NFL 2007 Season - Discuss it all here

[Sober_times]

I think he thought it was over and than figured wtf. Little shit like that doesn't bother me. I live and die by Bill. If the genius wants to walk off the field, let him. I guess you really can't win em all. Unless your a fucking dolphin. 

If someone had done the same thing to your team...how would you have felt?

Bush league is bush league...and that was bush league.

And the "genius", FYI, got out coached. Spags and Coughlin "out-New England" the Patriots.

 And after the game the "genius",  during the interviews, looked dazed, confused, and completely psyched out.

Its nice to see all the patriot haters come out. Its funny several years ago everybody was rooting for them to beat the rams, now its time for them to lose apparently. Its true what they say..nobody likes a winner. Its a shame they lost. Its a devastating loss. One they will surely never forget. However they will be back in the play-offs next year. They will have their shot at another superbowl. They won't be undefeated, but they will have their first round bye and maybe even home-field again. Hate em all you want, it would surprize no one if they were back in the superbowl next year. Its a loss like that, that puts a fire under your ass to get back. They will be back. 

I'm less a pats "hater" and more a life long giants fan.  Hell, I have my vintage Phil Simms jersey that's probably older than some of the posters on HTGTH.   I got to break it out for the game yesterday....today, I guess I'll go looking for a Manning jersey to add to the "collection".

As for the Pats being back...we'll see.  Probably, but we'll see what they lose in the off season.  Junior, almost certainly, will be gone.  There's a good chance they'll lose some other pieces too.  But, whatever they are next year, I doubt they will EVER be able to duplicate this season.  They will almost certainly NEVER play the Superbowl to complete an undefeated season.  And, because of that, they've likely lost their chance at being considered "the best team ever".  That's a pretty heady loss.

The clock read 0 when he started walking off the field. Tom met him half-way shook his hand and bill left. By the time he got to tom the clock had 1 second put back on but he was already done congradulating him and walking off the field. If the position was reversed i could give a fuck.

Dazed, confused and completey psyched-out??..No man..thats laughable. Dissappointed his team lost. Definetly. He gave the responses he always gives. They made more plays. They out played us. Its no different than any other time we lost. Except you could tell he was extremely dissappointed. Hell anybody would be.

Out-coached. In a way yes. I'll give credit to the giants for a great defensive scheme. The age of the Patriots line-backing core and the poor inconsistent play of Ellis Hobbs really came out in that last drive. But there was a little bit of luck. The chips usually fall the Patriots way. The Giants got one lucky catch when Eli should have been sacked. And New England had the ball slip through both Samuel's and Harrison's hands on that last drive.

In the end I agree with Randy Moss. The patriots couldn't match the intensity level of the Giants. They came out looking flat, and without emotion. Just like in the Charger game 2 weeks before. The Giants on the other hand came out ready to play. Props go to the giants for beating the patriots. No question. But I still believe 9 times out of 10 New England wins that game. But its only one game and the giants proved that yesterday they were the better team on that field. So theres not much else you can say.

New England is in a shitty division. The bills, the jets, and the dolphins suck. New England will win their division and be back in the play-offs next year. No question. They have a better shot at being back in the play-offs than the Giants do. They have a better shot at winning their division than the Giants do. Thats because you know what you get from the patriots. You know Tom Brady will get them back in the play-offs. Eli looked good in the play-offs this year but I still think you don't know what Eli will show up. Coming out of college I said Eli would win more superbowls than his brother. But I still am anxious to see if this play-off run was a fluke or will he finally be a consistent quaterback?

In the end none of it matters. Giants won. Patriots lost. Enjoy it. I enjoyed my 3 and definelty will never forget watching the patriots this year. 19-0 would have been better but watching 18-0 was still a lot of fun. 

[D]

I think trying to go undefeated instead of resting your players at the end of the season killed NE. They were just mentally and physically exhausted going into the Superbowl.


