Jump to content

Are the Pats the WORST Great team in NFL History?


Recommended Posts

So teams back then all operated under the same rules, yet certain teams did well, while other teams didn't.

Now, the Pats operate under certain rules, some teams do well, while others do not.

For whatever reason, you can't assume cause there are different rules, that those GMs and front offices won't do well.

As I said. The 49ers had Montana and Bill Walsh and won 3 SBs. THey had Montana and George Seifert and won 1 SB. They had YOung and Seifert and won another SB...

THey had Mariucci and Garcia and Owens and still competed in the playoffs.

Over 20 years they operated under certain rules, yet with different coaches, players, QBs, and still won...

The Pats have had a good 5-6 year run. If they have a 20 year run, then I'll say they are one of the best dynasty's off all time.

But for my money, when a team wins 5 SBs and competes for most seasons over a 20+ year period, you can't even compare.

Just like the Yankees dynasty has existed for almost 100 years. Yeah there are up and down years, but 5 years does not make the greatest dynasty of all time. It makes a nice run, some great teams, but to me, a real dynasty is when you win 10 championsips like the Celtics, you are a contender for 10+ years with different players, coaches and systems.

The list goes on. I don't consider the Cowboys a great dynasty. THey had a nice run from 1991-1997, but that was it. Great teams, couple different coaches, but the fact is, great dynastys exist with new coaches, new players, and so on.

The Pats need another great 5 years to be even consider as a great dynasty to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ALL TEAMS OF THAT ERA OPERATED UNDER THE SAME RULES.

:rolleyes:

Maybe you do not understand the question. The question is are the Patriots the worst great team?

You can't logically compare them because they operate under different systems. One is designed to stunt greatness and the other promoted it because there was no free agency. That all teams operated under the same system in that era is irrelevant to this argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Pats have had a good 5-6 year run. If they have a 20 year run, then I'll say they are one of the best dynasty's off all time.

5-6? The Patriots have the best record in the league over the last THIRTEEN years. Since Kraft bought the team, they have been in five conference championship games, have been in four Super Bowls, and have won three of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
:rolleyes:

Maybe you do not understand the question. The question is are the Patriots the worst great team?

You can't logically compare them because they operate under different systems. One is designed to stunt greatness and the other promoted it because there was no free agency. That all teams operated under the same system in that era is irrelevant to this argument.

Free agency stunts the potential greatness of all teams equally - not just the Pats. Sure you can lose a great player - but you get to replace him with 10 other free agents at a lesser price. It really makes no difference in my eyes. Also free agency started in 1992, not 2001.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cause teams operated under the rules that existed during that time frame....

You still don't comprehend..

The Pats have had a nice little run over the last 5-6 years.

The 49ers had a run for 20+ years.

Regardless of rules, the fact is, it is what it is.

THe Pats are the best team in the salary cap era.. Then again, it's only been around since they started winning.. SO you can't really compare them to anybody.

Sad fact is, wait another 10 years and who knows what the new rules will be.

Every era is different.

the 50's had no super bowl or TV.

The 60's had hangovers, first SB, AFL vs NFL and so on.

The 70's had hardnose smash mouth football.

The 80's was the crack era, more money, mtv, more drugs, big hair, and so on. steroids as something people didn't know that much about or how to use.

The 90's were about the Cowboys and prima donn'as. MOre money and steroids as a factor that really is never tested.

The 00's is about 300 pound men with 2 pecent body fat. More steroids, Human Growth Hormones, and parity football.

Every era is different.

So what are you trying to compare?

The Pats are the best salary cap team?

Maybe they are, but the fact is, you can't compare them to anybody else except for teams now. And i'll give you that they have been the best under the salary cap era. Thats what, 6 years.

As I said, the 49ers existed in the 1980's and the 1990's, and then made the playoffs in the 2000s.

3 different decades of playoffs is what makes a team a true dynasty.

Not 6 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5-6? The Patriots have the best record in the league over the last THIRTEEN years. Since Kraft bought the team, they have been in five conference championship games, have been in four Super Bowls, and have won three of them.

