The (sports) Gospel According to Mark: Pats are not a dynasty

mark_chalifoux · February 7th, 2005, 01:23 AM

New England was the heavy favorite. Everyone outside of Pennsylvania was putting their money on the two-time champs. There was no way the Eagles could win, the talking heads yelled. On paper, New England was just the better team, a dynasty in the making, but as the saying goes, that’s why they play...
Full Article

Aveosmth · February 8th, 2005, 02:20 PM

I enjoyed your post Mark. I agree the word dynasty is floated around WAY too much.

I do think the Lakers, however definitely qualify as a dynasty. They are the only team in the NBA to reach the finals in every decade....the Celtics haven't even been to a finals since 87....the Lakers have been to 6 since 87. The Lakers have only missed the playoffs once since 1979...thats just flat out dominating...

KP · February 8th, 2005, 03:58 PM

Semantics. There are so many adjectives that are thrown around in all sports. If you want to get technical about it, you need to include words like, "warrior, hero, spectacular, etc."

True, by definition, dynasty does not fit. You made some great points. But, if using your arguement of definitions, what does the book say about 'family' and 'group'? Does it mean the same, consistent family or group? That would really only apply to the fan base, then. Owners, management, obviously players all change. Fans generally do not.

Ryan and/or you said you need complete change at the top. How does that equate to family? Group, I guess you can make a good arguement for.

Mike · February 8th, 2005, 04:21 PM

I agree that winning 3 out of 4 is something only one team has done in the past. Not many teams can say that they are a dynasty, but the Pats being one. Sure ESPN likes to hear themselves talk and make sure no one has out done them, but this is a little crazy to repeat it 5000 times a min.

All they really have to do to make sure they are one is win one more this decade and they will join the Steelers and Niners (as far as super bowls) of winning 4 in a decade

February 7th, 2005, 01:23 AM	#1
mark_chalifoux Join Date: 07-02-2004 Posts: 305	The (sports) Gospel According to Mark: Pats are not a dynasty New England was the heavy favorite. Everyone outside of Pennsylvania was putting their money on the two-time champs. There was no way the Eagles could win, the talking heads yelled. On paper, New England was just the better team, a dynasty in the making, but as the saying goes, that’s why they play... Full Article

February 8th, 2005, 02:20 PM	#2
Aveosmth Join Date: 01-28-2005 Posts: 241	Good Post/Lakers I enjoyed your post Mark. I agree the word dynasty is floated around WAY too much. I do think the Lakers, however definitely qualify as a dynasty. They are the only team in the NBA to reach the finals in every decade....the Celtics haven't even been to a finals since 87....the Lakers have been to 6 since 87. The Lakers have only missed the playoffs once since 1979...thats just flat out dominating...

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

February 8th, 2005, 03:58 PM	#3
KP Join Date: 07-08-2002 Posts: 1,988	Semantics. There are so many adjectives that are thrown around in all sports. If you want to get technical about it, you need to include words like, "warrior, hero, spectacular, etc." True, by definition, dynasty does not fit. You made some great points. But, if using your arguement of definitions, what does the book say about 'family' and 'group'? Does it mean the same, consistent family or group? That would really only apply to the fan base, then. Owners, management, obviously players all change. Fans generally do not. Ryan and/or you said you need complete change at the top. How does that equate to family? Group, I guess you can make a good arguement for.

February 8th, 2005, 04:21 PM	#4
Mike Join Date: 07-08-2002 Location: Dallas, Texas Posts: 10,747	I agree that winning 3 out of 4 is something only one team has done in the past. Not many teams can say that they are a dynasty, but the Pats being one. Sure ESPN likes to hear themselves talk and make sure no one has out done them, but this is a little crazy to repeat it 5000 times a min. All they really have to do to make sure they are one is win one more this decade and they will join the Steelers and Niners (as far as super bowls) of winning 4 in a decade

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)