NFL 2007 Season - Discuss it all here

[freedom78]

While I lost a little confidence in Bill after the piss poor game plan (and the lack of any halftime adjustment)... He does some of his best work in the offseason. I have no doubt that they pull a stud out of the draft and work some free agent magic. I understand the national fan base is against the team, but I have a feeling that if you hang the chance to win infront of some upcoming free agents you will get bites...

This team isn't built like previous Super Bowl winners and Losers, they will be back next year (and it isn't because of the AFC East). You can gloat that the went 18-0 then fell on their face in the only game that counted, but to compare them to the 90-93 Bills is insane. The have been to the same amount of Super Bowls (4) the Pats are 3-1 the Bills are 0-4. This team's nucleus is comparible to the 80's 49ers and 90's Cowboys.

The better team on the field Sunday won... but to take a single loss and act like the Patriots are a one and done is like someone claiming that the Yankees sucked after they lost the 01' Series. Also Brady has had "one" iffy Big Game performance and people are making coments like don't comapre him to Joe Montana (which is an early comparison) or Payton Manning... Trust me, I won't be comparing him to Payton... Brady has 3 Superbowl Rings and one failure. Manning has 1 Ring and a history of falling on his face when the post season pressure is the highest. Give me a break... I almost wish I could be outside of the argument a little and didn't have a Pats Homer tag... To me it is like trying to compare Joe Montana to Dan Marino (or to make the Math Work) Brett Favre... Favre has all the records and one ring... but for the most part he has fallen apart and made piss poor decisions when it mattered.
What would you rather have Joe Montana and 4 Super Bowl Rings or All of the Personal Accomplishments... I know what I'd take... Luckily I have that in New England... and that makes it easy to get over a "Really" bad game and look forward to the NFL Combine.

For the record, I wasn't comparing the 2001-2004 Pats to those Bills teams.  I was comparing the 2005-2007 Pats to those Bills teams.  I think that's fair.  They're a great team that has the goods and the ability to get it done, and has come up short with two AFC Championship losses and a Super Bowl loss. 

EDIT: Whoops...guess that's one divisional round loss, one AFC Championship, one Super Bowl.

[pilferk]

I wasn't saying the Dolphins WILL win the Superbowl next year (and I don't know what's up with you saying "you'll"--- I'm certainly not a fan of the Dolphins). I was just saying that the unexpected always happens in the NFL. A couple months ago, if I had said that the Giants would win the Superbowl and that Eli Manning would be the Superbowl MVP, people would've laughed their heads off and said, "What the hell are you smokin?" Every year there's a couple teams that make a giant leap from the bottom of the league up towards the top. Of course, I don't see the Dolphins being one of those teams next season.

I was joking....sorry the humor didn't come across.

It's just that...if you look at Parcells history, he comes to a team in crisis, and leaves just as they become good....the exception being the Jets, who still suck. 

[pilferk]

The Giants were the better team on that day, well night I should say, but if these teams played 10 times the Patriots would win atleast 7 of them. New York got SO many breaks in this game, it's amazing really to think how many things went there way, and yes I realize the Patriots only won a couple games during the season for the same reason. But in all honestly, both teams played great football, and if it wern't for that awesome and spectacular catch by Tynes(sp?) the Giants would never have completed that drive for a TD at the end of the game.

I said it once, I'll say it again.  The teams played twice.  Both games decide by 3 points.  Pats came from behind to win one, and the other was a see saw game.  For ANYONE to assert the pats would win the majority of the games seems a tenuous assertion at best.

And to attribute the Giants win to "luck", or ONE good play, ignores the fact that the pats lost the game in almost every notable statistical category.

BUT.. what the fuck is up with all you haters thinking you can gloat and say that the Patriots dynasty is now dead? I mean seriously people, are you that pathetic? The Patriots played GREAT defense in this game, the offensive line... not so much. But both teams did a great job in the game, so give some credit to both organizations. The Patriots are nowhere near done with this dynasty, they are infinitly better than the teams in there division(with an exception to the bills who look to be turning things around) and they WILL win the division again next year. Not to mention Moss will most likely be resigned, the defense may lose Samuel but the offseason can produce a quality DB free agent to fill that role, and they have the #7 pick in the draft. Honestly, i'm predicting right now, New England will be in the Super Bowl again next year.. the Giants however won't.

