. 

What research? If you're making the argument that today's athletes are better you'd have to do an awful lot.

Have you watched game film of the 84 49ers or the 85 Bears for example? Why do you think they'd both be beaten, just Randy Moss?

Yes I have watched game film on the 1985 bears and I think the Patriots would beat them. 

And when it comes to todays athletes being better than the 1980s consider this..

From 1920 to 1984, there were never more than eight players in any season who weighed 300 pounds or more. This year, there were 570 players who weighed 300 or more listed on 2006 NFL training camp rosters, nearly 20 percent of all players.

Other super-sized findings:

Z Since the NFL-AFL merger in 1970, the average player is nearly 25 pounds heavier, averaging 245.

Z Over the same period, the average offensive lineman is 62 pounds heavier; defensive lineman, 34 pounds.

Now in a game where two groups of players try to push the opposing group, which side will usually win in that shoving match?  Im going with the heavier guys.  So while this argument may be, "Stupid,"  to think that the offensive and defensive lines of the past can keep up with today's I think is ignoring the facts. 

Didn't the Denver Broncos have not only one of the best, but one of the smallest offensive lines of the last 15 years. Schlereth, Nalen, Jones and Neil were all about 280-290 lbs and fast and strong. And they were the best in the league in the 1990's and early 2000's.

Size is less important than strength and technique on the line and most of the 1985 Bears offensive line was about 6-3 275-280 and the defensive line was about 6-4 270-275. They were fast and strong.

Though I think size makes a difference it is no coincidence that some of the players that the Pats o-line has had the toughest time with have been the smaller, stronger speed rushers and not the jumbo sized lines.

[Fafnir]

OK and I think Tom Brady SuperBowl Shuffles all over the bears face.  And I think the niners would be a good game.  Hence why I said Arguably the best team of all time. 

I think its silly for you to compare an 07 team you were emotionally invested in, to two teams you never saw play as an adult and form an opinion. (You're around my age IRC Rondo, my apologies if I'm wrong.)

Im around your age I think, but I have also done my research since the 85 bears trounced the pats that year.  And ill thank you not to call my arguments stupid. 

What research? If you're making the argument that today's athletes are better you'd have to do an awful lot.

Have you watched game film of the 84 49ers or the 85 Bears for example? Why do you think they'd both be beaten, just Randy Moss?

Yes I have watched game film on the 1985 bears and I think the Patriots would beat them. 

And when it comes to todays athletes being better than the 1980s consider this..

From 1920 to 1984, there were never more than eight players in any season who weighed 300 pounds or more. This year, there were 570 players who weighed 300 or more listed on 2006 NFL training camp rosters, nearly 20 percent of all players.

Other super-sized findings:

Z Since the NFL-AFL merger in 1970, the average player is nearly 25 pounds heavier, averaging 245.

Z Over the same period, the average offensive lineman is 62 pounds heavier; defensive lineman, 34 pounds.

Now in a game where two groups of players try to push the opposing group, which side will usually win in that shoving match?  Im going with the heavier guys.  So while this argument may be, "Stupid,"  to think that the offensive and defensive lines of the past can keep up with today's I think is ignoring the facts. 

Its a stupid argument Rondo because it can never be proved or disproved. It exists only in hypothetical land where Ninjas fight Pirates. You can say that the increased size would matter, but you can't know. As Nick pointed out there are plenty of teams and players that have been undersized and been successful.

Nor were the Patriots out muscled in the SB, the Giants were too quick for them on the D-Line more often than not.

I'd also have to ask, what 1985 game films were you watching and why? I'm not going to beat around the bush I don't believe you really watched it beyond maybe an ESPN special in passing (if they even made one).

I'm a Bears fan so I've watched a good chunk of the 85 season on DVD, but only to get myself some grounding in their only SB season. Why would you a Pats fan go find and watch it?

Its respectable to rank the 07 Pats as a great team, one of the best ever. Brian Billick a great football mind did that very season when asked to compare them to previous great teams. But in the end how can you be great, when you failed at your ultimate goal? Especially when similar teams dominated and did win the SB?