I think the media are being complete dickheads on Bellicheck. Who gives a shit. The game was over. the kneel down was a formality.

I thought this Superbowl was one of the greatest I've ever seen.

Definitely right up there with the Bills/Giants Scott Norwood FG miss game and the Titans/Rams back in 99.

[freedom78]

i should have bet that money line. had i done better throughout the playoffs i would have done it.

i did win $500 on a block pool. my father-in-law actually bought a couple blocks for us and our kids. this is the second time he's done that and we've won. i know he's gotta be pissed he keeps picking winning blocks but gives them away to us. 

kind of a boring game early on, but awesome overall. that catch by tyree is one of the greatest ever.

Boring? Boring?

Am I the ONLY fan of classic, defensive, smash mouth football?

I agree with you completely.  In my opinion, there's nothing more exciting than a pass play where you just aren't sure if they'll get the pass off before the blitz gets there, and there was a lot of that last night.  Yes, from an offensive standpoint it was "boring," except for the fourth quarter, but if you like watching the most protected players in the league get their faces planted in the turf, then it was damned entertaining.  That, and there were three 4th quarter lead changes!  And, to top it all off, it was a much maligned team, as unlikely as any to ever make a Super Bowl, pulling out a victory over a team that was 18-0.  People say that Super Bowl III was the biggest upset, but Baltimore wasn't undefeated going into that game.  It's really a stunning upset.  I kind of want to watch "Hoosiers" now.

[pilferk]

The clock read 0 when he started walking off the field. Tom met him half-way shook his hand and bill left. By the time he got to tom the clock had 1 second put back on but he was already done congradulating him and walking off the field. If the position was reversed i could give a fuck.

Bush league.  The refs called both coaches to the center of the field, explained what was going on, and Bill decided to ignore them and walk off, anyway.  You either missed that part, fail to point it out, or are ignoring it.

It's a sign of poor sportsmanship.  If you expect to be able to celebrate your victories, you should be willing to likewise be gracious in defeat.  Not "take your ball (and boys) and go home" because you've lost.

And frankly, I don't believe you wouldn't care.

Dazed, confused and completey psyched-out??..No man..thats laughable. Dissappointed his team lost. Definetly. He gave the responses he always gives. They made more plays. They out played us. Its no different than any other time we lost. Except you could tell he was extremely dissappointed. Hell anybody would be.

Did you WATCH the post game interviews?  He misunderstood half a dozen questions, and didn't give more than 8 words in any of his answers.  Yes...dazed, confused, and psyched out is the most appropriate description.  I've seen Bill's interviews since he was a Giant coach.  He was more than just disappointed...and anyone honestly assessing his interview would notice.

Out-coached. In a way yes. I'll give credit to the giants for a great defensive scheme. The age of the Patriots line-backing core and the poor inconsistent play of Ellis Hobbs really came out in that last drive. But there was a little bit of luck. The chips usually fall the Patriots way. The Giants got one lucky catch when Eli should have been sacked. And New England had the ball slip through both Samuel's and Harrison's hands on that last drive.

Out-coached in pretty much every way.  And luck?  It was just as lucky that Webster fell down and allowed Moss to catch the TD pass untouched earlier in the 4th.  Lets not, in any way, pin the victory on luck, on either side.  It's a cop out.  The Pats were outplayed, beaten BADLY in every facet of the game.  The ONLY thing that was really close was the score.  In just about ever significant statistical category you want to mention, the Giants won, and in most by a pretty wide margin.  That doesn't look like luck.....

In the end I agree with Randy Moss. The patriots couldn't match the intensity level of the Giants. They came out looking flat, and without emotion. Just like in the Charger game 2 weeks before. The Giants on the other hand came out ready to play. Props go to the giants for beating the patriots. No question. But I still believe 9 times out of 10 New England wins that game. But its only one game and the giants proved that yesterday they were the better team on that field. So theres not much else you can say.