Dynasty's are defined by world championships.  That's not my perception, that's not MY definition, it's the world of sports definition.  When did the pats last win the SB?  Right NOW, that's when their dynasty ended.  That's what the history books will say.  Simple as that.  If they won this year, they'd have founded the dynasty agian.  If they win next year, maybe...  No win next year means the dynasty effectively ended the day they won their last SB and they'll have to start over, IMHO. 

As for Bill walking off the field, who fuckin cares. He didn't just leave while the players were on the damn field, both coaches left the sidelines and went to shake hands in the middle of the field while there were still 3 ticks on the clock. Hell, he even gave Coughlin a hug, and seemed genuine in his congrats for the man. It's not Bill's fault that he had already left, everyone thought the game was over as even some of the patriots players had left the field too. He didn't do this to spite anyone, he didn't do it because he is a sore loser, it's the fact that he's perseaved as an asshole that magnifies every little thing he does and it's kind of sickening. 

Defend him all you want.  It's still a bush league move that displayed poor sportsmanship.  You can TRY to justify it all you want.  The tape shows the refs telling BOTH coaches what was going on.  The choice was Bills: Be a stand up guy, let the game end, and leave...or put on the sour puss and walk off like a spoiled brat.  We all saw the choice he made. 

For all you who kept quiet before the game and are now coming out with all this shit trash talk, it's pathetic and i'll be here to laugh at your sorry ass's when the Patriots are back at #1 again next year. 

LOL.

The fact I didn't visit this thread to talk football BEFORE has nothing to do with nothing.  I'd venture the same is true of other "newbie" posters in the thread.  Just like the pats fans come out of the woodwork when they win, you shouldn't be too shocked by the flip side happening.

[pilferk]

gotcha. i think we all agree.

you do agree that the patriots organization reached dynasty status in this decade, correct? a dynasty that lasted 3+ years?

Yes, they WERE a dynasty.

My issue is with the comments that they ARE a dynasty.

[pilferk]

You were stating they were never a dynasty. That they had not reached dynasty status. That they would have gotten it if they would have one superbowl 42. I stated they already are a dynasty. And ya they havent won in 3 years. As long as Billy boy and the golden boy are there the media will consider it the same team. They are a modern day dynasty. They are the closest thing that we will ever have to the dynasty's of old. Im not the one saying that. I got that from espn...several espn personalities..or as you like to call it: "the media".

Ohh, btw,  Just because its your opinion doesnt make it fact. 

No, you said "They ARE a dynasty".

As I asked sandman...point out, please, where I said they never WERE a dynasty. 

You may have interpreted what I said that way, but you can clearly read that what I said was THIS TEAM is not a dynasty.  The team on the field this past Sunday.  the current version of the NE Patriots.

I don't know how to be any more clear than that.

You got it from an espn article that's....how many years old exactly?  And talking about the team after winning a SB, right?

As for my opinion...I'll ask the same question I asked you earlier:

When did the Cowboys dynasty end?

I know how just about every unbiased sports enthusiast would answer that question.  And it's not "3 years after they won their last superbowl".

[pilferk]

The better team on the field Sunday won... but to take a single loss and act like the Patriots are a one and done is like someone claiming that the Yankees sucked after they lost the 01' Series.

As an avowed Yanks fan, let me take a bite of that one.

While the Yanks have not sucked, since they lost the '01 series...their "dynasty days" are over....and were over the day they won their last WS.  Making it in '01 didn't extend that dynasty, and the fact they haven't won one since has killed the dynasty, dead.

[D]

Media types drive me insane.


A few years ago, The Detroit Pistons started out on pace to beat the 96 Bulls record of 72 wins.

Media types were sayin that Pistons team could beat the 96 Bulls which is absolutely ridiculous.  Pistons end up winning 60 some games and losing to Miami in the East Finals. Hardly the greatest team ever.


Now u take NE. Bill Parcells and others had them as the greatest team of all time. Oh this team could beat the 80's 49ers, the 70's Steelers, the 90's Cowboys.

They couldn't even beat a good but not great Giants team in the Super Bowl.

So now all of a sudden, they went from being the greatest of all time to now people acting like they suck which is ridiculous.


