so if the pats win on february 7th do they lock up being the

>>65074128
If they continue to make the playoffs afterward (which seems likely) then sure

Is the rest of the NFL even trying?

Yes, and even if they don't they'd still be in the lead because only two teams made multiple Owls this decade (Pats/Seahawks) and Patriots never had fewer than 12 wins + they made the AFCCG 5 times in 6 seasons of this decade

>>65074128
Pats are playing golf on February 7.

handegg is such a meme sport

winning an owl is literally all about QB play

>>65074128
they lost one in 2012 and won last years. the seahawks are 1-1 in the past two years.

still a few years to go. if seahawks win again they could take it but its pats to lose

>>65074206
Only casuals think this

>>65074206
Denver Broncos are in the final 4 and had one of the worst QB situation throughout the season

>>65074128

Well for the '10s we have these super bowl winners:

Saints
Packers
Giants
Ravens
Seahawks
Patriots

so no team has really been dominant yet this decade. So if the Pats win #2 they are on their way unless any other team gets a second within the decade.

If you notice all the teams that have won the SB this decade are generally solid even if the Giants and Ravens had down years.

>all the dynasties are american

sometimes it's amazing how godlike we americans are. seriously is the rest of the world even trying??

If Eli didn't exist, Tom Brady would be the GOAT sports player. Undefeated in Superbowl, Six owls, undefeated season and everything else he has achieved. Brady will still be arguably the best, but if not for Elit, he would have been the undisputed best.

File: 1452129100680.jpg (133KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 500x500px

>60's
>having a dynasty
>only 2 owls out of 3 played total

Lel nice try you fat cheese fuck

>>65074206
02 Bucs, 00 Ravens, and arguably the recent Giants championships were more about defense than the QB. Even when Peyote won his ring he played like shit and his defense bailed him out.

>>65074233
Should we count the saints? I'm never sure given their regular season was 2009, the majority of the season was 2009

>>65074233
>That Parity

You have to give the NFL credit there. They make it really hard to get a Dynasty going. Only team with multiple Owl appearances are Hawks and Pats this decade. Both only have 1 win.

>>65074206
>winning an owl is literally all about QB play

that's an ex post facto observation. While rarely has their been champions with poor QBs there are many teams who have great QBs who don't even make the playoffs. Plus in some years a good running and defensive team with an average QB will win the SB. Examples of this include: Brad Johnson-2003, Joe Flacco- 2013, Trent Dilfer- 2001, Mark Rypen- 1992, Jeff Hostettler 1991

>>65074263
green bay already had like 3 nfl championships that decade before sb 1

teams that won the owl

1. patriots
2. seahawks
3. packers
4. ravens
5. giants

>>65074280
The season is called the 2009 NFL season, so I think it belongs in the 00s

>>65074293
Joe Flacco was actually good in the playoffs that year

>>65074315
I agree. He really came through big that year even though overall he is only the 10th to 20th best qb in the league now

just tallied this up for reference to keep a running list since the team of the 10s isn't decided yet. 2010-2015 included only.

Patriots: 1 SB win, 2 CCG wins, 5 CCGs total
Seahawks: 1 SB win, 2 CCG wins, 2 CCGs total
Ravens: 1 SB win, 1 CCG win, 2 CCGs total
Packers: 1 SB win, 1 CCG win, 2 CCGs total
Giants: 1 SB win, 1 CCG win, 1 CCG total
49ers: 0 SB wins, 1 CCG win, 3 CCGs total
Broncos: 0 SB wins, 1 CCG win, 2 CCGs total
Steelers: 0 SB wins, 1 CCG win, 1 CCG total
Cardinals: 0 SB wins, 0 CCG wins, 1 CCG total
Panthers: 0 SB wins, 0 CCG wins, 1 CCG total
Falcons: 0 SB wins, 0 CCG wins, 1 CCG total
Bears: 0 SB wins, 0 CCG wins, 1 CCG total
Colts: 0 SB wins, 0 CCG wins, 1 CCG total
Jets: 0 SB wins, 0 CCG wins, 1 CCG total

