The niners and the cowboys both had sweet players such as Montana, rice, waters,& Aikman, smith, and ervin, where as the pats had Brady, brown, and branch, none of which deserve such comparisons.
2007-02-17 18:46:53 · 15 answers · asked by paul k 1 in Sports ➔ Football (American)
Yea. Definitely. The Pats won 3 super bowls by 9 points, combined. If u win a Super Bowl by 3 points, someone got lucky, and their not that good.
Didn't the 49ers win a super bowl 55 - 10, and the Cowboys 52 - 17. What do the Patriots have to show, 24 - 21.
2007-02-18 01:44:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
You dont base a dynasty on the players they had, because the only reason the players are who they are is because of the dynasty. You really think Troy Aikman would have been anyone if he hadnt had his rings?? NO. To be honest, the patriots, as much as i hate them, are amazing considering the way the NFL is today. Every year there are teams that are competing that werent the year before, Ex. the Saints. But for some reason the pats are there every year. Even down years they are there to make their presence felt. Just because their players dont have the names like Montana, Rice, Aikman, or Smith doesnt make them shitty. They play as a team and win as a team. Thats what dynasties are made of, not names on backs of jerseys.
2007-02-18 05:15:29 · answer #2 · answered by phish_1125 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Three Super Bowl wins does not make a dynasty. The team is playing well, but I would never compare them to the Steelers, Cowboys or 49ers in their respective decades.
Another thing to think about is that now-a-days the team members changes each year. Giving all the credit to a select few players for getting to the Super Bowl is not right.
2007-02-18 06:26:39 · answer #3 · answered by ivan_beals 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You cant really compare the Pats dynasty to those of the past because it is hard to keep players with the salary cap. I think the fact that they won without the superstars is impressive.
To those who said they only have chemistry:
You can have all the greatest players to ever play the game on the same team and if there is no chemistry than you will rake up the loses. The only thing that matters is chemistry.
2007-02-18 10:32:27 · answer #4 · answered by MJMGrand 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Though they didn't have as many superstar names on the offensive side of their roster, their defense was stellar. The entire team worked together, cohesively, and were able to win championships. To say that they're not a dynasty because the names constantly change is crazy. In the Salary Cap era, it's pretty much unheard of. The way that the organization was able to stay on top of the pedestal despite losing key components is nothing short of amazing.
2007-02-18 04:30:22 · answer #5 · answered by steve m 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Though I am a Pats fan myself, I'm not going to byis this one. The Patriots didn't have the superstar offense, but the team chemistry worked very well. Also, look at the defense during the Superbowl against the Panthers (XXXVIII) they had Tedi Bruschi, Ty Law, Richard Seymour and Rodeny Harrison. There is your star Linebacker, Cornerback, Defensive Lineman and Safety.
2007-02-18 02:53:37 · answer #6 · answered by sakic_fan18 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
They won the Super Bowl in 2002, 2004 and 2005, and they have been competitive and have gone deep in the playoffs the last two years. They are well coached and have a solid, balanced offense and defense. They are a classy team without egos and criminals. The Patriots are an admirable team on an enviable run. A dynasty? Bill Bellichik would say no. Let's see the Patriots win in 2007/8 and then we'll talk. Gay? You don't know what you're talking about.
2007-02-18 02:52:37 · answer #7 · answered by mattapan26 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
And your point is? I don't like the Patriots...but you just proved why the Patriots dynasty is all the more impressive in comparison to those teams...the Patriots won championships with so-called "no-namers" outside of Tom Brady.
2007-02-18 14:00:18 · answer #8 · answered by RichMac82 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree. I don't like the Patriots. When I think dynasties, I think of the Cowboys, 49ers, Steelers, Packers(before the Super Bowl) and Bears.
2007-02-18 02:52:20 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
It isn't a dynasty anyway. The names kept changing, beyond the QB, at least who you KNEW. Heck most can name more then one of the players in the REAL dynasties and that is in part because they had the same players, or mostly the same, through the dynasty. Pats just gave themselves the title, or the NFL gave it to them, just so there would be one again.
2007-02-18 03:14:10 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