These days we are prisoners of the moment. Everything we see is the greatest this or that ever and in most cases it simply isn't so.

Joe Montana would've shredded the NE defense. The 92 Cowboys would've scored 40 on NE. and The Steelers defense would absolutely shut down NE.


The Giants did and they are far from a historical all time great team.

[sandman]

You were stating they were never a dynasty. That they had not reached dynasty status. That they would have gotten it if they would have one superbowl 42. I stated they already are a dynasty. And ya they havent won in 3 years. As long as Billy boy and the golden boy are there the media will consider it the same team. They are a modern day dynasty. They are the closest thing that we will ever have to the dynasty's of old. Im not the one saying that. I got that from espn...several espn personalities..or as you like to call it: "the media".

Ohh, btw,  Just because its your opinion doesnt make it fact. 

No, you said "They ARE a dynasty".

As I asked sandman...point out, please, where I said they never WERE a dynasty. 

You may have interpreted what I said that way, but you can clearly read that what I said was THIS TEAM is not a dynasty.  The team on the field this past Sunday.  the current version of the NE Patriots.

I don't know how to be any more clear than that.

You got it from an espn article that's....how many years old exactly?  And talking about the team after winning a SB, right?

As for my opinion...I'll ask the same question I asked you earlier:

When did the Cowboys dynasty end?

I know how just about every unbiased sports enthusiast would answer that question.  And it's not "3 years after they won their last superbowl".

the confusion came when you said this...

"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."

i think i see what you are saying though.

but remember, everyone defines "this team" differently. the team that we all agreed reached dynasty status a few years ago has many of the same players as today's Patriots.

also, going undefeated in the regular season and setting all kinds of records is something special. so i think an argument can be made that the dynasty is still "live."

but you may have a valid definition of a dynasty (i.e. they end with the last championship). living in philly, that hasn't been an issue i've had to figure out.

[C0ma]

Media types drive me insane.


A few years ago, The Detroit Pistons started out on pace to beat the 96 Bulls record of 72 wins.

Media types were sayin that Pistons team could beat the 96 Bulls which is absolutely ridiculous.  Pistons end up winning 60 some games and losing to Miami in the East Finals. Hardly the greatest team ever.


Now u take NE. Bill Parcells and others had them as the greatest team of all time. Oh this team could beat the 80's 49ers, the 70's Steelers, the 90's Cowboys.

They couldn't even beat a good but not great Giants team in the Super Bowl.

So now all of a sudden, they went from being the greatest of all time to now people acting like they suck which is ridiculous.


These days we are prisoners of the moment. Everything we see is the greatest this or that ever and in most cases it simply isn't so.

Joe Montana would've shredded the NE defense. The 92 Cowboys would've scored 40 on NE. and The Steelers defense would absolutely shut down NE.


The Giants did and they are far from a historical all time great team.

They lost 1 of 19 games (regardless of the Superbowl Loss it's still tied for the second best record ever)... Every one of the teams you named lost a stinker or two durring the season, this one just came on the wrong week. Do I think they would have been "The Greatest" team ever.... Thats hard to say because I don;t think any one of the teams you named would have beaten the 07 Pats just because of different era's and things as simple as Body type. Think about just the sheer size and speed of D and O Linemen. The Pats don't have a single D Lineman under 300 pounds... I think the 80's 49ers didn't have a single lineman over 300 pounds. How would Ronnie Lott cover Ben Watson who is Bigger, Stronger, and Faster than anyone he played against?

The comparisons are totally subjective and could be argued for ever... They can never play, so it can never be proven...

Let me ask you a simple question... If any team other than the Patriots finished this season 19-0 would they have somehow been more deserving of the "Greatest Team Ever" tag?

[freedom78]

They lost 1 of 19 games (regardless of the Superbowl Loss it's still tied for the second best record ever)... Every one of the teams you named lost a stinker or two durring the season, this one just came on the wrong week. Do I think they would have been "The Greatest" team ever.... Thats hard to say because I don;t think any one of the teams you named would have beaten the 07 Pats just because of different era's and things as simple as Body type. Think about just the sheer size and speed of D and O Linemen. The Pats don't have a single D Lineman under 300 pounds... I think the 80's 49ers didn't have a single lineman over 300 pounds. How would Ronnie Lott cover Ben Watson who is Bigger, Stronger, and Faster than anyone he played against?