>>65074296
>Mixing the championships to try and make the fudge packers look relevant
>Counting NFL chips but only including the 60's
Selective bullshit lmfao

Face it, owls are the ONLY thing that matters

>>65074280
>>65074310
correct and not debatable

>>65074339
right and even that decade they had more owl wins than any other team

File: 1450039810176.jpg (17KB, 268x284px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 268x284px

>>65074356
>2 owl wins makes you a dynasty

holy shit you dumb fat cuck

File: fml.png (55KB, 200x148px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 200x148px

>>65074333
>mfw the niners had a shot at taking the '10s

if only we knew how to convert 3rd downs.

>>65074371
well that's up for opinion, but the packers are unquestionably the team of the 60's, not even a packers fan.

File: LMAO.jpg (14KB, 262x263px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 262x263px

>>65074383
still not a dynasty, fatbody

File: it'th pothible.jpg (32KB, 286x330px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 286x330px

>>65074371
no, being the definitive team of a decade makes you a dynasty. sbs just help cement that status.

so if you don't like the packers, gimmee another team that defines 60s football

>>65074371
Were they even back to back? Dynasty = at least 3 championships in a 5 year span with a title defense included tbhfam

File: your dick is this big fuccboi.jpg (104KB, 1401x788px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 1401x788px

>>65074397
If that's the case then the Patriots are already the dynasty of the 10's

Thanks everyone else for playing.

It's decided glad we're in agreement.

>>65074405
so the 80s niners aren't a dynasty

>>65074412
they hold it now, but tenuously unless they win this year. then they'll virtually be a lock. but if they don't take it and someone comes on strong in the back half of the decade they could take it. seahawks might have a shot if their payroll doesn't catch up. panthers join the race if they win this year, as could broncos if they win this year and brock lobster is any good.. packers could even steal it if rodgers quits channeling manning (the good one, not the autism one).

>>65074412
you realize any team could technically owl 3 peat still. This automatically makes you a team of the decade.

File: turkey.jpg (69KB, 640x400px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 640x400px

>>65074498
>>65074502
Shut up faggots. Patriots > your shit team and that's all there is to it.

This year's SB is locked up and there's nothing you can do about it.

No other team comes close, especially not the seacucks, nigthers, cuckos or cuckers.

>>65074296
How many afl championships did they have?

File: beav.jpg (9KB, 274x184px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 274x184px

>>65074518
>trying this hard

almost bit at the first line, but then you pushed it too far

(though i will concede that this year my team's shit. but at least we're on op's list)

>>65074279
Right so it comes down to the QB or the other guys who stop the QB.

Nice "sport"

File: download.jpg (181KB, 385x505px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 385x505px

>>65074565
>being this mad

LMFAO

Why are you calling them owls

>>65074206
Confirmed for never having seen a football game

File: bear.jpg (2MB, 2617x1963px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2617x1963px

>>65074704
>yfwdbwdso

>>65074730
> that flag
impossibru

>>65074245
>spygate
>undisputed

>>65074626
You're obnoxious senpai.

>>65074339
> using the word "chip"
Opinion discarded

>>65074405
The packers won three in a row, the last two being superbowls. They're the only team to ever win three championships in a row.

>>65074206
Notice how the Cowboys are the team of the 90's? Well Troy Aikman kind of sucked

>>65074233
Saints are 2009. Go by the year of the regular season, not the year of that season's Owl. e.g. the Pats will not have won the 2016 SB (yet)

>>65074545
they weren't in the AFL, idiot

File: aaron rodgers beta test.webm (2MB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 640x480px

The Packers definitely count as the 60s dynasty. Just because the championship turned from the NFL Championship to the Super Bowl in the middle doesn't mean the pre-Owl champs are magically invalidated.

2beeawnest senpaitachi, "dynasty" should be
a) 2 in three years or
b) 3 in five years (plus at least two back-to-back), without missing the playoffs for more than one of those years.

