AKC

Or to simply discover how bad. You can have faith in Edwards and Bannan against the run- I've seen way to much of both of them to buy into that. Again, it would be great if Anderson were a break-out player in '05 but even then we'd be just "adequate" with two "quality" DTs. I'm surprised by how fans downplay the fact that the winningest management group in our league over the past few years plays a 3-4 and yet they've got better depth at the DT spot than we do! The simple fact is we don't even have adequate starters at DT and we ADDITIONALLY have no depth.

Pat Williams remains a "quality" run stopping interior lineman with excellent hands in the running game, giving him both the ability to force plays away or make tackles. Ron Edwards is a known quantity- he's become a solid passing down lineman who plays too high to be effective in the run game and consequently too many running plays go right over him. He is NOT a good run tackler. We know virtually nothing about Tim Anderson. Even in the weakest divisions in the league, a rotation including AT LEAST two "quality" interior linemen is the absolute minimum for being competitive today. No objective source would make the claim that we have two "quality" interior D Linemen when in fact we merely have one. The last time a team even got to the Super Bowl with one "quality" interior linemen we watched Tampa run the ball down the throats of Sam Adams and a group of role players like we're looking to put on the field this season. We'll see Corey Dillon twice, Curtis Martin twice and almost surely Rickey Williams twice this season plus Priest Holmes, LaDanian Tomlinson, Stephen Davis and Rueben Droughns. A good case could be made for us being non-competitive against any of those teams- leaving us lucky to win 7 or 8 games this coming season. It's safe to assume that finishing .500 in the AFC East will be a dead end, and without adding at least one solid interior D Lineman our schedule of potent running offenses will simply destroy the most humble hopes of the 2005 Bills.

Conceding an opening day performance limiting Domanick Davis to 100 yards simply based on the field and opening day adrenaline, I'm guessing the New Orleans Saints game will be that last game of the year before it becomes evident that the moniker for our '05 defense against any decent rushing attack should be "The 4th Quarter Fold".

There's no doubt in my mind that short of Tim Anderson being a phenom, something we've seen absolutely no indication of, we're in big trouble this year at the DT spot and it's far and away our biggest personnel problem. Assume Sam has a Sam year, 10 very solid games and 6 with a little less than stellar effort. Assume Ron Edwards plays well on passing downs but continues to struggle against the run. Mix in a good dose of the unknown of Anderson and the likelihood of seeing 2 of the 3 best rushers in the league last year PLUS Ricky Williams 6 times. One measure is to look at the Pats; they've got Vince Wilfork, Ty Warren and Richard Seymour plus a host of 2nd-tier interior linemen and this is a team that plays a 3-4 predominantly. The writing on my wall says without some help at DT London Fletcher will be wise to increase his life insurance policy before we hit the pre-season. We're almost promised the worst Bills rushing defense in the recent past and at a time when the quality of running backs in our division is at likely a historical high point. 2005 for the Buffalo Bills may bring new meaning to the phrase "Bad Things".

I'm less concerned with his speed because his athletic gifts have allowed him to rarely walk away from a "jump ball" wihtout getting the better of the defender. It's the lackadaisical one-handed garbage and the outright bounces off his uniform that have forever frustrated this fan. IMO he just doesn't have the superior concentration of a great WR like Marvin Harrison.

Eric simply doesn't have the great hands of many receivers in the game today. The best receivers in football come up not just with hard to catch balls but they rarely ever miss a ball in their natural range. Eric has never been able to do either of these with regularity- he will get an occasional highlight grab but for the most part he's proven to have inferior hands in a league where WR opportunities are critical to reducing your QBs exposure to the reality of increased pressure from more athletic rushers and more refined rushing schemes. That little first down drop that seems innocuous is instead the cause in many cases of a D being granted the ability to T off on a backfield and consequently the ball being turned over the the opposition, an opposition in many cases employing far more surehanded WRs. Eric is a talented and experienced WR who is capable of making big plays, and in those areas he's a top 15 ot 20 WR in this league- unfortunately when his reliability is factored in he "drops" out of the top 30.

You oughta do a little homework before second guessing me ;-) AFC Domination In fact, not only does the linked article support my numbers to the EXACT percentage, it further points out that the AFC domination was greater (or to use your phrase "more staggering") than AT ANY TIME DURING THE NFC PERIOD YOU REST YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT UPON! This surely does beg the question- ARE THE PATS THE WEAKEST SUPER BOWL CHAMPS EVER? Hey- Thanks for the tipoff on opposing conference strength! I never would have bothered considering that angle if you Patsy fans hadn't taken the losing side of the "Pat's Dynasty" argument and kept on arguing it even after it was clearly out of your reach! How interesting to find out that conference strength ALSO lends further support to the "weak champion" position.