The comparisons are totally subjective and could be argued for ever... They can never play, so it can never be proven...

Let me ask you a simple question... If any team other than the Patriots finished this season 19-0 would they have somehow been more deserving of the "Greatest Team Ever" tag?

I see what you're saying about the loss coming during the wrong week, and other SB winning teams having a stinker or two.  With one exception (during the modern era) that's completely true.  But it comes down to winning the big one (an argument I may have heard a Pats fan or two make from time to time), so as far as I'm concerned, the best non-SB winning season (which I think this is) comes in as #43 all time (and will drop by one every year).  That doesn't mean they couldn't beat many of the SB winning teams of the past.  I'm sure they'd have a strong chance against any of them, but woulda, coulda, shoulda is pretty played out.

As for comparing them to past dynasties, those comparisons are near impossible to make.  The rules change over time, the equipment and training changes.  Maybe they beat those Steelers teams.  Maybe with modern training, those Steelers teams destroy them.  Who knows?  It doesn't matter, really.  Great is great is great. 

[GeorgeSteele]

The rules change over time, the equipment and training changes.  Maybe they beat those Steelers teams.  Maybe with modern training, those Steelers teams destroy them.  

Actually, the 70s Steelers were the pioneers of steroids modern training.

[C0ma]

The better team on the field Sunday won... but to take a single loss and act like the Patriots are a one and done is like someone claiming that the Yankees sucked after they lost the 01' Series.

As an avowed Yanks fan, let me take a bite of that one.

While the Yanks have not sucked, since they lost the '01 series...their "dynasty days" are over....and were over the day they won their last WS.  Making it in '01 didn't extend that dynasty, and the fact they haven't won one since has killed the dynasty, dead.

I wasn't trying to fight for the Dynasty tag... I just love how quickly people turn on successful teams. They lost a Super Bowl that they were 110% outplayed in by 3 points (that was saved by a 1 handed 1 helmet grab). With the possible exception of some linebacker/DBack turnover and the slight possibility of Randy Moss chacing a paycheck, this team isn't really going anywhere. You would think that the Giants just fell out of the sky in a Kansas farm house and landed on Bill Belichick.

But just to make a quick "Dynasty" argument... the 1980's 49ers won in 81,84,88, and 89. If the Pats win 01, 03, 04, 08 or 09 (or Both) how is that any different than the 49ers? Also many people are quick to just lump the 94 49ers into the fold.. thats quite a stretch that gets accepted. But like I said, I wasn't trying to make the dynasty argument. I'm just glad that I can related to a Yankee's fan from 96-01 as far as pure hatred of the organization from the outside.

There are just so many paralells. Brady and Jeter for example... If you asked anyone outside of the NY fanbase durring the WS run who the best SS in the league was, he was in the discussion, but most people had arguments for Nomar and A-Rod. I was part of the group making the Nomar/Arod case, now that I see it from the Pats (Brady) prespective, I'll take Jeters rings... ARod can have his home runs.... Nomar can keep his handsome wife and steroid after effects.

[pilferk]

the confusion came when you said this...

"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."

Let me see if I can clarify:

NE's dynasty, right now, according to what the history books are going to say, ended in 2005.

If they had won this year, the history books would take THAT accomplishment into account, and "link" that team to the dynasty.  They would be part of it.  They didn't, so...right now, they aren't.

I THINK if they win next year, they'd do the same.  There's some question about that though...as the 3 year gap might be too much.  I don't know. 

i think i see what you are saying though.

but remember, everyone defines "this team" differently. the team that we all agreed reached dynasty status a few years ago has many of the same players as today's Patriots.

Ditto the Yankees.  Ditto Dallas, back in the 90's.  But the history books remember the dynasty as ending when they won their last World Championship.  NOT when all the parts of the team had left.

also, going undefeated in the regular season and setting all kinds of records is something special. so i think an argument can be made that the dynasty is still "live."

but you may have a valid definition of a dynasty (i.e. they end with the last championship). living in philly, that hasn't been an issue i've had to figure out.

Then the Bills were a dynasty.

So were the Broncos.