2 3 point games, one come from behind win, one back and forth loss, and you're willing to bet the Pats win 9 of 10?  Wow....I don't even know what to say to that.

The G-men were the better team...I'll agree with you there.

New England is in a shitty division. The bills, the jets, and the dolphins suck. New England will win their division and be back in the play-offs next year. No question. They have a better shot at being back in the play-offs than the Giants do. They have a better shot at winning their division than the Giants do. Thats because you know what you get from the patriots. You know Tom Brady will get them back in the play-offs. Eli looked good in the play-offs this year but I still think you don't know what Eli will show up. Coming out of college I said Eli would win more superbowls than his brother. But I still am anxious to see if this play-off run was a fluke or will he finally be a consistent quaterback?

Like I said, we'll see.  The Pats likely have the pieces to do exactly what you say.  But you never, ever know.  That O-line proved it's a lot more susceptible than people think.  The Giants just showed everyone in the league how to exploit and beat the Pats.  Maybe "the genius" will plug the holes, if he can.  Maybe not.

I think Eli came into his own, this year.  Again, we'll see.  He's 4 years out of college, and just led his team to a Superbowl win.  Not too many QB's, right out of college, are seasoned enough to be truly effective QB's.  I think this season, Eli finally became a real NFL quarterback.  He might not put up the sexy stats of Brady or his brother......but I think he might have more determination and grit than either one.  He's starting to remind me a LOT of Phil Simms.  Not usually SEXY in the stat columns (superbowl MVP performance aside), but a great field general who gets it done.  And I think every Giants fan will tell you we're fine with that.

But the Giants winning their division wasn't, and isn't, the point.  The point was "there's always next year", for the Pats, rings just a little hollow.  Because it's unlikely that "next year" will find them 18-0, going into the Superbowl, and being lauded as "the best team ever".  They lost that shot when they lost the game on the field yesterday.  And don't believe ANYONE that tells you different, or tells you it doesn't matter.

In the end none of it matters. Giants won. Patriots lost. Enjoy it. I enjoyed my 3 and definelty will never forget watching the patriots this year. 19-0 would have been better but watching 18-0 was still a lot of fun. 

I've enjoyed my 3, as a Giants fan, too.  I'll take one a decade...keeps us happy.

One thing though:  Winning 3 is nice, but that fourth would have cemented them as a true "dynasty"...something else that loss cost them.

[sandman]

i should have bet that money line. had i done better throughout the playoffs i would have done it.

i did win $500 on a block pool. my father-in-law actually bought a couple blocks for us and our kids. this is the second time he's done that and we've won. i know he's gotta be pissed he keeps picking winning blocks but gives them away to us. 

kind of a boring game early on, but awesome overall. that catch by tyree is one of the greatest ever.

Boring? Boring?

Am I the ONLY fan of classic, defensive, smash mouth football?

For me, that was the best Superbowl in history.  Low scoring, close game with GREAT defense by the G-men.  Hell, I had to look around to make sure Phil Simms wasn't playing QB and Leonard Marshall and LT weren't ruling the roost.

you do realize i said, "early on."

and early on, it was a very boring game. there were only 2 possessions into the second quarter. the giants held the ball for about 10 minutes and came away with a FG. a first quarter FG is about as boring as it gets.

i had no rooting interest in the game. so long boring drives are not what i'm hoping for. i think most people prefer smash mouth football, but that doesn't necessarily mean all low scoring games are good ones.

[pilferk]

I think the media are being complete dickheads on Bellicheck. Who gives a shit. The game was over. the kneel down was a formality.

It's about sportsmanship, respect for the other team, respect for the officials, and respect for the game.

Walking off early shows an incredible lack of all 4. Especially after the refs specifically called the coaches together to tell them what was going on.

Again, if Coughlin had done the EXACT same thing, Bill would have been PISSED.  Pats fans would have been PISSED.   They'll say otherwise, of course...NOW.