>>65075215
They won more after the accusations than before.

taping in the wrong box? implying. Taping opponents signals? No proof, but even so, record was better after and both offensive an defensive production were better.

So even if it all happened (taping in the wrong box definitely did), it had zero effect. Book it.

>>65074405
What? no it isnt.

>>65074279
>Even when Peyote won his ring he played like shit and his defense bailed him out.
everyone always brings up peypey. no one ever mentions the rapist and his 22.6 rating.
that's how you spot the plebs

>>65077109
People always mention Manning because he is considered the GOAT by many

>>65077058
>tackling

For those of you with brains, the NFL existed before 1960.

1950s - Cleveland Browns
1940s - Chicago Bears
1930s - Green Bay Packers
1920s - Canton/Cleveland Bulldogs

The future belongs to Carr and the Raiders

The wind rises brother

>>65074412
Unless one team sinks the next 3 years.

File: 1421024843564.png (86KB, 531x621px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 531x621px

Eagles beat the Vince Lombardi packers to win an NFL championship
Eagles are the only team to ever do so
That's right, a fraction of every single one of your Lombardi trophies is owned by the eagles

File: 1453225261963.jpg (246KB, 709x765px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 709x765px

>>65078316
>5 NFC championship games in one decade
>0 Owls
Eagles could've been a dynasty, now they'll not even be remembered as well as the 90s Bills.
And Chip Kelly ruined the team for the rest of the decade.
I think I'm done

>>65074233

take out the saints year

count the afc and nfc conference contestants

see how many teams made it to the final 4 consistently

i'm assuming the pats and the seahawks will dominate

>>65074281

Feelsgoodman

If this were yurop it would all just be lolrichest2teamswin

File: teachmehowto.gif (2MB, 534x532px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 534x532px

>>65078351
so long sucker

>>65074383
thisisbait.jpg

>>65074926
solider/contractor as us base me thinks

>>65074279
>the anti-QB era of 1999-2003 will never be a thing again

>>65074315
>>65074329
> joe flacco
>good
His entire playoff career was throw deep ball, torrey smith draws penalty for PI. Ravens get 60 yards.
>ELITE

>>65079365
>salty broncos fan detected

he was fucking godhand in the ravens 2012 run. and this is coming from a salty niners fan.

No. They would need 3 at least.

So a repeat is automatically considered a dynasty? I always assumed a dynasty required at least 3 owl wins in a relatively short span of time (3 in 5, 3 in 6 etc)

>>65081131
absolutely not. '96-'98 broncos were damn good, but nowhere near a dynasty.

>>65076972
>Well Troy Aikman kind of sucked
Lol no he didn't

>>65074206
>QB play

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlHqolIyuXY

File: 1410118427107.jpg (14KB, 350x327px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 350x327px

>>65074128
>yfw the Burrs end up being the 2010s dynasty for the years 2018, 2019 and 2020

>>65078351
Oh man, you guys really had an impressive team that was building, but then along came Kelly and took a giant shit all over it.

>>65074128
isn't it too early to say? If the Giants (not saying it's likely) win in 2018 and 2019, then they're at 3 Owls for 2010s, something New England might not achieve

>>65083515
The Giants aren't exactly dynasty material. 2011 was a damn good hot streak, though.

>>65077125
Top kek nobody considers him the GOAT.

File: 1442779435409.jpg (34KB, 236x623px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 236x623px

>>65083515
As much as I'd love this I don't think the Gnats can be labeled a Dynasty for three reasons:
1) no consistent playoff push
2) Superbowls are won on hotstreaks
3) Even if they get more, the first two will always be massive upsets

>>65083542
>>65083627
I see, I thought dynasty for football in America only meant at least 3 championships in 10 years or something similar

>>65083658
It's more about domination in an era. Giants fan here, they certainly have not been dominate, even in years they won the super bowl they were big underdogs. But the Pats stopped cheating then so the Giants could actually win.