But we all know that's not true.  We KNOW that the way dynasties are defined in the world of sports is by winning World Championships.  Not by having a great season.  NE had a great season.  They did NOT win a Superbowl.  It's that simple.

[pilferk]

They lost 1 of 19 games (regardless of the Superbowl Loss it's still tied for the second best record ever)... Every one of the teams you named lost a stinker or two durring the season, this one just came on the wrong week. Do I think they would have been "The Greatest" team ever.... Thats hard to say because I don;t think any one of the teams you named would have beaten the 07 Pats just because of different era's and things as simple as Body type. Think about just the sheer size and speed of D and O Linemen. The Pats don't have a single D Lineman under 300 pounds... I think the 80's 49ers didn't have a single lineman over 300 pounds. How would Ronnie Lott cover Ben Watson who is Bigger, Stronger, and Faster than anyone he played against?

The comparisons are totally subjective and could be argued for ever... They can never play, so it can never be proven...

Let me ask you a simple question... If any team other than the Patriots finished this season 19-0 would they have somehow been more deserving of the "Greatest Team Ever" tag?

It's simple.  They're the worst 18-1 team of all time.

That's the way history will view them.  Because they're the only 18-1 team NOT to win the SB.

And I'll take a crack at that.  Yes, if there was a team that managed to go 19-0, other than the pats, they'd be the greatest team ever.

Aside from the fact they'd have had to BEAT the pats, either in the SB or the playoffs, they'd be the best because only the '72 Dolphins have managed to do anything close to that.....and they did it with fewer games.

[pilferk]

But just to make a quick "Dynasty" argument... the 1980's 49ers won in 81,84,88, and 89. If the Pats win 01, 03, 04, 08 or 09 (or Both) how is that any different than the 49ers? Also many people are quick to just lump the 94 49ers into the fold.. thats quite a stretch that gets accepted. But like I said, I wasn't trying to make the dynasty argument. I'm just glad that I can related to a Yankee's fan from 96-01 as far as pure hatred of the organization from the outside.

It's not any different.  But they haven't done it yet.  THAT'S the point.

They are not currently a part of the dynastic Pat years.  A SB win this year would have made this team a part of that.  A SB win next year might very well do it too.  But I'm not clairvoyant.  So, right NOW the current Pats team is NOT a dynasty.  That's my point.

At the end of next year, that might have changed.  But not yet.

There are just so many paralells. Brady and Jeter for example... If you asked anyone outside of the NY fanbase durring the WS run who the best SS in the league was, he was in the discussion, but most people had arguments for Nomar and A-Rod. I was part of the group making the Nomar/Arod case, now that I see it from the Pats (Brady) prespective, I'll take Jeters rings... ARod can have his home runs.... Nomar can keep his handsome wife and steroid after effects.

Yup, there are many paralells.  So far.  We'll see if they continue.  The Yanks have had some down years, now, in the playoffs.  We'll see if those woes continue and/or run paralell for the Pats.

[tim_m]

I wasn't saying the Dolphins WILL win the Superbowl next year (and I don't know what's up with you saying "you'll"--- I'm certainly not a fan of the Dolphins). I was just saying that the unexpected always happens in the NFL. A couple months ago, if I had said that the Giants would win the Superbowl and that Eli Manning would be the Superbowl MVP, people would've laughed their heads off and said, "What the hell are you smokin?" Every year there's a couple teams that make a giant leap from the bottom of the league up towards the top. Of course, I don't see the Dolphins being one of those teams next season.

I was joking....sorry the humor didn't come across.

It's just that...if you look at Parcells history, he comes to a team in crisis, and leaves just as they become good....the exception being the Jets, who still suck. 

Well he did get them within one half of making the super bowl but then left and they went back into the shitter.

[freedom78]

If the Pats tack on another SB victory in the next two years, I'd say they're a decade long sports dynasty.  As is, they're a first half of the decade dynasty.  It doesn't really matter.  They're good.  They've won Super Bowls.  The rest is just nitpicking.

Anyway, how about some predictions for next year?

As far as the AFC, I can't see much changing in the playoff teams.  Barring major injuries, etc., I think we can count on NE, Indy, SD, and probably Pittsburgh winning their divisions. 

Jacksonville will be a contender again, and Cleveland may make the playoffs, as well.  If Vince Young can settle in, the Titans could be good enough again, as well.  Maybe Denver bounces back, too.

