Dynasty!

[sportndandy]

More Superbowl hype for you all.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=cnnsi-theforbiddenwor&prov=cnnsi&type=lgns

"We're not a dynasty, we're just a good football team, and we've been a good football team since I've been here,'' said Rondney Harrison, who only arrived in New England before the 2003 season. "The Chicago Bulls, they were a dynasty. They were a dynasty for six years, but once you lose, you're not a dynasty any more. I don't know how long dynasties last, but it seems like they don't last very long in professional sports nowadays.''

Amen to that. Three years ago about now, we were actually having the same debate about the St. Louis Rams, remember? Only then, even more ludicrously, we were trying all week to assign the dynasty tag to the feat of the Rams winning two Super Bowls in a three-year span.

And there was only one slight problem with that theory. The Rams were upset by the Patriots that year in New Orleans, foiling our plans to dub them a dynasty. Call it a case of premature designation. No matter. We quickly moved on. And now, it's those very same Patriots that we're trying to label a dynasty.

[chemp]

1. big heads

when the team gets it into their heads that the game is already won, it's trouble.
The fans can be as arrogant as they like. they don't play the game.
But many times it the attitude of the fan that makes you dislike the team (Cowboys, Yankees). I just hope we Pats fans do not project the same arrogance that the above mentioned teams do.

[Arkana]

2. So what's the point? The Patriots remain humble in the face of success

Tom Brady is becoming one of the greatest ever to play the game, and not once have I seen him mouth off about another team. Bill Belichick never overdoes it after a win--he is always immediately looking ahead to next week, and he never trashes an opponent.

If they continue to win, it will be because they have worked hard and done what they do best--played as a team.