I'm giving credit where credit is due to one Mr. Daniel Webster who proclaimed the multigenerational foundation of the word "dynasty". The only difference between the a-whipping the AFC has been putting on NFC teams during the Pats run verus the opposite situation when the NFC was the dominant conference is that their champs were whipping on all the AFC teams in the big game. Today, when the AFC is regularly pounding the NFC all season long (AFC won a staggering .688 against the NFC in '04 reg. season) we are forced to suffer through the embarrasment of watching the Pats limp through field goal squeakers under the same circumstances where the past NFC champs exhibited domination.

You're within grasp of the golden ring- Yes, a win is a win. And a squeaker is a squeaker. And a squeaker of a win can never be characterized as "dominant" as those before you have insisted, and a non-dominant champ can never be characterized as a dynasty as those before you have insisted. Otherwise the world still spins on an axis 23.5 degrees from vertical once every 24 hours and the Pats have won three Super Bowls without dominating a single one, leaving them the poorest candidate among all NFL champions in the history of the sport to be considered a "dynasty".

Well Sybil, your other personalities have been less embraceful of the AFC championship game as a measure of anything- in fact the 4 the Bills won in a row have been laughed off as no accomplishment at all by your other screen names in this very string- so no, I'm hardly feeling munificent enough to grant praise on pulling off a two-score win two weeks prior to the big game; your Pats still have never won a championship by more than the gayly stockinged little toe of your kicker's foot. Now on the other hand I'll have to concede to you anything "obivous" since among the 5 languages I speak fluently you've discovered a word I'm unfamiliar with. Perhaps you'd care to explain it to all of us?

I don't see that as any more impressive than the Titans putting up 48 against the Packers in week 5, because after all the subject we're talking about is championship games ;-) You bandwagoneers are so stuck on believing your team is something they're not that you can't process the fact that they've dominated no one in the big game, unlike the teams in NFL history considered by all rational fans of the game as dominant. You've tried to argue your losing position under three different names today and the result is the same- you're simply wrong to try to pass off the Pats as a "dominant" champion, and if you're not a dominant champion it takes an awful lot of spelled glue tubes to make the jump from "non-dominant champion" to "Dynasty".

I see no reason for you to be embarassed by the fact that your team has been unable to exhibit dominance over anyone in a championship game. But it is a simple fact. Thanks for making your first post as in insect with us- now back to the question on the table- Cite for us JUST ONE of the teams who have consecutive championship wins that were less convincing than the Patriots 3 point "kicker" victories. Once we have your answer we'll be able to consider the basis for your additional inquiry. In the meantime see how long you can balance that cone-shaped cap on your head!

Sorry to interrupt your turnip dig but the actual question was whether the Pats could be considered even the lesser title a "dominant" champion or even if that did they reach the level of "Dynasty"? But don't let a few tugs on that bottle of Old Spice keep you from your regular fiddling with the altar boys at service tonight ;-)

Take into account anything you want, there's simply no way a 3-point win in football qualifies as "dominant" in my dictionary or yours regardless of the level of competition. You either dominate an opponent or you don't, and a field goal kicker's margin of error will never crest the level of "dominant". Jan Stenerud never dominated a game anymore than Adam Viniatieri, and your championships were won by AV- whether you are willing to admit that or not. 5 Super Bowls over 14 years- I'd argue THAT'S exactly what the term "dynasty" means- Lombardi won three consecutive championships with the same team- not a dynasty until another generation of Packers went on to win the trophy. The SB9 Steelers were a whole lot different team than the SB14 version- completley different receiving corps/only two of the same OLinemen and over half the defense changed over- but I'm willing to entertain your definition that 5 years in football does not constitute multi-generational and therefore disqualifies the Steelers from the lofty height of "NFL Dynasty". Go on with your thesis and I appreciate the discussion; we'll explore that multiple personality disorder in another thread ;-)

While we appreciate Trolls with the good sense to actually enter genuinely into the discussion, it's important you accurately represent my original points: A) The margins are simply an indication of dominance, only one criteria one might consider when assessing a "Dynasty". On margins only one team has a more dismal record among league champs than the Pats, one of only two champs with negative margins in the big game. Being on the average minus 8 points in Super Bowls is hardly a signifier of "dominance". B) Dyanastics have a multigenerational foundation, and since the whole meaning of the word is based on this it is only logical that multiple generations of the same team would have to win the championship. That situation exists among some teams (Steelers/Boys/9ers/Packers/etc.) but it simply is non-existent with the Pats, hence their disqualification IMO as a dynasty. Make an argument perhaps that the unique nature of changing rosters makes even a separate year another "generation" in football; I won't bite but you might gain some traction if you can fashion a cohesive position like that. At the same time no sane person one would argue the Pats "dominance" in the big game and I'd take the position that that is exclusionary in and of itself to attain the exalted level of "Dynasty".