NFC...I'm sure Dallas will be there, GB will, if they have Favre.  The South and West are less predictable.  Probably Seattle.  NO could bounce back from this season.

I'm not at all certain that the NYG will even be back in the playoffs.  If  Eli plays like he did in the playoffs, they'll contend for the division.  If not, they could just be a one year flash in the pan.  Same for the Skins, really.  Not at all confident they'll be back in.  They need some season long consistency, which they get about once every decade.

[C0ma]

That's the way history will view them.  Because they're the only 18-1 team NOT to win the SB.

And I'll take a crack at that.  Yes, if there was a team that managed to go 19-0, other than the pats, they'd be the greatest team ever.

Aside from the fact they'd have had to BEAT the pats, either in the SB or the playoffs, they'd be the best because only the '72 Dolphins have managed to do anything close to that.....and they did it with fewer games.

What I meant by that is people are making a claim that even if the Pats had won and gone 19-0 they still weren't "THAT" good and most of the other dynasties would destroy them and therefore aren't the greatest team ever. What I wanted to see is if the "haters" are so biased against the Pats that they would claim a Chargers, Colts, Packers, or Cowboys team that went 19-0 would some how be "stromger" than a 19-0 Pats team.

[sandman]

the confusion came when you said this...

"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."

Let me see if I can clarify:

NE's dynasty, right now, according to what the history books are going to say, ended in 2005.

If they had won this year, the history books would take THAT accomplishment into account, and "link" that team to the dynasty.  They would be part of it.  They didn't, so...right now, they aren't.

I THINK if they win next year, they'd do the same.  There's some question about that though...as the 3 year gap might be too much.  I don't know. 

i think i see what you are saying though.

but remember, everyone defines "this team" differently. the team that we all agreed reached dynasty status a few years ago has many of the same players as today's Patriots.

Ditto the Yankees.  Ditto Dallas, back in the 90's.  But the history books remember the dynasty as ending when they won their last World Championship.  NOT when all the parts of the team had left.

also, going undefeated in the regular season and setting all kinds of records is something special. so i think an argument can be made that the dynasty is still "live."

but you may have a valid definition of a dynasty (i.e. they end with the last championship). living in philly, that hasn't been an issue i've had to figure out.

Then the Bills were a dynasty.

So were the Broncos.

But we all know that's not true.  We KNOW that the way dynasties are defined in the world of sports is by winning World Championships.  Not by having a great season.  NE had a great season.  They did NOT win a Superbowl.  It's that simple.

actually it's NOT that simple. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/football/nfl/02/07/top.dynasties/index.html

SI lists the 90-93 bills as a dynasty.

so if winning 0 champs cna constitute a dynasty, being only the second team to go undefeated in the regular season can as well.

not sure how history will judge it, but if brady wins another superbowl with belicheck as the coach, there is not doubt it will be considered a dynasty from 2001 through 2010 or whenever that championship occurs. they have made the playoffs and been the team to beat in a few of the years they didn't win it all. not to mention the greatest regular season in the history of the game.

[pilferk]

actually it's NOT that simple. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/football/nfl/02/07/top.dynasties/index.html

SI lists the 90-93 bills as a dynasty.

so if winning 0 champs cna constitute a dynasty, being only the second team to go undefeated in the regular season can as well.

not sure how history will judge it, but if brady wins another superbowl with belicheck as the coach, there is not doubt it will be considered a dynasty from 2001 through 2010 or whenever that championship occurs. they have made the playoffs and been the team to beat in a few of the years they didn't win it all. not to mention the greatest regular season in the history of the game.

I would respectfully disagree with SI on the Bills being a dynasty. Heck, even they lead with a question (to which my answer is No). Most of the rest of both the sporting world, and the media, seems to agree.  Why SI puts them in that category, I have no idea. Stretching to fill a "top ten" and not having many other options, maybe?

 It's akin to saying the Yanks were still a dynasty because, until this year, they won the AL east every year, and made the playoffs.  If you lower the standard to the level SI is, there are a NUMBER of "dynasties" that nobody recognizes.

Dynasties = winning world championships.  That's the accepted litmus test.  You can argue it's fair, or unfair, but it is what it is.