>>65083658
It technically is, but every other dynasty was just made of stronger teams
They were always there contending and generally had multiple chances in the playoffs.
No team has two huge upsets in that short of a span either.

Breesus will bring this back for us you'll see

All Dynasties except the 60's Packers 2bh

>>65084056
60's packers were still an NFL dynasty, just not a Super Bowl dynasty. just saying.

>>65083658
this >>65083669

70s-80s raiders and 80s skins both have those, and the eary 70s the dolphins went to 3 in a row, winning 2 consecutive and having the only perfect season, but all three of those near-dynasties were overshadowed by even more dominant teams.

File: untitled.png (63KB, 160x200px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 160x200px

>>65084056
so who did the 60s belong to?

Why can't dynasty just mean a period of great success? Why can't there be more than one at a time? 60's Packers, 70's Steelers, 80's-90's 49ers, 90's Cowboys, 00's-10's Patriots, plus some smaller maybe-dynasties in the 70's Cowboys (2-3 in Super Bowls), 70's Dolphins (2-1 in Super Bowls), 70's-80's Raiders (3-0 in Super Bowls), 80's-90's Redskins (3-1 in Super Bowls), and the 00's-10's Steelers (2-1 in Super Bowls). The 70's for example had only a handful of teams who were successful, but those few teams won a lot and deserve more recognition for it.

This is just the NFL/AFL and Super Bowl eras right now, since I'm not too familiar with the pre-1960 NFL.

>>65085400
because dynasties are rulers and only one gets to be king at a time, just like you can have an amazingly good team in any good year who doesn't get to be called champions

>>65084724
The league. Best team in the 60's sure, but they were no dynasty.

>>65085476
>won half of all league championships in the decade, including the first two Super Bowls
>the fucking trophy is named after their coach
>not a dynasty

>>65085400
because "dynasty" is superior to "great success". that's part of the reason it isn't easily quantifiable by a formula like x wins in y years. you have to be THE team of your era. otherwise you're just really good.

>>65085476
>the league

you're fucking kidding, right?

>>65085512
this guy gets it

>KB comes back
>Cam is like 26
>Luke is like 23

Panthers gonna crush shit until the end of this decade, calling it

>>65074128
This is the longest into a decade that we have been where 1 team has not won the Owl twice.

But no, that would only make it 2, alot of other teams have a very realistic chance to beat them and Brady won't make it out the decade, so why could be the league's boi pucci for 2 years.

>>65074206
Yeah Cuck WIlson led the them to their owl

>>65086112
Panthers are gonna lose to Arizona and Cam will regress next season.

>>65074281
it makes it way more fun to watch. Nobody knows who's going to come out on top and the playoff games are actually exciting. Compare that to the NBA where the warriors-spurs matchup is basically the championship game

File: 1452377319762.jpg (136KB, 960x801px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 960x801px

>>65083617
sadly many people think he's better than God Brady

>>65074243
>is the rest of the world even trying??

Literally no

Seahawks are the dynasty of the 2010's

Has any team ever repeat TWICE with the same QB/Head coach combo? I'm pretty sure the answer is no.. So if the Pats win this year then that would be unprecedented.

>>65088165
Steelers i think?

>>65088112
>Seahawks are the 85 bears of the 2010's

ftfy.

still something to be proud of, but they're a ring or two away from being a dynasty.

>>65088165
chuck noll and bradshaw in 74-75 and 78-79

>>65088192
Looks like you're right.

Chuck and Terry won in 75/76 and then in 79/80

>>65074128
They'd need to win two more to be the first double-dynasty, but the run of success they've had is already unheard-of in the history of pro sports. Only the ultra-early Lombardi-era Packers and the old-school Celtics really compare, and those were in much smaller and less hyper-competitive leagues. I can die happy knowing that I witnessed the Brady-Belichick era of football.

I will never get over the fact that Buffalo managed to lose 4 CONSECUTIVE super bowls

>>65084724
da browns

>>65088240
Yeah, it's really crazy to think about. I'll take 18-1 over that any day.