So then the Cowboys dynasty of the 1990's started in 1971?

Link to post
Share on other sites
So then the Cowboys dynasty of the 1990's started in 1971?

Actually, the salary cap was introduced in 1994. The Cowboyz obtained all those great players pre-salary cap. They still had enough talent to overcome Switzer in 1995, but quickly lost players to free agency due to salary cap restrictions. I guess your revisionist NFL History book does nto reflect that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah the Pats were a non-factor for quite a few years.. Even in 2001, they were not a great team. They lost against the Raiders.. But the sad truth is, and everybody knows it, the NFL invented the infamous "tuck" rule for them...

2002, they didn't even make the playoffs.

So technically the great years started in 2003-2004...

A 2 year run is nice.. Nothing great.

Cowboys had a nice run, but after 1996, it was long over.

Teams like the 49ers won for 20 years. Had HOF players. Replaced HOF players.

The Pats are a nice story, but the fact is, besides 2003-2004, they really weren't a great team.

Just like the Bears won one SB and weren't a great dynasty, the Giants winning 2 SB weren't a great dynasty, heck the Redskins won what, 3 SBs, and weren't a great dynasty.

Great Dynasty's don't blow 18 point leads against a team that they always beat. And against a QB and Coach who were on their heels.

Great dynasty's DO NOT GET RID OF SOME OF THEIR BEST PLAYERS..... Players who won them SBs unless there is a HOF in the waiting. Yeah it's a salary cap era, but Branch and Adam V could have been signed. THe Pats didn't want to spend the money. It's not like they are over the cap. They dumped Troy Brown but he came back.. The list goes on.

Salary cap this and that, the fact is, the Pats were a win away from probably being mentioned as a top dynasty. In the end, they blew an 18 point lead and now go into the books as just another team who had a nice run.

Link to post
Share on other sites
They went through a period of not winning jack, so did the Pats. Are you suggesting the Pats "dynasty" started in 1996?

That was not what I was saying at all. But to argue that they have only been successful for the past five years is just wrong.

They have been the most successful team in the league since Kraft bought the team in 1994. Most victories, most championships. That says something for their staying power and takes the element of pure luck out of it. Yeah, they have been lucky, but they are more good than lucky.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah the Pats were a non-factor for quite a few years.. Even in 2001, they were not a great team. They lost against the Raiders.. But the sad truth is, and everybody knows it, the NFL invented the infamous "tuck" rule for them...

2002, they didn't even make the playoffs.

So technically the great years started in 2003-2004...

A 2 year run is nice.. Nothing great.

Cowboys had a nice run, but after 1996, it was long over.

Teams like the 49ers won for 20 years. Had HOF players. Replaced HOF players.

The Pats are a nice story, but the fact is, besides 2003-2004, they really weren't a great team.

Just like the Bears won one SB and weren't a great dynasty, the Giants winning 2 SB weren't a great dynasty, heck the Redskins won what, 3 SBs, and weren't a great dynasty.

Great Dynasty's don't blow 18 point leads against a team that they always beat. And against a QB and Coach who were on their heels.

Great dynasty's DO NOT GET RID OF SOME OF THEIR BEST PLAYERS..... Players who won them SBs unless there is a HOF in the waiting. Yeah it's a salary cap era, but Branch and Adam V could have been signed. THe Pats didn't want to spend the money. It's not like they are over the cap. They dumped Troy Brown but he came back.. The list goes on.

Salary cap this and that, the fact is, the Pats were a win away from probably being mentioned as a top dynasty. In the end, they blew an 18 point lead and now go into the books as just another team who had a nice run.

That is the whole point. I am sure the Cowboys would have liked to keep alot of their talent that left. Ditto the Patriots.

However, the system does not allow them to keep everyone. Saying the Patriots are not as good as the Steelers is a no-brainer. The chances that the Patriots could dominate like a team that put together and kept 9 HofFers are slim.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cause teams operated under the rules that existed during that time frame....

You still don't comprehend..

The Pats have had a nice little run over the last 5-6 years.

The 49ers had a run for 20+ years.

