OJ's Glove

I'll ignore your insult and continue. Again, we can't say a damned thing about what would happen if "dynasties" played each other because it's a hypothetical exercise that can't happen. What Bills fans want to be true to make themselves feel better is irrelevant. The 90's Cowboys are considered "dominant" because they whipped the Bills (I'll ignore a much closer game against the Steelers for the moment). Though the Cowboys managed to beat the Packers and 49ers, they never dominated them. Sometimes they lost. The Cowboys look better overall because they were allowed to beat up on the weak-sister AFC representative in front of 100 million people. While real football fans know that the Cowboys had actually competitively beaten the real second-best team in football two weeks earlier. The fact that the top teams were loaded in one conference is NOT an argument that earlier dynasties were better. But that's what people in this thread are doing because of the artefact that the Super Bowl was normally uncompetitive back then. The Cowboys waste the Bills but have a tough time with the 49ers. The Patriots beat the Colts convincingly every time but don't blow out the Eagles. The last two statements are simply reflective of which conferences house the best teams, not on the quality of which "dynasty" should be favored over another. It isn't the Cowboys or the 49ers' fault that the toughest teams were in their own conference, and it isn't the Patriots fault that the tough teams are more spread out league-wide. It has no bearing on what is being argued here by you people. It's bad logic and bad reasoning.

This entire argument (and I use the term very loosely), conveniently ignores the imbalance in the conferences that existed before the salary cap era. The 1970's had AFC dominance, with the Dolphins, Raiders and Steelers (the Cowboys were the anomaly). Then the balance switches and the NFC rips off 13 SB wins in a row. Only in the salary cap era have the two conferences reached some level of parity, with the Rams and Bucs able to win in an era where the Broncos, Ravens and Pats also have. This is why the argument about Super Bowl margin of victory defining a dynasty is completely insane. When the NFC was dominating (for example), the Super Bowl was NOT a matchup between the two best teams in football. It was a matchup between the number one team and perhaps the other team was the fifth or sixth best team - or worse. That's how imbalanced the conferences were. So the REAL Super Bowl - between the two best teams in the league - was almost always the NFC Championship Game. And those games were plenty competitive. Are we supposed to consider the 90's Cowboys a dynasty because they slaughtered the Bills? Or are we supposed to NOT consider them a dynasty because they were able to beat Steve Young's 49ers but not dominate them? That being said, the great Bill Walsh won three Super Bowls, and two of them were on close, last minute drives against Cincinnati. According to your logic, that's not a dynasty. Foolish. The whole premise is ridiculous and loaded with sour grapes, as others have said. The "dominance" speaks for itself. 34-4. A record 21-game winning streak. The Patriots average margin of victory last year was 14 points. The fact that the Eagles scored a garbage time touchdown that didn't amount to anything and made the game seen closer than it was is irrelevant. Think about what you are saying. You're basically promoting the idea that a team that doesn't dominate it's own conference playoffs but has a blowout Super Bowl is a dynasty, but a team that dominates it's conference playoffs but plays a competitive Super Bowl isn't. That's a good one. Pull my other leg while you're at it. It's all dependent on how much balance exists between the conferences, something that no one is acknowledging. The bottom line is that salary-cap era Super Bowls are much more likely to be competitive because there is a better chance that the two best teams in the league end up playing in that game. You can't say that about 1981-1995. You can still sometimes get a blowout, but the trend is clear. It has absolutely no bearing on whether the "dynasty" word should be used. You get the ring and the trophy no matter what the margin is. Teams in the 80's don't get more right to use the word "dynasty" just because they were playing the survivor of a second-rate conference in the Super Bowl.

No kidding. It's HARDER, not easier to win multiple Super Bowls these days. Chuck Noll drafted extremely well for three or four years in a row and basically was able to keep his team together with minimal player movement. Belichick can't do that, and everything about the way the league is structured is designed to prevent dynasties from happening. Unlike when the Bills were in the Super Bowl, the two conferences are much more evenly matched these days. More often than not, the team that survived the NFC championship game was practically guaranteed the Lombardi trophy just by showing up, exceptions like SB XXV notwithstanding. I agree with Troy Aikman that what the Patriots are doing is harder to do than what the Cowboys did. Dallas was so loaded with talent that they could basically mentally take the week off, not be sharp, and still win. The Patriots need to be mentally tough every week, not make mistakes and need to be impressive as hell nearly all the time. That's the ONLY way to put together back-to-back 14 win seasons, three Titles, and a 21-game winning streak. They beat the high-powered Colts EVERY TIME, and schooled a 16-1 team on the road to reach the Super Bowl this year. What more do you haters want? Anyone who claims that doesn't qualify as a dynasty is either jealous as hell, clueless about how the modern NFL structure operates, or both.

