canuckfan_21 Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 Because it was an all star game filling in that gap and that doesn't matter for the fans or the players. I haven't been in here because I knew that it would just be a chirpfest in here no matter who won, thought it would of died by now. Its not really relevant since he doesn't play anymore. Could talk about Suh leaving Detroit, Colston getting asked to take paycut and would he? If dallas will lose one of their star players Hope to god Suh stays. Lions defense will drop from top 3 to middle of the pack without him. Completely changes how the other team plays. Would be willing to part ways with Calvin honestly if it meant Suh staying. Suh has never missed a practice while Calvin misses a few games a year right now. Lewand (team president) has given us some hope though saying there is a very, very good chance he stays. I know there is those reports he wants to go to Seattle, but that is a pipe dream I believe, too much money already needed for Wilson and Wagner. IMO its Detroit or Oakland. As for Colston he better take that pay cut if he wants to stay. He was pretty mediocre last year and Brandin Cooks looks like a keeper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreFan1 Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 (edited) Mak, why you stirring pot? The greatest dynasty in NFL history is doing there thing. Appreciate it. There will never be anything like it again. The 1970's Pittsburgh Steelers and their 4 Super Bowls (1974, 1975, 1978, 1979) and the 1980's 49ers (1981, 1984, 1988, 1989) and semi pre-merger Green Bay Packers (1961, 1962, 1965, 1966,1967) say hello. Super Bowls in a '60-'69, '00-'09 etc. decade are what make dynasties. Not 4 Super Bowls in 14 years. The Pats are a great team, but even if they won next year's Super Bowl, they wouldn't the best. Don't be a football homer. Edited February 8, 2015 by SabreFan1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRussianRocket. Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 The 1970's Pittsburgh Steelers and their 4 Super Bowls (1974, 1975, 1978, 1979) and the 1980's 49ers (1981, 1984, 1988, 1989) and semi pre-merger Green Bay Packers (1961, 1962, 1965, 1966,1967) say hello. Super Bowls in a '60-'69, '00-'09 etc. decade are what make dynasties. Not 4 Super Bowls in 14 years. The Pats are a great team, but even if they won next year's Super Bowl, they wouldn't the best. Don't be a football homer. We can debate this m8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
people please Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 The 1970's Pittsburgh Steelers and their 4 Super Bowls (1974, 1975, 1978, 1979) and the 1980's 49ers (1981, 1984, 1988, 1989) and semi pre-merger Green Bay Packers (1961, 1962, 1965, 1966,1967) say hello. Super Bowls in a '60-'69, '00-'09 etc. decade are what make dynasties. Not 4 Super Bowls in 14 years. The Pats are a great team, but even if they won next year's Super Bowl, they wouldn't the best. Don't be a football homer. Facts. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peaches5 Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 Nothing happens in this thread when Pats and Seahawks fans aren't going at it. It happened for a few days during the 2 week break in between games. The thread was dead. Not like you've contributed or posted anything that could lead to a discussion anyways. I posted the Jerry Rice stickum piece, but it's not a big deal and is disregarded because the "cheating" doesn't involve the Patriots organization. "But it's not a big deal, because almost every receiver back then did that" they say, not realizing the irony of that statement and the premise of deflating balls to the quarterback's liking. That's because literally every single player that caught a football back then was using Stickum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Magician Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH1G46yhdPM Gronk spike lololololol 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peaches5 Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 The 1970's Pittsburgh Steelers and their 4 Super Bowls (1974, 1975, 1978, 1979) and the 1980's 49ers (1981, 1984, 1988, 1989) and semi pre-merger Green Bay Packers (1961, 1962, 1965, 1966,1967) say hello. Super Bowls in a '60-'69, '00-'09 etc. decade are what make dynasties. Not 4 Super Bowls in 14 years. The Pats are a great team, but even if they won next year's Super Bowl, they wouldn't the best. Don't be a football homer. It won't be a dynasty no but it would basically make Tom Brady the undisputed best QB to ever play football. Everyone knows that if Tom Brady wins 5 its hard to not say he's the best. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Magician Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 It won't be a dynasty no but it would basically make Tom Brady the undisputed best QB to ever play football. Everyone knows that if Tom Brady wins 5 its hard to not say he's the best. Also like many have said, Tom’s in the salary cap era as well. Romo could have won the Superbowl’s that Montana did what the surrounding squad he had. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRussianRocket. Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH1G46yhdPM Gronk spike lololololol Saw it live...fracken spiked the puck into the crowd! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MayRayDown Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 Also like many have said, Tom’s in the salary cap era as well. Romo could have won the Superbowl’s that Montana did what the surrounding squad he had. What? Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
