Hunter2_1 Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 8 hours ago, buno67 said: that the major issue wasnt the OL. That is one of the main reason Baker has played so poor. His offensive line has performed as bad as he has and even worse. they are the reason he is constantly bailing and throwing off his back foot. Yeah I definitely agree with that. There have also been times where he's bailed from clean pockets though (but of course that's also probably due to ghosts from a porous OL). There are also some issues with accuracy which I don't remember being there last year though? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAF-N72EX Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 I gotta get back to work. I'll start a thread tomorrow because there seems to be a strong disconnect between the meaning of a "dynasty" here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter2_1 Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 15 minutes ago, Nabbs4u said: Dynasty is like the word Elite on this site. Way way over used! Applies to the very few but everyone wants to apply it to the masses? I don't even think we're a dynasty, really. Two separate mini-dynasties maybe. I live in a soccer country though where it's not uncommon for the best team to win like 7 straight championships, so maybe I'm wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TecmoSuperJoe Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 (edited) 35 minutes ago, JustAnotherFan said: You responded to my original post by pointing out championships in a era driven by Brady/belichick. That's not putting words in your mouth. Read below. On 10/8/2019 at 1:14 AM, JustAnotherFan said: Not quite sure where you're going with this but associating QB's to wins when discussing coaches is generally a bad take. As an outsider who has no allegiance to any NFC West team I would still take both McVay AND Carrol over Kyle right now simply because I'm more of a seeing is believing type. I have watched one coach (Carroll) create a dynasty that appeared in two consecutive SB's (although he is reaching the end of his run) and another young coach who took over a Fisher led team that was a laughing stock of the league for years, changed the culture of the locker room entirely and lead his team to the SB in only his 2nd season as HC. I'm not saying Kyle is a bad coach by any means but he has a long ways to go before he proves that he his better than either those HC's. I asked how can you have a dynasty with one ring. Where did I say that the Patriots are the benchmark for a dynasty? You said that, and attributed that talking point for me. I then said that I didn't cite the Patriots as the definitive example, but having multiple championships would be a start. As in more than one. So one ring is a dynasty for you correct? You cited Seattle, so I want clarification from you. Edited October 9, 2019 by PapaShogun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocky_rams Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 7 minutes ago, Hunter2_1 said: I don't even think we're a dynasty, really. Two separate mini-dynasties maybe. I live in a soccer country though where it's not uncommon for the best team to win like 7 straight championships, so maybe I'm wrong. I would still define it as one dynasty because the core has been in tact. Namely with with BB and TB12 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter2_1 Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 2 minutes ago, rocky_rams said: I would still define it as one dynasty because the core has been in tact. Namely with with BB and TB12 I guess. Plus whilst not winning it all in-between, we did always at least make playoffs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TecmoSuperJoe Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 Just now, Hunter2_1 said: I guess. Plus whilst not winning it all in-between, we did always at least make playoffs. Except 2002, and 2008. But basically, yeah. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAF-N72EX Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 (edited) 46 minutes ago, PapaShogun said: I asked how can you have a dynasty with one ring. Where did I say that the Patriots are the benchmark for a dynasty? You said that, and attributed that talking point for me. I then said that I didn't cite the Patriots as the definitive example, but having multiple championships would be a start. As in more than one. So one ring is a dynasty for you correct? 2nd time asking. You are so all over the place and trying back track now. I know your a niner fan talking about division rivals but your getting emotional. Take a step back. What is your criteria for a Dynasty then? because based on what you have said a team has to be the Patriots to gain that title. Quote I asked how can you have a dynasty with one ring. Which brings me to my original point. Ummm....I don't know how about there is only one ring to go around and every team in league has been competeing with a Peyton Manning and the most dynamic coaching staff and QB in history in order to obtain that ring. It's hard enough or a team to get to a ONE superbowl, much less 2 in row and yet Carroll's team was one bad play call way from taking home TWO consecutive superbowl rings against the unstoppable force. Hell. The Steelers and Ravens would have most likely won more rings had it not been for playing in the same division as Manning/Brady. Under Carroll the Seahawks have made the playoffs in what 8 out of the last 10 years, made 2 SB appearances, won 1 and could very well make it to another year. That's success. That's long term success that is hard to come by. 46 minutes ago, PapaShogun said: Where did I say that the Patriots are the benchmark for a dynasty? I already explained why I brought this up---you have been back tracking your statement. Where did I say championships were the benchmark? NEVER. You alluded to that, not me. Talk about putting words in peoples mouths. 