[nickagneta]

OK and I think Tom Brady SuperBowl Shuffles all over the bears face.  And I think the niners would be a good game.  Hence why I said Arguably the best team of all time. 

I think its silly for you to compare an 07 team you were emotionally invested in, to two teams you never saw play as an adult and form an opinion. (You're around my age IRC Rondo, my apologies if I'm wrong.)

Im around your age I think, but I have also done my research since the 85 bears trounced the pats that year.  And ill thank you not to call my arguments stupid. 

What research? If you're making the argument that today's athletes are better you'd have to do an awful lot.

Have you watched game film of the 84 49ers or the 85 Bears for example? Why do you think they'd both be beaten, just Randy Moss?

Yes I have watched game film on the 1985 bears and I think the Patriots would beat them. 

And when it comes to todays athletes being better than the 1980s consider this..

From 1920 to 1984, there were never more than eight players in any season who weighed 300 pounds or more. This year, there were 570 players who weighed 300 or more listed on 2006 NFL training camp rosters, nearly 20 percent of all players.

Other super-sized findings:

Z Since the NFL-AFL merger in 1970, the average player is nearly 25 pounds heavier, averaging 245.

Z Over the same period, the average offensive lineman is 62 pounds heavier; defensive lineman, 34 pounds.

Now in a game where two groups of players try to push the opposing group, which side will usually win in that shoving match?  Im going with the heavier guys.  So while this argument may be, "Stupid,"  to think that the offensive and defensive lines of the past can keep up with today's I think is ignoring the facts. 

Its a stupid argument Rondo because it can never be proved or disproved. It exists only in hypothetical land where Ninjas fight Pirates. You can say that the increased size would matter, but you can't know. As Nick pointed out there are plenty of teams and players that have been undersized and been successful.

Nor were the Patriots out muscled in the SB, the Giants were too quick for them on the D-Line more often than not.

I'd also have to ask, what 1985 game films were you watching and why? I'm not going to beat around the bush I don't believe you really watched it beyond maybe an ESPN special in passing (if they even made one).

I'm a Bears fan so I've watched a good chunk of the 85 season on DVD, but only to get myself some grounding in their only SB season. Why would you a Pats fan go find and watch it?

Its respectable to rank the 07 Pats as a great team, one of the best ever. Brian Billick a great football mind did that very season when asked to compare them to previous great teams. But in the end how can you be great, when you failed at your ultimate goal? Especially when similar teams dominated and did win the SB?

I was 20 years old and watched that whole Super Bowl live. That's the last time I ever wanted to watch the 1985 Bears. Yes, they were that good. For me, easily, the best defense I have ever seen in my lifetime. The 2007 Patriots couldn't beat the 2007 Giants when it mattered most, never mind what they would have accomplished versus those Monsters of the Midway. I think that Bears team beats the Pats by a touchdown at least.

[Rondo2287]

Well I watched the regular season game against the pats and the superbowl against the pats.  I netflixed the NFL GREATEST GAMES SERIES 1985 Bears.  I wanted to watch and see the first pats team that made the superbowl.  But you probably wont believe me so it doesnt really matter

[Fafnir]

To clarify Rondo I think comparing teams from such different eras is stupid, not you.

I just think the 07 Patriots will eventually fade in memory compared to their title teams, Just as the 01 Rams have compared with the 00 Rams. Sure they'll be remembered, but not as one of the greatest. You have to win a title to get to that lofty perch.

[indeedproceed]

regarding that bears team...the only argument that has a leg to stand on is "the game has progressed so much.."

but that's true with any sport. Just a dominating team.

[Fafnir]

Well I watched the regular season game against the pats and the superbowl against the pats.  I netflixed the NFL GREATEST GAMES SERIES 1985 Bears.  I wanted to watch and see the first pats team that made the superbowl.  But you probably wont believe me so it doesnt really matter

That makes sense to me, but you didn't study it looking for match ups or comparing teams? I just don't think you can compare the two when you lived and died watching the whole Pats season and then watched two games from the Bears that season.

Nor do I really think you'd be objective anyways. If you broke things down, I could lend credence. But I think its pretty clear you made a quick judgment about it all. But this is really a side track to the dynasty talk.