Why does it feel like Goodell and the Patriots are running the NFL?
-
Its Tom Brady. Its not Belichick, its not Kraft. Without Brady the Pats would be about as good as the Browns.
-
I think Im the only guy in the world who actually likes the Pats and admires their ability to win year after year after year....
In my eyes, the greatest dynasty ever......
-
One thing I will always respect the Patriots for is when they had the opportunity to play for the perfect season they took it.. I remember a few years ago the last game of the season against the Giants and the Pats went to war in that game. The only thing the Pats were playing for at this point was to have the perfect season. I was pretty disgusted with the Colts watching them lay down and rest their starters at the end of the season when they had their chance to play for the perfect season.
-
I've been watching football since the 80's and have always felt like the league was mostly legit. Now I'm starting to feel like a rube who believes wrestling is real.
I've been watching football since the 80's and have always felt like the league was mostly legit. Now I'm starting to feel like a rube who believes wrestling is real.
Wait?? Wresting isn't real??
-
There's a reason a sixth round pick with an average arm has done so well. A mixture of years of cheating and not being asked to do much but be accurate on 5-6 yard slants
Fuck them I hate them
-
I think Im the only guy in the world who actually likes the Pats and admires their ability to win year after year after year....
In my eyes, the greatest dynasty ever......
-
-
Not the greatest dynasty ever, because they went 10 years without a championship ... but an outstanding organization, best of this era ... and I really don't get this thread at all.
Is Goodell running the NFL? Yes, that's his job.
Are the Patriots running the NFL? No, they are just beating everybody.
Is there anything "not legit" or "fake" about the NFL. No, no there isn't. You go out there on Sundays and find out how real it is.
Zombo
-
Not the greatest dynasty ever, because they went 10 years without a championship ... but an outstanding organization, best of this era ... and I really don't get this thread at all.
Is Goodell running the NFL? Yes, that's his job.
Are the Patriots running the NFL? No, they are just beating everybody.
Is there anything "not legit" or "fake" about the NFL. No, no there isn't. You go out there on Sundays and find out how real it is.
Zombo
Zombo said:
Not the greatest dynasty ever, because they went 10 years without a championship ... but an outstanding organization, best of this era ... and I really don't get this thread at all.
Is Goodell running the NFL? Yes, that's his job.
Are the Patriots running the NFL? No, they are just beating everybody.
Is there anything "not legit" or "fake" about the NFL. No, no there isn't. You go out there on Sundays and find out how real it is.
Zombo
Yea, the last 10 months doesn't seem like Goodell and Kraft have been marching arm in arm like the Roman Legion to dominate the league.
This is more like the rulership of Octavian and Marc Antony. While they rule together, it is a very contentious, uneasy alliance.....and eventually one of them will have to fall on his sword.
-
Brady has an "average" arm? oh c'mon I cant stand the cunt either but let's keep it real.
-
Three...
Four...
Zombo said:
Not the greatest dynasty ever, because they went 10 years without a championship ... but an outstanding organization, best of this era ... and I really don't get this thread at all.
But in that 10 years when were they ever out of the conversation? In the 15 years of Belichick they've missed the playoffs twice... and one of those years they were 11-5.
We're probably down to semantics, but I'm not sure how much more dynastic you can get.
-
Three...
Four...
Zombo said:
Not the greatest dynasty ever, because they went 10 years without a championship ... but an outstanding organization, best of this era ... and I really don't get this thread at all.
But in that 10 years when were they ever out of the conversation? In the 15 years of Belichick they've missed the playoffs twice... and one of those years they were 11-5.
We're probably down to semantics, but I'm not sure how much more dynastic you can get.
Four...
But in that 10 years when were they ever out of the conversation? In the 15 years of Belichick they've missed the playoffs twice... and one of those years they were 11-5.
We're probably down to semantics, but I'm not sure how much more dynastic you can get.
Ya, to me a "dynasty" is about ruling ... actually winning chamionships.
They definitely get the "sustained excellence award" for this century.
Four Championships in 14 years in this era is very impressive, but the Steelers won 4 in six. Browns won 7 in 10 (two leagues), Packers won 5 in 7.
Yes, smaller league, and all that ... But those are the teams I think of when I think dynasty, as well as Yankees, Celtics, Canadians ... just being the dominant team for so long.
The Patriots would be a dynasty in my opinion from 2001-2004 and now they are trying to start another one. But the Giants have more SBs in the last ten years than Patriots. Steelers too.
But "best sustained excellence over a 15 year period" I would give them that if not for the Cleveland Browns who stayed among the top for a longer period (1946-1972) with eight titles from 46-64.
Zombo
-
Four...
But in that 10 years when were they ever out of the conversation? In the 15 years of Belichick they've missed the playoffs twice... and one of those years they were 11-5.
We're probably down to semantics, but I'm not sure how much more dynastic you can get.
Ya, to me a "dynasty" is about ruling ... actually winning chamionships.
They definitely get the "sustained excellence award" for this century.
