There you go...Phil Simms
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
There you go...Phil Simms
Exactly. Had the Pacheats won, it would have been a devastating blow to the NFL. Free agency was designed to prevent dynasties and to give teams from places like Buffalo, New Orleans and Jacksonville the same chance to win it all as teams from New York, Chicago and Boston... To have not only had a "dynasty", but to also have a perfect season would've seriously affected the competitive balance of the league in a negative way.
Not one bit. Dolph Schayes' NBA career didn't get Danny in...
Never heard of them.
All's I'm saying is that sometimes revisionist history helps HOF candidates. Just like John Madden's stellar broadcasting career made him seem like a better head coach in retrospect-- perhaps Archie's status as patriarch of the NFL's dynastic First Family will help the rest of the nation see what we in the N.O. have seen in him all these years...
Oh please, that's ridiculous. You make it sound like the Patriots also cheated in FA. To have won the Super Bowl would NOT have affected the competitive balance in any way. You just seemingly don't like the Patriots and are happy that they lost(opinion, could be wrong). How does losing the Super Bowl not have the same impact on the competitive balance? If they won, people would be saying they probably cheated. Well, why does that change when they lost? Just because they lost, people think they didn't cheat in that game? Is cheating synonymous with winning? I'm confused as to why losing that game doesn't upset the balance, but if they won, holy shnikey, the balance is gone!!!
doesn't Madden have the best winning percentage over any coach to have ever coached in the history of the NFL? If so, isn't that enough?
The Pats were considered a dynasty before this game ever kicked off. This loss changes nothing other than the fact that they did not win this game. They are still vastly superior to every other franchise out there in practically every facet of being an NFL team.Sorry that you're confused; I'll type slowly... The fact that the Patsies lost tonight means that no team in the NFL has a dynasty right now-- had they won, an argument could be made that they were a dynasty. Yes, it is a thin line- but a line, nonetheless. So, yes, if you define "competitive balance" (not "parity", which I hate) as most of the teams being relatively evenly-matched and most teams having a legitimate shot at the beginning of each season vs. one team having a dynasty-- then tonight's result made all the difference.
The Pats were considered a dynasty before this game ever kicked off. This loss changes nothing other than the fact that they did not win this game. They are still vastly superior to every other franchise out there in practically every facet of being an NFL team.
Best Dynasty ever is the one where Alexis & Krystle have a catfight and wind up in the fountain.All tonight did was damage (seriously I think) their argument for "best dynasty ever".
Eli Manning is the best crime fighter in Gotham City.Eli is my hero
he defeated evil.
Best Dynasty ever is the one where Alexis & Krystle have a catfight and wind up in the fountain.
I agree, they 100% qualify as a dynasty.