people please Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 Smh at people who think Romo is trash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreFan1 Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 We can debate this m8 There is no debate. They've won 4 SB in 14 years and they've dominated a weak division 11 out of the past 12. The Patriots are considered a 2000-2009 dynasty with 3 SB wins, just like the Cowboys the previous decade, but that does not make the Patriots the greatest ever. I have no love or hate for them so I see them as they were and as they are and not who I would or wouldn't want them to be. The biggest constant in those years is Tom Brady. I have him in my Top 3 greatest and others have him in their Top 5. You have a much stronger case of arguing his greatness rather than the overall team's. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreFan1 Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 It won't be a dynasty no but it would basically make Tom Brady the undisputed best QB to ever play football. Everyone knows that if Tom Brady wins 5 its hard to not say he's the best. We all said that a few pages ago. I have him in my #3 spot right now behind Montana and Unitas. One more ring and he will be the greatest as far as I'm concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreFan1 Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 Also like many have said, Tom’s in the salary cap era as well. Romo could have won the Superbowl’s that Montana did what the surrounding squad he had. Salary cap or not, his first 3 Super Bowl teams were as good as any of the old 49er teams. Great receivers, great offensive line, etc. Football players didn't make untold millions back in the 80's so money was rarely an issue on the quality of a team unless you were cheap *cough*Cleveland*cough*. All owners could afford whoever they wanted. The cap came into being because, like with hockey, some of the free-wheeling owners needed protection from themselves so they could put a stop to bidding wars. So that argument is null. What hugely impressed me this season was that the cap did have an appreciable effect on the quality of this team, but Brady won the Championship in spite of that. He willed them down the field on their game winning drive. You and RR have a much better argument if you say Brady is the g.o.a.t than you do of calling the Patriots the greatest dynasty. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRussianRocket. Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 There is no debate. They've won 4 SB in 14 years and they've dominated a weak division 11 out of the past 12. The Patriots are considered a 2000-2009 dynasty with 3 SB wins, just like the Cowboys the previous decade, but that does not make the Patriots the greatest ever. I have no love or hate for them so I see them as they were and as they are and not who I would or wouldn't want them to be. The biggest constant in those years is Tom Brady. I have him in my Top 3 greatest and others have him in their Top 5. You have a much stronger case of arguing his greatness rather than the overall team's. Very true. I guess that's what it is. Pats dynasty/BB-Brady era, they are the constants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Magician Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 Salary cap or not, his first 3 Super Bowl teams were as good as any of the old 49er teams. Great receivers, great offensive line, etc. Football players didn't make untold millions back in the 80's so money was rarely an issue on the quality of a team unless you were cheap *cough*Cleveland*cough*. All owners could afford whoever they wanted. The cap came into being because, like with hockey, some of the free-wheeling owners needed protection from themselves so they could put a stop to bidding wars. So that argument is null. What hugely impressed me this season was that the cap did have an appreciable effect on the quality of this team, but Brady won the Championship in spite of that. He willed them down the field on their game winning drive. You and RR have a much better argument if you say Brady is the g.o.a.t than you do of calling the Patriots the greatest dynasty. I didn’t say they were the greatest dynasty lol They’re definitely up there though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jiggs50 Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 Mak, why you stirring pot? The greatest dynasty in NFL history is doing there thing. Appreciate it. There will never be anything like it again. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jiggs50 Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 The 1970's Pittsburgh Steelers and their 4 Super Bowls (1974, 1975, 1978, 1979) and the 1980's 49ers (1981, 1984, 1988, 1989) and semi pre-merger Green Bay Packers (1961, 1962, 1965, 1966,1967) say hello. Super Bowls in a '60-'69, '00-'09 etc. decade are what make dynasties. Not 4 Super Bowls in 14 years. The Pats are a great team, but even if they won next year's Super Bowl, they wouldn't the best. Don't be a football homer. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NucksPatsFan Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 Because it was an all star game filling in that gap and that doesn't matter for the fans or the players. I haven't been in here because I knew that it would just be a chirpfest in here no matter who won, thought it would of died by now. Its not really relevant since he doesn't play anymore. Could talk about Suh leaving Detroit, Colston getting asked to take paycut and would he? If dallas will lose one of their star players Don't see Suh going to Seattle unless Lynch is gone. They just can't afford it. Wagner showed that defense is weak without him, he's going to get paid. Maxwell is going to get extended with a pay raise unless they want Lane or Simon as a starting corner. And then Wilson of course. If Dallas let Murray walk, they must have an agreement in place with AP. You don't take a couple years to build that O line through the draft just to end up with no run game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckfan_21 Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 Don't see Suh going to Seattle unless Lynch is gone. They just can't afford it. Wagner showed that defense is weak without him, he's going to get paid. Maxwell is going to get extended with a pay raise unless they want Lane or Simon as a starting corner. And then Wilson of course. If Dallas let Murray walk, they must have an agreement in place with AP. You don't take a couple years to build that O line through the draft just to end up with no run game. Even if Lynch goes I still don't see how they afford to pay Suh and extend Wilson and Wagner. I said it above already, but he'll be in either Detroit or Oakland next year, but I'll also add an outside chance of Chicago which would make me sick to my stomach. And even with no Murray or AP Dallas' run game wouldn't be awful. Not #1 probably, but pretty damn good as for the reasons you stated above about the offensive line. Also Joseph Randle is no slouch and this draft is pretty deep at running back. Imagine if a guy like Gurley falls to them due to his knee injury. Sit one year and you've got another beast (imo) or look at somebody like TJ Yeldon who I've always thought was pretty good as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now