Much of sports....many of the rules, tenets, ceremonies, etc...is formality.  Should we piss on it all?

It was a completely bush league move.

[pilferk]

you do realize i said, "early on."

and early on, it was a very boring game. there were only 2 possessions into the second quarter. the giants held the ball for about 10 minutes and came away with a FG. a first quarter FG is about as boring as it gets.

i had no rooting interest in the game. so long boring drives are not what i'm hoping for. i think most people prefer smash mouth football, but that doesn't necessarily mean all low scoring games are good ones.

No, I realize you said "early on".

Again, 10 minute possessions are a tenet of old school, hard nosed, smash mouth football.  It's a page from the Giants of old..the 86 and 90 giants won their games by slowly, methodically picking you apart and jamming the ball down your throat.

I LIKE watching those types of games.  It's not all about scoring, for me.  I like watching the "war", forcing the other team to bend to your will, etc.

So, for me, it was HARDLY boring.

[GypsySoul]

Gypsy, Stick to the birthdays and leave football to those who know.

When Gambling, The winner of the game doesn't matter. All that matters is if u hit.


I told everyone to take the Giants with the points and take the UNDER. U probably have no fuckin clue as to what the under means.


Bottom line,  I got em both right PLUS I got the AFC Championship and NFC Championship right *as far as gambling*

GIve me 700 dollars off of 50 and I could give a shit who wins.

I thought NE would win the game but I knew NYG would cover and the game would be Under 53.5.


U seem here lately to be tryin to be the Female SLC, but u don't have his wit or humor to pull it off so u basically come off like a dick and very unentertaining.

Maybe you can explain how two weeks ago you claimed to win the same $700. 

Im not normally a gambler

But I played a parlay today

I put 50 bucks down and WON 700.00 dollars!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I ended the NFL season turning 50 dollars into 700.

So........ I know what I am doing.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!

[sandman]

you do realize i said, "early on."

and early on, it was a very boring game. there were only 2 possessions into the second quarter. the giants held the ball for about 10 minutes and came away with a FG. a first quarter FG is about as boring as it gets.

i had no rooting interest in the game. so long boring drives are not what i'm hoping for. i think most people prefer smash mouth football, but that doesn't necessarily mean all low scoring games are good ones.

No, I realize you said "early on".

Again, 10 minute possessions are a tenet of old school, hard nosed, smash mouth football.  It's a page from the Giants of old..the 86 and 90 giants won their games by slowly, methodically picking you apart and jamming the ball down your throat.

I LIKE watching those types of games.  It's not all about scoring, for me.  I like watching the "war", forcing the other team to bend to your will, etc.

So, for me, it was HARDLY boring.

you apparently are a giants fan. i HOPE it wasn't boring. it was the SB.

i don't think it's all about scoring for most fans. many of the greatest games ever were low scoring. alot of fans rank giants-bills as being one of them.

[Sober_times]

First off,  I wouldn't give a shit if the same thing happened, I dont give a fuck if an opposing coach walks off the field. The game was over. He congradulated the coach. Done. I watch the post-game interviews. And he was not "dazed and confused" . If you ever watch a post game interview with bill it should be known that he always answers in short responses. Very short. Win or lose. He says pretty much the same thing. If they win he says we made more plays. I'm happy with the performance. When they lose he pretty much says they made more plays than us. We got outplayed. He always is short with the media. He always gives short answers. He was not psyched out at then of the game. Again thats laughable. But lets just agree to disagree....Other than that lets just agree to disagree on everything else too..except.

One thing though:  Winning 3 is nice, but that fourth would have cemented them as a true "dynasty"...something else that loss cost them.

We are a dynasty. We won 3 out 4 superbowls. We are only the second team to ever do that. If the cowboys can be called the team of the 90's for winning 3 out 4 superbowls. Well I think that qualifies the patriots as the team of this decade. Actually were the only mutliple superbowl winner of this decade..3..so i think that qualifies us so far as the team of the decade. And a modern-day Dynasty. Hell when we won are 3rd thats all anybody said. The Patriots became a dynasty.