>>65077395
Bulldogs are a great team why is Cleveland sticking with literal excrement?

>>65074333

>5 CCGs total
Christ

>>65088233
>minimum number of rings to be a dynasty
nah, they just need to at least have a tie for the most and the success they had in the 00s will keep them as "the team to beat", i.e. the team of the decade, i.e. the '10s dynasty

>>65088242
'50s are theirs. no way they take the '60s from the packers

>>65088242

lmfao no

>>65088097

>Bengals
>Just as many playoff wins as the Jaguars
>And the Bengals went to a Super Bowl meaning 2 or 3 of those wins came from a single season

Holy shit Bengals fans, kill yourselves.

>>65088112
>us12s actually believe this

>>65088392
>kill yourselves
I think most of them already have.

>>65074381
>Kaepernick

You never really had a chance.

>>65088392
bengals went to two super bowls, so 4 of those wins came in 2 seasons, then got beat by the niners both times.

File: BADBADBADBAD ADVICE!.jpg (103KB, 1600x1000px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 1600x1000px

>>65088455
first one was with smeff. against the giants in the nfccg (at home!) we went 1-13 on 3rd downs, with the only conversion coming near the end of the game when the defense opened up the middle of the field a bit so we'd burn up more time trying to get downfield.

dunno why harbaugh always had such a hard time on 3rd down and in the redzone.

>>65084056
Idk. Winning back to back Super bowls seems like dynasty material to me.

>>65088464

Oh dear God it's worse than I thought.

>>65074279
>all the Giants championships

Fuck Phil Simms.

File: nigga you so crazy.jpg (4KB, 240x144px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 240x144px

>>65088554
>ten (10) one-and-dones
>mfw

File: image.jpg (435KB, 1904x1960px) Image search: [Google]

435KB, 1904x1960px

>>65074245

>>65088592

I legitimately feel terrible for Bengals fans.

>>65074128
I hate to admit it, but yea.
If the Hawks can keep getting into the playoffs and win another one over the next 3 years while the Patriots don't win another SB, there could be an argument, but outside of that unlikely scenario, the fucking Cheatriots will be the '10's dynasty

>>65088233
Popovich's Spurs > Belichick's Pats

File: cheat-forever.jpg (137KB, 670x670px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 670x670px

>>65088766
i'd rather have the patriots double up than see the fucking seahawks have sustained success

>>65088766
Seahawks need two more. Back to Back would cement it.

>>65088766
see >>65074333 how many of those other teams really have a shot at overtaking those two? after this owl we've only got 4 more seasons left in the 2010s.

>>65089471
carolina has the youth and media-friendly nature to become the team of the decade, both in success and attention, even if they only get 2 rings to close it out, especially if they get one beating the pats (you have to beat the champ to be the champ). that's where seattle really blew it, effectively putting them a half game down to new england, if you'll pardon the metaphor.

seahawks are other top contender, assuming their salary cap and retard luck don't run out.
arizona's too old, regardless of what they do this year. green bay's boring and chokes, would need to get back-to-back, and even that might be too late. broncos fail to at least advance to the sb this year and they're out. anything else is going to require out of nowhere 3 out of 4.

Biased as fuck here but i really hope this decade goes for the Raiders.

>>65074233
Glorious parity. Hopefully Cards, Panthers, or Broncos win to keep it going

>>65089651
*and to clarify, by "media friendly nature" i don't mean the media LIKE likes them, i mean the media likes to TALK about them. no press is basd press, as they say. applies to several teams, i think we all know which ones.

>>65089685
see >>65089651
>anything else is going to require out of nowhere 3 out of 4

>>65089724
If Carr is as promising as he looks they have areal chance, same for Cam.

>>65089796
not with del rio they don't. sorry.

>>65089807
He never had a real Qb to work with and made good seasons with a really shitty team, the best player he had as HC was MJD.