Four Championships in 14 years in this era is very impressive, but the Steelers won 4 in six. Browns won 7 in 10 (two leagues), Packers won 5 in 7.
Yes, smaller league, and all that ... But those are the teams I think of when I think dynasty, as well as Yankees, Celtics, Canadians ... just being the dominant team for so long.
The Patriots would be a dynasty in my opinion from 2001-2004 and now they are trying to start another one. But the Giants have more SBs in the last ten years than Patriots. Steelers too.
But "best sustained excellence over a 15 year period" I would give them that if not for the Cleveland Browns who stayed among the top for a longer period (1946-1972) with eight titles from 46-64.
Zombo
Zombo said:
Ya, to me a "dynasty" is about ruling ... actually winning chamionships.
They definitely get the "sustained excellence award" for this century.
Four Championships in 14 years in this era is very impressive, but the Steelers won 4 in six. Browns won 7 in 10 (two leagues), Packers won 5 in 7.
Yes, smaller league, and all that ... But those are the teams I think of when I think dynasty, as well as Yankees, Celtics, Canadians ... just being the dominant team for so long.
The Patriots would be a dynasty in my opinion from 2001-2004 and now they are trying to start another one. But the Giants have more SBs in the last ten years than Patriots. Steelers too.
But "best sustained excellence over a 15 year period" I would give them that if not for the Cleveland Browns who stayed among the top for a longer period (1946-1972) with eight titles from 46-64.
Zombo
Cowboys also had 20 years of sustained excellence under Tom Landry: 21 straight years of winning records. 19 playoff appearances
Dolphins under Shula: 24 winning seasons out of 26. 16 playoff appearances.
49ers under Walsh and Seifert: 18 winning years out of 19.
The Packers first under Holmgren then under McCarthy since 1992....now 23 years, have only had 2 losing seasons.
The Raiders between 1965 and 1985 had only 2 losing seasons.
and the Browns.....in their first 28 years of existance: 1 losing season. One year at .500.
-
I look back at prior Browns successes and they were great times but I feel for our younger fans especially since 99 who have had very little to cheer about. I am hoping with enough time Pettine and Farmer will be able to build a solid club. Even though this year has been disappointing especially on defense I believe we are headed in the right direction. We are a scrappy team that doesn't quit and I give them credit for that. 3 of the 4 losses we were in these games until the end but fell short.
-
Feels like the discussion is turning from "a dynasty" to "the dynasty".
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
Feels like the discussion is turning from "a dynasty" to "the dynasty".
Ill take credit for starting that line...
...In my eyes, the greatest dynasty ever......
I could be a bit premature....or its at least debatable.....but they are right up there with them all.....and in good position to continue the quest for more.....
-
I look back at prior Browns successes and they were great times but I feel for our younger fans especially since 99 who have had very little to cheer about. I am hoping with enough time Pettine and Farmer will be able to build a solid club. Even though this year has been disappointing especially on defense I believe we are headed in the right direction. We are a scrappy team that doesn't quit and I give them credit for that. 3 of the 4 losses we were in these games until the end but fell short.
I look back at prior Browns successes and they were great times but I feel for our younger fans especially since 99 who have had very little to cheer about. I am hoping with enough time Pettine and Farmer will be able to build a solid club. Even though this year has been disappointing especially on defense I believe we are headed in the right direction. We are a scrappy team that doesn't quit and I give them credit for that. 3 of the 4 losses we were in these games until the end but fell short.
I guess we could try to find the opposite of dynasty.....which teams have had the most sustained period of poor play/losing seasons.:
The Browns: since their 1989 division title, they have played 22 years with only 3 winning seasons, 19 losing seasons. 1994, 2002, 2007.
Cardinals, 1985 to 2006. 22 years. 1 winning season of 9-7, one .500 year. 20 losing seasons.
Saints: 1967 to 1986 20 years. -0- winning seasons, 2 seasons at .500.
Eagles: 1962-1978. 16 years. 1 winning season, no playoffs -0- .500 15 losing seasons
Bucs: 1983-1997 14 consecutive losing seasons.
Redskins: 1945-1971. 25 seasons. 4 winning (barely, like 7-5). no playoffs. 2 .500 seasons 19 losing seasons
Recently:
Raiders 2003 to present. 12 seasons. no winning, 2 .500 seasons
Bills 2000 to present: 15 seasons 2 winning seasons both 9-7. no playoffs. 2 .500 seasons. 11 losing seasons.
Lions 2000-2010 10 consecutive losing seasons.
-
While the Steelers went from 1933 to 1972 with only one playoff appearance in those like 39 years, their longest streak of losing seasons was the 8 losing year just before 1972 (1972 to 1985 they had no losing seasons and on .500 season).
Before that they would have 3-4 losing seasons, then a .500 year. 4-5 more losing seasons, then a slightly above .500 year. only making the playoffs in 1947. But they were not epic bad like some of the above teams. Just mediocre at times.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login