What we lost yesterday was being called the greatest team ever. Still winning 3 out 4 superbowls made us a dynasty. We are the team of this decade. We've won 3 superbowls this decade. Been to 5 afc championships, won 4 this decade. And been to 4 superbowls this decade. If thats not a dynasty I dont know what the fuck is. 

[freedom78]

^The Ming?

[pilferk]

First off,  I wouldn't give a shit if the same thing happened, I dont give a fuck if an opposing coach walks off the field. The game was over. He congradulated the coach. Done. I watch the post-game interviews. And he was not "dazed and confused" hihi. If you ever watch a post game interview with bill it should be known that he always answers in short responses. Very short. Win or lose. He says pretty much the same thing. If they win he says we made more plays. I'm happy with the performance. When they lose he pretty much says they made more plays than us. We got outplayed. He always is short with the media. He always gives short answers. He was not psyched out at then of the game. Again thats laughable. But lets just agree to disagree....Other than that lets just agree to disagree on everything else too..except.

Repeating yourself does not make it any more true than when you said it first.

Objectively looking at the situation has led much of the media...and not just the NY media, I might add...to seemingly very similar conclusions to the ones I've come up with.  One wonders why that is...and then one wonders if your "fandom" might be coloring your opinions....or, in the case of Bill "clocking out early", colors what your saying.

In any case, I'll agree to disagree.

We are a dynasty. We won 3 out 4 superbowls. We are only the second team to ever do that. If the cowboys can be called the team of the 90's for winning 3 out 4 superbowls. Well I think that qualifies the patriots as the team of this decade. Actually were the only mutliple superbowl winner of this decade..3..so i think that qualifies us so far as the team of the decade. And a modern-day Dynasty. Hell when we won are 3rd thats all anybody said. The Patriots became a dynasty.

What we lost yesterday was being called the greatest team ever. Still winning 3 out 4 superbowls made us a dynasty. We are the team of this decade. We've won 3 superbowls this decade. Been to 5 afc championships, won 4 this decade. And been to 4 superbowls this decade. If thats not a dynasty I dont know what the fuck is. 

Unfortunately for you, you giving them the designation doesn't "count".

So far, the media (and most of the rest of the world) has not coronated them as a true dynasty. 
Would have, as all the media discussions leading up to the SB indicated, with a win...but the loss has stopped all talk of that.

MIGHT still, depending on what they do next year.  A SB win would do it, I think.  But next year would be their last chance, because those last 3 SB wins are getting a bit "long in the tooth" to use them to found a dynasty on.

"Team of the decade". Maybe.  But Steelersesque, Packersesque, Yankeesesque, Celticsesque, Canadiansesque dynasty?  Not according to the rest of the sporting world.

Edit: And while 3 of 4 WAS true....the current picture is 3 of 7....and not one for the past 3 years.

[Sober_times]

First off,  I wouldn't give a shit if the same thing happened, I dont give a fuck if an opposing coach walks off the field. The game was over. He congradulated the coach. Done. I watch the post-game interviews. And he was not "dazed and confused" hihi. If you ever watch a post game interview with bill it should be known that he always answers in short responses. Very short. Win or lose. He says pretty much the same thing. If they win he says we made more plays. I'm happy with the performance. When they lose he pretty much says they made more plays than us. We got outplayed. He always is short with the media. He always gives short answers. He was not psyched out at then of the game. Again thats laughable. But lets just agree to disagree....Other than that lets just agree to disagree on everything else too..except.

Repeating yourself does not make it any more true than when you said it first.

Objectively looking at the situation has led much of the media...and not just the NY media, I might add...to seemingly very similar conclusions to the ones I've come up with.  One wonders why that is...and then one wonders if your "fandom" might be coloring your opinions....or, in the case of Bill "clocking out early", colors what your saying.