>>65089819
he's a shit motivator who's just there to collect a paycheck. raiders are way more talented than their performance this year. a decent coach would have had at least 4 more wins this year. you'll be lucky to ever hit 9-7 with him in charge.

del rio's a good coordinator. he's just not a hc guy.

>>65089819
You don't seem to understand that the Raiders have by far the worst ownership and GM in the NFL.

>>65089867
nah. gotta go about 30 minutes south for that.

File: 6_rings_no_cheating_shirts-r492ed125523543b99c4ac9c669d179c2_804gd_512.jpg (41KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 512x512px

>>65074128
>thinking tainted titles count as a dynasty

>>65089946
>thinking anyone cares what an assblasted anon thinks about their legitimacy

>>65089934
You're fucking retarded if you believe that. The Raiders have no money, no chance at getting a new stadium in the Bay Area, have had only 3 over .500 seasons in the 21 seasons since they moved back from L.A., have pretty consistently terrible drafts (only rare exceptions), are dead last in local revenue, have to tarp off a large section of seats just to come close to capacity, etc, etc, etc.

>>65078372

>seahawks will dominate

confirmed for not watching the NFL before 2014

49ers have the most conference championship games appearances this decade for the NFC

>>65089946
>shitsburgh stealers
>not cheating

lmao nice try faggot. refball made sure they beat the seahawks and cardinals and it also made sure the immaculate incompletion got them to a SB they had no business in so that's only 3 no cheating AT BEST.

fuck off you limp dick faggot.

>>65084512
Filtered for being an idiot.

>>65088543
Yeah but you're a clown so who cares.

>>65090012
and reason why disgsuting bandwagoners like you would get his ass kicked at any other football venue, talk shit get hit

>>65090052
No surprise that your shitposting has literally nothing whatsoever to do with anything I said. Learn to read Jamal, you dumb fucking nigger.

>>65090065
>I'm a pussy cuck white boy I only talk shit on the internet also I have a small dick since I have all the free time not getting laid
sorry if the truth hurts son, your a weak beta that should be eradicated off our planet

>>65090095
> still hasn't addressed or refuted a single thing posted
Good work.

>>65090100
>still delfecting from your small dick
Good work not getting pussy son. :^)

>>65090012
owner is crybabby trustfund babby who ran out a coach that took the team to the super bowl because he wouldn't cowtow to his bullshit even though he knows nothing about football, got a new stadium, but it's one of the worst in the league for game day experience, just set up to show off and as a venue for rich people to ignore the game and network, gm shoulda been sent on a rocket to mars, but he sucks the owners dick, so he's here for good, management is so bad young stars fucking retire so they don't have to play for us. at least oakland has some player optimism. rumor has it kelly likes gabbert. fml

File: wheredoyouthnkyouare.png (651KB, 1067x800px) Image search: [Google]

651KB, 1067x800px

>>65090095
>being black
>implying anyone on this chinese cartoon picture internet website isn't a virgin

>>65090103
Since when do they let the inmates at San Quentin on the internet?

>>65090118
Everything you said there except for getting a new stadium perfectly describes the Raiders.

>>65090133
since when are you on this late on computer without your mommies permission

>>65090171
Since I'm not a prisoner like you, I don't need permission. Enjoy getting your salad tossed by your "husband" later.

>>65090182
*tips fedora*

>>65090156
Bullshit, Reggie Mckenzie is the reason why they are getting better adn Davis is much better than some cunt with money like Snyder or York, he's trying to get the best people he can, and its not an exaggeration, he really wants to be like his dad.

>>65090219
ignore the faggot, he just another tool that eats all the bullshit ESPN spoonfeeds him, McKenzie got us Carr and then after that got us Mack and a promising tight end in Walford

>>65090156
here's the difference: the raiders are all that davis has, and now that al's gone mark's actually trying to make them work by hiring football people instead of being a micromanager. on the other hand, york was born on third and thinks that means he hit a triple, so as far as he's concerned everything he does is perfect and all fuckups are someone else's fault, and he doesn't give a shit about the team, he just wants to be in charge.

but i really don't know why we're arguing about these two teams, since neither has a shot at making a run this decade. i'm going to bed.

