Dam!
It's been 38 hrs since we last had any!!!:crying:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
:hidin:

Pats are AFC Champs......again!:D The Dynasty begins a week from Sunday!:happy: Go plow snow!:smash:

:rotf2: :rotfl: :rotf2:
:kewl:

plymouth has gotten like 4 feet this week. that's crazy. i saw some news report online about an hour ago that said somewhere in europe they've gotten 10 feet in the last 24 hours!:eek:

Originally posted by BigFish
Pats are AFC Champs......again!:D The Dynasty begins a week from Sunday!:happy: Go plow snow!:smash:

Larry,
Sorry to say this,
But most of the so called "Sports experts" have been saying that they consider a "Dynasty"
A team that dominates over a 10 year span and wins 4 - 5 championships!!!
Like the Packers did in the 60s
Like the Steelers did in the 70s
and like the niners did in the 80s
They also say the Cowboys don't qualify because they only won 3 in the 90s and didn't win for a long enought period of time!
So sorry to say, factor in you're team lost 1 to the Packers and didn't make they playoffs the year between their 2 wins!
Still, No Dynasty for you, Yet!!!
Don't blame me, I'm just quoting from I've been hearing from the so called national sports experts!!!;)

So, go ahead and respond "Psyco" !!!:devil:

:hidin:

Don't blame me, I'm just quoting from I've been hearing from the so called national sports experts!!

The experts also didn't give the Pats a chance against Indy. Dynasty? Who cares, playing in the big game 3 of the last 4 years is enough for me. I really makes for playing spoiler late in the season for so many years.


GO PATS!!

The defenition of Dynasty is:
1 : a succession of rulers of the same line of descent
2 : a powerful group or family that maintains its position for a considerable time

Sounds like the PATS to me.
3 Superbowl wins in a 4 year period is a considerable time in my book.
Now lets win!!!!!

Raider Ron, this is you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You have to re-define NFL "dynasties" in the salary cap era. Do you think the Packers would have been able to keep Bart Starr around (not to mention Taylor, Hornung, the O-line with Kramer, Thurston and Gregg, Dowler, Nitsche, Willie Davis, Herb Adderly and all of the rest of them) thruout the 1960s if there was a cap? The Steelers of the 70s were basically the same team year after year. Bradshaw, Franco, Stallworth and Swann, Webster, the great front four, Lambert and Ham, Blount and so on. That never would have happened in the cap era, either.

You will never again see a team with 4-5 Hall of Famers stay together for more than a year or two---the economics of the game have changed. You might have an accidental pairing of a couple of HOF players nearing the end of their careers, ala Rice and Tim Brown, but that's it. You just can't pay 4 or 5 great players and have any money left to get under the cap. The Niners are still suffering today, 15 or so years later, for mis-managing the cap during their glory days.

These days, back to back puts you in an elite class. Like the 'Boys, Pack and Broncos of the 90s. Look at how fast the Rams and the Bucs slipped. Bucs vs Raiders in the SB two years ago and neither has made the play-offs since.