Regardless of rules, the fact is, it is what it is.

THe Pats are the best team in the salary cap era.. Then again, it's only been around since they started winning.. SO you can't really compare them to anybody.

Sad fact is, wait another 10 years and who knows what the new rules will be.

Every era is different.

the 50's had no super bowl or TV.

The 60's had hangovers, first SB, AFL vs NFL and so on.

The 70's had hardnose smash mouth football.

The 80's was the crack era, more money, mtv, more drugs, big hair, and so on. steroids as something people didn't know that much about or how to use.

The 90's were about the Cowboys and prima donn'as. MOre money and steroids as a factor that really is never tested.

The 00's is about 300 pound men with 2 pecent body fat. More steroids, Human Growth Hormones, and parity football.

Every era is different.

So what are you trying to compare?

The Pats are the best salary cap team?

Maybe they are, but the fact is, you can't compare them to anybody else except for teams now. And i'll give you that they have been the best under the salary cap era. Thats what, 6 years.

As I said, the 49ers existed in the 1980's and the 1990's, and then made the playoffs in the 2000s.

3 different decades of playoffs is what makes a team a true dynasty.

Not 6 years.

Pjam you're camparing the idea of a team overcoming obstacles relative to their time period in becvoming a dynasty. The difference between then and now is back then your great teams had the personnel to find and coach great players couple with a FO that would shell out the money to keep those guys on the team. As long as the owner wanted to spend the money to keep guys, he could. Today's game restrictions specifically target dynasties and make it extrememly difficult to maintain one. So now the great teams find great players and coach them, but then they also have to learn to replace them for cap reasons. Without the cap there is no doubt that Branch and Vinatieri are still both Pats. So is Law for that matter. But reality is today's rules are in place to make it nearly insurmountable in becoming a dynasty and yet the Pats still did it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Pjam you're camparing the idea of a team overcoming obstacles relative to their time period in becvoming a dynasty. The difference between then and now is back then your great teams had the personnel to find and coach great players couple with a FO that would shell out the money to keep those guys on the team. As long as the owner wanted to spend the money to keep guys, he could. Today's game restrictions specifically target dynasties and make it extrememly difficult to maintain one. So now the great teams find great players and coach them, but then they also have to learn to replace them for cap reasons. Without the cap there is no doubt that Branch and Vinatieri are still both Pats. So is Law for that matter. But reality is today's rules are in place to make it nearly insurmountable in becoming a dynasty and yet the Pats still did it.

Booz-- Are you getting a hardon for Pats?

They are the luckiest franchise i have seen in my whole life. Cindy is so godly

overrated, He can get you in FG range, how about a last minute TD drive?

Without AV, this guy is nothing.......

Link to post
Share on other sites
Booz-- Are you getting a hardon for Pats?

They are the luckiest franchise i have seen in my whole life. Cindy is so godly

overrated, He can get you in FG range, how about a last minute TD drive?

Without AV, this guy is nothing.......

ot at all, I hate them with a passion. I'm just not so blind in my hatred for them to really believe that 3 SB's and an AFC champ game in 4 out of 6 years is luck. If you want to believe that go ahead. It was a hell of an accomplishment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Booz-- Are you getting a hardon for Pats?

They are the luckiest franchise i have seen in my whole life. Cindy is so godly

overrated, He can get you in FG range, how about a last minute TD drive?

Without AV, this guy is nothing.......

And you are still clueless.

Exactly how many game winning TD drives that covered 80 yards started in the last 54 seconds of a playoff game?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great topic...

It is virtually impossible to compare eras in any kind of sport.

When I look at the Pats run I don't see Steelers, or Niners or Cowboys with their galaxy of stars. I compare them more to the Dolphins of the the early 70's.

Very good players working the system to perfection.

There are not many HOF's on the those Fish teams and I don't think you will see alot of HOF's coming from the Pats. You will have Brady and Vinatieri and maybe Seymour but who else ? Maybe Ty Law ? Bruschi ?