Damn right that's fine since that was the conversation you interrupted, which ultimately left you exposed as a fool who can't hold down his end of an argument. Nice concession but no surprise. The difference between insects like you and contributing trolls of TSW like Des is simple- you have no argument because developing one is alien to your nature and hence why you don't populate a Pats board where the intelligent Pats fans discuss their team. Your destiny is to rudely interrupt actual discussions about the game of football and when flushed out rely on your default retreat of "but we won 3 Super Bowls!". Let me share something with you Einstein- take a "we won 3 Super Bowls" and add a "John Kerry went to Vietnam" and you can buy yourself one big hot cup of Jack Squat here on The Stadium Wall. And a guy like you oughta' be used to that squatting position since it's the natural feeding orientation for your species .-)

Either that or simply revel in how warmly they receive being slapped silly in public! Probably a childhood thing ;-)

That's exactly right- they've dominated no one, unlike the NFL Dynasties. Take Green Bay and San Fran- both with an average margin of score in Super Bowls of +19 - and they've won in multiple generations of their team to qualify as a Dynasty. This versus a negative margin of score for the "anything but a dynasty" Pats who can't qualify for the dynasty designation since they've won only in a single generation of the team.

I'm guessing the kid with the inate ability every game to catch the ball with his neck ;-)

Where "loaded" means you don't like the answer! So you concede my original point to another Bill's fan by admitting that Thurman's Helmet cannot name one single consecutive championship team in NFL History with less compelling margins of victory than the Pats. Thanks for playing ;-)

Do two insects constitute a swarm? Actually, "anyone who claims that doesn't qualify as a dynasty" actually understands what the word dynasty means! You might nibble on a dictionary before you crawl back under the refrigerator ;-)

Speaking of facts- we're all breathlessly awaiting your answer to the orginal question: One more time- Among the 15 instances of teams winning consecutive NFL Championships, which are the ones you cite that are LESS convincing than the two 3-point squeakers by the Pats? Exterminator's Theme

Much like the flotsam in a flushed toilet, you enter into a conversation I'm having with another Bill's fan regarding his assessment of the Pat's as a "Dynasty"; I point out that this use of the word dynasty is wholly inaccurate and YOU interrupt my perfectly reasoned assessment of the Pats as the least convincing consecutive championship team in the history of the NFL. After your rude interruption claiming "you don't understand anything" I point out that I'll stand by my conclusion and I ask you to name ONE SINGLE instance where consecutive NFL championships have been won in a more pathetic manner than those won solely on the foot of Adam Viniatieri. Of course, you can't answer the simple question I pose because it would expose you for the insect you are- a know-nothing band wagoneer who doesn't even possess the confidence in his football knowledge to discuss his team with his own fan base in a forum established for that team. But do continue to humor us, like any insect your continued boorish behavior in a forum in which YOU are the guest will ultimately lead to your extermination. RAAIIIIDDDD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Something terribly wrong happened in a company headed by a man who had rightfully gained a great reputation as an American war hero, a hard worker and a generous benefactor. How it spun out of control is not clear, but I will say this- John's wife was virtually never thought of in the same manner and she drove her children to "succeed" in ways even bigger than their father. The incredible ethic and ideals of John's parents James and "Yiya" are still visible in the family of Gus, John's brother, where a different approach to their children took place in a parallel family universe. Gus and Reba Rigas raised their kids to be happy first and successful second, and the results are clear now- John, being dragged down to some (likely large) degree by his loyalty to his sons will pay a huge price. The probable influence who had more to do with their whole undoing will be sitting comfortably at home. Gus and Reba's kids, like their parents, remain down to earth; one of the finest families you could ever know. They're approachable, decent and as generous as their grandparents taught them to be. A different approach, a different outcome. It would be reckless to condemn the name of a fine family by the actions of a few, and I for one find the broad stroke condemnations incredibly myopic. The real shame may be that there's not a cell next to Tim Rigas set aside for his mother Doris.

Actually, if I recall correctly you are on borrowed time as a troll in this forum- were you not involved in what proved to be a nefarioulsy false attack on a Bill's fan that proved to sound the death of another troll insect buddy of yours here not long ago? Making references to the BS that got your hivemate booted might not be an intelligent strategy, but hey- don't let me interfere with you hanging yourself- I'm no fan of trolls with poor manners! Now let's see if I can make this any easier for you since you so rudely interrupted my conversation with another Bills fan here about the lack of accuracy in calling the current Pats a "Dynasty", an application that contradicts the multigenerational basis of the word. I've asked you the simplest of all questions, a verifiable and quantitative question about the incredibly tight scores in your championship wins- can you name even ONE of the 15 instances of consecutive NFL Championships where the winner was less convincing in victory than the Pats have been? Go ahead and scream and cry about how unfair my conversation with other Bill's fans is, the reality is it merely points out how difficult your struggle was in grade school English. But do carry on, I realize your kind can be awful noisy while you molt!