In any case, I'll agree to disagree.

We are a dynasty. We won 3 out 4 superbowls. We are only the second team to ever do that. If the cowboys can be called the team of the 90's for winning 3 out 4 superbowls. Well I think that qualifies the patriots as the team of this decade. Actually were the only mutliple superbowl winner of this decade..3..so i think that qualifies us so far as the team of the decade. And a modern-day Dynasty. Hell when we won are 3rd thats all anybody said. The Patriots became a dynasty.

What we lost yesterday was being called the greatest team ever. Still winning 3 out 4 superbowls made us a dynasty. We are the team of this decade. We've won 3 superbowls this decade. Been to 5 afc championships, won 4 this decade. And been to 4 superbowls this decade. If thats not a dynasty I dont know what the fuck is. 

Unfortunately for you, you giving them the designation doesn't "count".

So far, the media (and most of the rest of the world) has not coronated them as a true dynasty. 
Would have, as all the media discussions leading up to the SB indicated, with a win...but the loss has stopped all talk of that.

MIGHT still, depending on what they do next year.  A SB win would do it, I think.

"Team of the decade". Maybe.  But Steelersesque, Packersesque, Yankeesesque, Celticsesque, Canadiansesque dynasty?  Not according to the rest of the sporting world.

I am sorry do you know how to read??? It is possible for you to have picked up a newspaper. Watched Tv. Read Magazine. Read Internet article after superbowl 39?? Almost everybody had DYNASTY In every conversation regarding the New England Patiots. What puts em there? Winning 3 out 4 superbowls. Something the steelers, packers, 49ers, never did. Only 2 teams have done it. The Cowboys. And the Patriots. That makes them a Dynasty. Being the only other team besides the old packers to win 9 straight play-off games. That was good enough to make them a dynasty after superbowl 39. Lets take this one article on espn.com. Not to mention the hundreds of other articles that say pretty much the same thing.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=250206021

Heres the gist.

Patriots hold off Eagles to win Super Bowl XXXIX

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. (AP) -- Dynasty? Definitely. The New England Patriots don't have to proclaim greatness. The NFL record book does it for them.

Ohh I'm sorry? Is that not the media calling them a dynasty?? I guess I'm wrong. I guess i'm the only one who ever called them a dynasty.


Nuff' Said.

[pilferk]

I am sorry do you know how to read??? It is possible for you to have picked up a newspaper. Watched Tv. Read Magazine. Read Internet article after superbowl 39?? Almost everybody had DYNASTY In every conversation regarding the New England Patiots. What puts em there? Winning 3 out 4 superbowls. Something the steelers, packers, 49ers, never did. Only 2 teams have done it. The Cowboys. And the Patriots. That makes them a Dynasty. Being the only other team besides the old packers to win 9 straight play-off games. That was good enough to make them a dynasty after superbowl 39. Lets take this one article on espn.com. Not to mention the hundreds of other articles that say pretty much the same thing.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=250206021

Heres the gist.

Patriots hold off Eagles to win Super Bowl XXXIX

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. (AP) -- Dynasty? Definitely. The New England Patriots don't have to proclaim greatness. The NFL record book does it for them.

Ohh I'm sorry? Is that not the media calling them a dynasty?? I guess I'm wrong. I guess i'm the only one who ever called them a dynasty.


Nuff' Said.

Isn't it the 2007 season?  The 2008 Superbowl?

So, by your logic....the Cowboys must STILL be a dynasty, right?  Because they were back in the 90's.

Today, my friend.  The Patriots are no longer a dynasty TODAY.  They were, 3 years ago.   Today's team is not a part of that dynasty because they haven't won a SB since then. "Winning their FOURTH would have cemented THEM as a true dynasty".  THEM meaning the team that took the field on Sunday night.

Here...I'll simplify it for you:

When did the Cowboys dynasty end?