>>65090034
Cool b8
>muh refball
>muh immaculate reception that didn't even occur during one of their Super Bowl winning years

Serious question, who hasn't cheated? Jerry Rice cheated, Terry Bradshaw admitted that the Steelers were using roids in the 70s, the Panthers in their last SB appearance got caught using steroids after the fact. I mean who hasn't cheated in the NFL?

File: 130922215120-tom-brady-angry-receivers-patriots-single-image-cut.jpg (50KB, 655x373px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 655x373px

>Ed Hochuli reffing AFC Championship game

>Clete Blake man reffing the Owl

Is this the most obvious set up in the history of professional sports?

File: tim-tebow-tebowing[1].jpg (47KB, 380x243px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 380x243px

>>65090422

>>65074128
90s was niners too
They won a bowl and nearly every year of the decade went to the playoffs
Cowboys literally just won three bowls and have been irrelevant ever since

>>65090315
sleep well faggot, everyone knows they do have a chance thanks to the salary cap and young talent, but its cool to hate the Raiders.

>>65089867
>You don't seem to understand that the Raiders have by far the worst ownership and GM in the NFL.
What?
Are we talkinga bout the chargers or texans here?

Raiders had to wait for Al to pass to start the rebuilding , Reggie was hired when the team was full of horrible players getting paid star money , he cut the rest suffering the dead money and cap and literally last year was able to fix the problem and finally get players.

Coming into the next season they're going to have the largest payroll out of everyone in the league.

They're back to late 90s-pre 00s raiders hype.

File: image.jpg (86KB, 1200x630px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 1200x630px

>football fans in charge of knowing what a dynasty is

File: bradicheck.jpg (73KB, 480x720px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 480x720px

>>65088392
theyve been on suicide watch since the Pitt game

>>65090479
no hate, i agree that they have the talent on the field to be really good, it's just a realistic outlook based on their coaching situation. sorry that makes you so angry.

15 years later and still in the AFCCG

Pats fans do not know how good they have had it

>>65089946
SB 40

>>65074412
so who is that team of the 60's then fuccboi

>>65077058
dat Tom rathman block

>>65088043
Kawaan Short and Star about to run a fucking train on Carson Palmer lol

>>65090472
he is on a 24 year no fap that makes him elite

>>65094125
>buying rings

>>65096113
maybe if other teams won more games they'd have more fans and more money to spend on players to "buy" their own championships

>>65096126
I am talking about the no salary cap bankees buying rings

>>65089946
is it cheating to intentionally injure opposing players with dirty hits?

if the pats win and seattle doesn't win 2 more, then yeah they already are

Anyone who doesn't want to admit that the packers were the team of the 60's is a literally Reddit. Had they actually played the super bowl the previous year the packers would have smoked them, and because they would have won 3 years in a row in a dominant fashion, the NFL would have split with the afl because of a lack of suitable competition.

File: 12-Sport-Portfolio-HM-03.jpg (271KB, 700x418px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 700x418px

Pats are best dynasty since the Ming

>>65074128

Only if they get another sometime after.

Every dynasty has no less than 3 championships in their given decade so if they want to claim the 10s they need 1 more even after they get this one inside the 2010s

>>65100849
nah, it's not as objective as that. you just have to be "the" team of a decade. rings just reinforce it. and since no one's dethroned the pats and they haven't fallen off track they're looking pretty strong to retain the title.

best hope at this point is panthers beat pats in sb 50, and make multiple deep playoff runs the rest of the decade, including at least one more ring.

1. Steel Curtain
2. Montana's Niners
3. Brady's Patriots
4. 90's Cowboys
5. 70's/80's Raidaas
6. Joe Gibb's Redskins

>>65074206
85 Bears, one of the best teams ever, had a mediocre QB.