NE's problem in 2002 was the inability to stop the run. I find it hard to believe that Bledsoe's cap hit is responsible for that. Bledsoe had a high cap hit in 2001 also, even though he didn't play that much. BB didn't seem to have trouble messing around with the roster. It's not that Belichick couldn't find cap casualty guys to help out. It's that the guys he found (Victor Green, Steve Martin) underachieved and didn't help. The problem is the Patriots were a talented but not dominant team who played a bit over their heads in 2001. They won the SB ahead of schedule, so to speak. Everyone was gunning for them in 2002, and they simply didn't have the talent necessary to take on everyone's best every single week. That problem was fixed in 2003, but it's a real logical leap to claim Bledsoe's money was a factor. Again, Drew was a glorified benchwarmer in 2001 with a big cap hit. The team still managed to win with a lot of roster flexibility.

Why does everyone think the Patriots were behind in 2001 against the Steelers when Brady was hurt? Seriously.

Kee-rist! Manning is always audibiling at the line no matter what. Sometimes he's actually changing the play, sometimes he isn't and it's a ruse. Just because Manning has more liberty to change the play at the line of scrimmage does not mean he "calls his own plays". Manning has several options based on what he sees defensively, but it doesn't mean he can call whatever he wants in the huddle and then change it to whatever he wants when he gets to the line. He can't, and he doesn't. Why the hell does Tom Moore have a job if Peyton's doing the playcalling? Most QB's in the league have three options when they get to the line. Two passes and a run. Let's say for the sake of argument Peyton has five options instead of three based on the personnel in the game. That still doesn't mean he "calls his own plays". It means he's good at reading defenses and the OC thinks it's an advantage to the team to have Peyton audible because he's good at it. Manning is a good enough player at what he does without having to invent things that he isn't actually doing to puff up his reputation. The game is too complex with too many substitutions for the QB to call his own plays anymore.

I think the point is we shouldn't assume a great player is going to win something just because he has a lot of years left. Marino taught us that. Assuming he'll win is just as flawed as assuming he won't. No guarantees, especially with the cap. Sometimes they eventually get there (Elway), sometimes they never can (Tarkenton, Marino, Kelly) Put me down as a skeptic until I'm proven wrong. I think it's a reasonable position to be in.

So you didn't like the films that much but forked over the money for the 4-disk EE? Frodo leaving at the end is pivotal to the story. You're trying to bring closure to nine hours worth of storytelling, not three. Fifteen minutes was a perfectly acceptable denoument. Cutting that Saruman scene had less to do with the runnning time and more to do with other things. The film was at the absolute upper limit of what audiences will sit through without an intermission. Since the DVD can be as long as the director wants, I'm grateful for the re-inclusion of those scenes. The longer version is what people will be watching twenty years from now, anyway.

Thank you. The idea that Manning calls his own plays is a lie that if repeated often enough everyone believes it. Calling Manning the de facto OC is an insult to Tom Moore, who has done an excellent job this year. Give the guy some props. Like any QB, a very good defense which disguises its coverages gives Manning problems. He's great, but lets have some perspective.

He definitely reads a lousy defense better than any other QB, and his offense is designed to exploit it. He's a terrific player, but let's not pretend that Tom Moore irons Peyton's shirts. Peyton is NOT the de facto OC. Tom Moore has done a great job of designing an offense which uses Peyton's skills to a maximim. Manning does not have the luxury of calling any offensive play he wants when he gets to the line of scrimmage. He has several options, and he's very good at it. But let's not overstate it.

Come on. No QB plays in a vacuum, and never has. Marino was more skilled than Joe Montana. Not even close. Joe played for revolutionary offensive genius Bill Walsh and had Jerry Rice, Roger Craig, the premier front office in the NFL and a terrific defense to help him win Titles. Everyone forgets that the 49ers had really good defenses, but they did. You could even argue that the 49ers managed to win another Title without Montana, and Joe couldn't win another one when he went to KC. Yet for some reason, the "who would you rather have" arguments are never a slam-dunk for Marino. A lot of guys still want Montana instead. If, skill-wise, Montana can't hold Marino's jock, why is that? Think about it.

Never use the Vikings' choke-jobs as an analogy with other teams. They are totally in a class by themselves. They don't call Tice "meathead" for nothing.

They were saying the Same thing about Marino after the Dolphins lost Super Bowl XIX. Funny thing is it never happened. I remember early in Micheal Jordan's career there was great astonishment at his talent and explosiveness as a player, but there were serious questions about whether MJ would ever win the NBA Title with the Bulls. Once he did it, it shut everybody up. Jordan obviously proved the naysayers wrong, but it doesn't always happen. People figure "Terrific player. He'll have a long career and he'll have to win one sooner or later." Real life is funny, though. Don Shula never had to deal with a salary cap, and actually had good defenses early in Marino's career. But it was always the lack of balance on offense that billsfanone Marino. Marino wanted to throw, and Shula wanted to let him. They couldn't help themselves, and they never won it. Manning has a good running back to help keep defenses honest, but he doesn't have a good defense and for cap reasons shows no signs of getting one anytime soon. If you aren't the number one seed, you're going to need to win in the playoffs on the road and in bad weather against excellent defenses. Does anyone really see the Colts beating both NE and Pitt on the road to get to the Super Bowl? Be honest. Will the Colts be able to beat whatever dominating defensive team exists next year on the road in the postseason also? It's a tough job with the kind of team the Colts have. Really tough. No matter how much the media tells Peyton he's wonderful. Color me skeptical.