The Dolphins No-Name D was alot like the Pats D of today. Very Good players but who played Arnsparger Defensive system to perfection. Add to that a brutal running game with THREE very good backs Csonka, Kiick and Morris a HOF WR in Warfield.

The players today are bigger and faster. Jack Lambert was 218 LB. Reggie Kinlaw of the 80 was 242 NT !!!. I think those teams would get beat up in today's game.

If you just base it on talent alone the Pats lack the talent that teams like the Steelers, 49'ers, or even the Packers, but as the years go by and the players do get bigger, faster and stronger then you have to factor that in when comparing the Pats to other NFL Dynasties.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Listen, when you dominate the league for 4 out of 6 years in this era of parity across the league, you are a great team. They are not the best D ever, the best O ever, or the best SpT's unit ever. They arre arguably the best coached team ever but they are undoubtedly the best overall unit ever. This accomplishment is hands down the greatest of all time in the NFL. Now I must stick my finger down my throat and vomit after having admitted that. The only thing I can hope for at this point is that Belicheck decides his work is done and retires. Please for the love of Christ retire!!!

If the refs didnt screw oakland in the snow they dont even go that year! are a good team ?yes! are they a great all time team no!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, the salary cap was introduced in 1994. The Cowboyz obtained all those great players pre-salary cap. They still had enough talent to overcome Switzer in 1995, but quickly lost players to free agency due to salary cap restrictions. I guess your revisionist NFL History book does nto reflect that.

NBo need for the snyde remarks a.s.s.h.o.l.e. I was off by 2 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate the pats, their players, and that god-forsaken coach of their's. However, if you don't think they are a great team you don't know much about football or team sports. Them being lucky is part of being a good team. You get lucky because you are in the right place at the right time. You are in the right place at the right time because of instincts. They had a great run for a while because their players bought into the team first mentality. They have drafted well and gotten good f.a.s to replace key players they lost. Next year they will be a team to beat again. But, more teams are catching up to them and will beat them. It will be another 5 years before they get on their sucky cycle again. Every team goes through it. I can't stand cindy and I always joke around with him and Kraft paying of the refs. If you have ever coached you notice you win some calls and lose some calls. As a coach you argue the ones you can win and shut your mouth about the ones you can't. If you argue too much the refs remember that and on close calls you won't get it to go your way. Nuff said. Pats suck!!!! Jets all the way on 07/08 baby.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Right because the Broncos didn't win two in 97 & 98.

The Broncos do not really qualify in this comparison. While the merit of their place in this group can be discussed, they unlike the 49ers, Boyz and Patriots are an inexact fit. Once they reached their pinnacle, Elway retired and then the defense quickly fell apart. It was not really a matter of maintaing the pieces as Elway left and Davis' was injured.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Broncos do not really qualify in this comparison. While the merit of their place in this group can be discussed, they unlike the 49ers, Boyz and Patriots are an inexact fit. Once they reached their pinnacle, Elway retired and then the defense quickly fell apart. It was not really a matter of maintaing the pieces as Elway left and Davis' was injured.

I do not understand how they do not qualify?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I do not understand how they do not qualify?

Are we talking about the Broncos keeping talent under the constraints of the salary cap or their place inhistory?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Are we talking about the Broncos keeping talent under the constraints of the salary cap or their place inhistory?

Under constraints of the cap. They played under the cap era and many of their stars were drafted under the cap era or signed as free agents.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Under constraints of the cap. They played under the cap era and many of their stars were drafted under the cap era or signed as free agents.

Ok. They did, but they were not exactly like the Boyz or Patriots. Both of those teams were bad and built a corps group of young talent.

Once the Broncos reached their pinnacle, they lost Smellway to retirement. Obviously, Davis and others were young, but the most signifigant position and the most expensive became a non-factor.

They did operate under the salary cap, but losing Elway and his cap hit, how did that effect their ability to retain talent? As I said before, they are an inexact fit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The NFL today is watered down compared to what it once was so no NE is not as good as GB of the 60s, Pitt of the 70s, SF of the 80s, Dal of the 90s but they are still a dynasty and they have dominated their era the way those others dominated theirs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...