[sandman]

pilferk - you should stick with baseball. 

you were clearly suggesting that the pats were not a dynasty at any time during this decade.

they were, and they still are. going undefeated in the regular season adds to their status. 

[pilferk]

pilferk - you should stick with baseball. 

you were clearly suggesting that the pats were not a dynasty at any time during this decade.

they were, and they still are. going undefeated in the regular season adds to their status. 

Maybe that's what you interpreted me to being saying but...

point out where I said it?

In fact, since I'm clearly talking about the media hype leading up to THIS game and the fact THIS win would have "linked" them to the past 3 of 4, I'm CLEARLY talking about today's team.

As I have throughout the discussion.

If that was misunderstood, I've since been very specific and clarified.

Winning SB's adds to your dynasty.  Losing in them doesn't.

[sandman]

pilferk - you should stick with baseball. 

you were clearly suggesting that the pats were not a dynasty at any time during this decade.

they were, and they still are. going undefeated in the regular season adds to their status. 

Maybe that's what you interpreted me to being saying but...

point out where I said it?

In fact, since I'm clearly talking about the media hype leading up to the game and the fact this win would have "linked" them to the past 3 of 4, I'm CLEARLY talking about today's team.

As I have throughout the discussion.

If that was misunderstood, I've since been very specific and clarified.

i said you were suggesting. here's your quotes...

So far, the media (and most of the rest of the world) has not coronated them as a true dynasty.

that is just false. they have been labeled a dynasty.
 
MIGHT still, depending on what they do next year.  A SB win would do it, I think.  But next year would be their last chance, because those last 3 SB wins are getting a bit "long in the tooth" to use them to found a dynasty on.

you clearly indicate that a SB win next year would have to be combined with the other SB wins to make a dynasty. which is why you said "A SB win would do it, I think."

[pilferk]

i said you were suggesting. here's your quotes...

So far, the media (and most of the rest of the world) has not coronated them as a true dynasty.

that is just false. they have been labeled a dynasty.

Of course, the next sentence...which you leave out, clarifies my intent by adding:

Would have, as all the media discussions leading up to the SB indicated, with a win...but the loss has stopped all talk of that.

Clearly showing I was talking about THIS team, not the teams of the past.  THIS team has not been coronated as a dynasty. 

 
MIGHT still, depending on what they do next year.  A SB win would do it, I think.  But next year would be their last chance, because those last 3 SB wins are getting a bit "long in the tooth" to use them to found a dynasty on.

you clearly indicate that a SB win next year would have to be combined with the other SB wins combined would make a dynasty. which is why you said "A SB win would do it, I think."

 Again, you're misinterpreting what I wrote. The above is referring to the last 3 of 4 and LINKING the current team to those.  If they don't win next year, it would be hard to LINK the current team to the old dynasty. Too much time will have passed since their last win.  A SB win would do that...founding the dynasty, again, for the current team. Or continuing the dynasty for this team.  Whichever phrasing you'd prefer.   Perhaps using the word "found" should have been "continue".  But I think my intent was clear either way. 

Here...I'll restate it for posterity:

As of right now, they are NOT a dynasty.  If they'd won yesterday, they would have been (because they would have 'linked" to the dynasty that won 3 of 4).  They didn't, so they aren't.

[Axl4Prez2004]

What was I most angry at Belichik for?  When he grabbed the microphone, got back on stage and said, "Thanks to the lame-ass security, I'm goin' home!  "   

actually, Brady was the man with the worst security last night.  the G-men's d-line deserved that MVP. 

[pilferk]

Don't want to edit my post to avoid confusion.

In the post you're referring to Sandman, I'd added (before anyone responded) the following:

Edit: And while 3 of 4 WAS true....the current picture is 3 of 7....and not one for the past 3 years.

I think that pretty clearly spells out my intent...because it talks about the status of the CURRENT team in winning SB's, compared to the previous dynastic version of the team.