46 minutes ago, PapaShogun said: So one ring is a dynasty for you correct? 2nd time asking. Can be and has been, yes. Now, answer this. How many rings does it take before you to consider a team a dynasty? If a team doesn't win "multiple championships" during an era featuring Belichick and Brady then how? Edited October 9, 2019 by JustAnotherFan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nabbs4u Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 3 minutes ago, JustAnotherFan said: Can be and has been, yes. Now, answer this. How many rings does it take before you to consider a team a dynasty? If a team doesn't win "multiple championships" during an era featuring Belichick and Brady despite how ? Who? A Dynasty only occurs when you win "multiple" SB in a 3-4 year stretch, Period! Otherwise you are just a SB Champion and or a "successful " Franchise. The only singular Dynasty this doesn't apply to is Unfortunately the Buffalo Bill's who Made 4 straight! Which has never happened again since! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAF-N72EX Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Nabbs4u said: Who? A Dynasty only occurs when you win "multiple" SB in a 3-4 year stretch, Period! Otherwise you are just a SB Champion and or a "successful " Franchise. The only singular Dynasty this doesn't apply to is Unfortunately the Buffalo Bill's who Made 4 straight! Which has never happened again since! How many other teams in history have had to play against a combo like Belichick/Brady for ~20 years? Edited October 9, 2019 by JustAnotherFan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAF-N72EX Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 Don't worry I'll wait... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter2_1 Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 make a thread @JustAnotherFan ? Interesting topic 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FinSting Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 16 hours ago, animaltested said: You know the mid 1980s were 30+ years ago right? I think whats even more lame than 12 jerseys is a teams who most iconic win in the last 25 years was a Wildcard victory. Why you baggin' on Miami in the Browns-Niners thread? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TecmoSuperJoe Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, JustAnotherFan said: You are so all over the place and trying back track now. I know your a niner fan talking about division rivals but your getting emotional. Take a step back. What is your criteria for a Dynasty then? because based on what you have said a team has to be the Patriots to gain that title. Which brings me to my original point. Ummm....I don't know how about there is only one ring to go around and every team in league has been competeing with a Peyton Manning and the most dynamic coaching staff and QB in history in order to obtain that ring. It's hard enough or a team to get to a ONE superbowl, much less 2 in row and yet Carroll's team was one bad play call way from taking home TWO consecutive superbowl rings against the unstoppable force. Hell. The Steelers and Ravens would have most likely won more rings had it not been for playing in the same division as Manning/Brady. Under Carroll the Seahawks have made the playoffs in what 8 out of the last 10 years, made 2 SB appearances, won 1 and could very well make it to another year. That's success. That's long term success that is hard to come by. I already explained why I brought this up---you have been back tracking your statement. Where did I say championships were the benchmark? NEVER. You alluded to that, not me. Talk about putting words in peoples mouths. Can be and has been, yes. Now, answer this. How many rings does it take before you to consider a team a dynasty? If a team doesn't win "multiple championships" during an era featuring Belichick and Brady then how? There is zero backtracking. Me being a 49ers fan is irrelevant. I literally asked you one question, and you danced around it multiple times before giving a straight answer. I never brought up the Patriots as an example of anything. Had nothing to do with my argument. You mentioned it first, and in our dialogue, and projected it on to me. My criteria for a dynasty, as already mentioned, is at least having multiple rings as a starting point with successful/winning seasons in between. You asked if I considered the Giants one, and I said no because of this reason. Then I cited another example, Dallas, as no, because I still feel two isn't enough. Doesn't matter if it's an era with Belichick or Brady in it. That's irrelevant for how I view an NFL dynasty. They are one, but not the definitive example like you claimed I said they were (putting words in my mouth). You were the first to bring up New England, and I was quoting you about Seattle and their status as a dynasty for you. And here we are. Thanks for finally answering the question though. One ring for you is a dynasty. Oh, and coulda, shoulda, woulda is irrelevant. Who cares if it was against the Patriots. Seattle has one, and that's that. If that is how you view a dynasty, fine. It opens up a lot of other doors for teams that have one ring, but hey that's cool. Just wanted to make sure you stood by that statement. One ring, dynasty. Great. As for your last question, since you're REALLY hung up on the Belichick/Brady era, it doesn't matter if you win one ring in this era or the 70s or 80s. You aren't a dynasty in my mind. Doesn't matter how difficult the opposition is. You don't get brownie points from me. The thought of Seattle being a dynasty is ludicrous. Same with the Manning/Dungy Colts when they got their ring in 2006 through Brady/Belichick. Edited October 9, 2019 by PapaShogun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TecmoSuperJoe Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 Baker, look out! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.