Pats best team ever? Or, is it the Lombardi Packers? Or, maybe the Cleveland Browns from the old All-America Football Conference (AAFC.) See which team the crew thinks is the NFL’s best dynasty at this week’s NFLRT…
1) After their victory in SB LI can the Bill Belichick Patriots be called the NFL’s best dynasty of all time? Why or why not?
Chad: I would say the Packers of the early to mid 60’s that won Championships in 5 of 7 seasons would be more of a dynasty if your a judging by championships.
But, the Patriots would #2 in my mind.
Dan: Yes, I would call them the best dynasty of all-time. Who is topping them? They’ve been absolutely unbelievable. They’ve won five Super Bowls, they’ve played extremely well each season and the teams don’t be filled with super stars. Yet, Bill Belichick makes them what they are. He’s one of, if not, the best coach of all-time in my opinion and his resume shows it.
Every single year you can expect the Patriots to dominate and be at the top of the AFC. They don’t have big name wide receivers. They don’t have big name running backs. Their playmakers aren’t big name players, yet they do what they’re supposed to do. I can’t see a team topping them, especially in the era of football they play now.
David: Well, it is 16 years of goodness. I’d say it’s up there with the Lombardi Packers (5 in 7) and the AAFC Browns. Free Agency era has changed the difficulty level up and down in some respects.
Best of the Super Bowl Era? Yes.
(Editor’s note: In 24 seasons beginning in 1946, Cleveland won eight pro football titles. That includes four titles in the only four seasons of the All-America Football Conference, 1946 to 1949.)
Earl: Hard to argue against a coach that has led his team to the Super Bowl seven times in the last fifteen years.
The Patriots are constantly in the playoffs, constantly in discussion, and, out of those seven Super Bowl’s they have won five of them. Hard to not call them the best dynasty of all time considering they have done that in the age of team parity and free agency.
2) If, Tony Romo wants to be a starting QB then his best opportunity will most likely be somewhere else besides playing for the Cowboys. Romo’s current contract (signed until 2016) makes him a tough trade, as well as a tough keep.
Regardless… whether the Cowboys can work out a trade or simply release him taking on a salary cap hit, Romo staying with the Cowboys is probably not going to happen in the 2017 season. Or, will it? Jerry Jones is the Dallas owner/GM.
In your opinion, where will Romo play this coming NFL season? Why?
Chad: I think the move that makes the most sense is Denver. They have an elite defense so Romo wouldn’t have to do it all to win and you have Sieman and/or Lynch if needed.
Dan: I think Tony Romo will stay in Texas. but, he won’t be playing for the Cowboys. I think the Texans will grab them.
He’s recently came out and stated that he’d rather be cut and sign with a team than to be traded. The Texans realize that they made a huge mistake in getting Osweiler in at quarterback at such a huge contract when he just can’t perform the job. I think Romo knows that the Texans just need a quarterback to really make it somewhere and challenge the AFC for the top spot. He only has a couple years left, in my opinion, to perform. Go to the Texans, make an AFC Championship Game or two and call it a career. Who knows, they might make the Super Bowl!
Give them another year with Dak to see if he is the real deal and not another RGIII, and, see if Romo is healthy. Plus, the contract will be easier to trade next year. Dallas does not have to trade Romo, if they don’t want to.
Earl: I can easily see Jerry Jones deciding to keep Romo and have him sit behind Dak, since Dak is on an affordable rookie contract, and, despite his excellent season, a sophomore slump is possible. However, that would create an uncomfortable situation for the Cowboys and trading or releasing him would be smart.
Assuming that happens, I think the Houston Texans is his best landing spot. The Texans paid a lot of money to Brock Osweiler last off season, but, they don’t seem so sure with him, and, Romo, with that offense, would work. Tony would be a fine fit and a better QB option for a team that is a QB short of being a contender.
3) Kyle Shanahan is taking a lot of flak for having a brain freeze in the 2nd half of SB LI… primarily for not running the ball and then having the chance to kick what was considered to be a very makeable field goal in the 4th quarter more than anything… which would have made it a two score game for the Patriots. Shanahan himself is saying he lives with the calls he made in the 2nd half over and over and will likely never forget them.
In your opinion, can Shanahan shake off his Super Bowl play calling faux pas and be a success as the San Francisco 49ers HC and return the team back to being a perennial playoff’s team who can realistically contend to be in the Super Bowl? Why or why not?
Chad: Personally, I think even if he can shake off his play calling that he couldn’t the 49ers back.
They are a long way away from contending and he may not have the time to get his guys.
Dan: I think that he can, but, the team needs a lot of help and it starts with the roster.
They need a quarterback. And defense. And some more help on offense. The team basically needs to re-start. They were left in a huge hole when Harbaugh left and you can’t really blame anybody except San Francisco management. Get a team together, rebuild and in a couple seasons, they should be back in the playoff hunt.
David: He wasn’t in charge in Atlanta. He still had a boss that should have overruled him. He let the game get away from him.
If, he truly learns from it, then, he can be better. If not, hey, Mike Shula is available!
Earl: Shanahan did call a horrible second half. That needs to be acknowledged. Can he get past it? Yes.
However, he needs a QB in San Francisco. Whether that’s Colin Kaepernick or he brings Matt Schaub to the Bay remains to be seen. Something needs to be done. But, without a QB, he’s going to fail fast in the Bay. Hell, with one of the two options I just gave the Niners, he can still fail. Drafting a QB would probably be the best move for the Niners if they want to build back to respectability.
4) Presently, the NFL is primarily a QB/passing heavy game… with this in mind… how important is it for a NFL team to have a running back who is capable of running for at least 100 yards in any given game? Or, in today’s game can a team survive very nicely without a running back who can dominate?
Chad: Well, look at New England… the running back caught about a dozen passes in the Super Bowl.
Having a pass-catching RB is more important in today’s league than 100 yard a game runners. There is a still a place for them though, especially when it gets colder. But, they are not as important.
Dan: I think a running back is still an important piece on every team. Most teams except their opponents to pass the ball on the majority of downs. But, as you saw with the Cowboys, it’s very important to still have a running game. It’s something that can throw off the defense. You can really utilize play-action, which, if ran perfectly, can provide big plays, first downs and even touchdowns.
The running game will never go away, and, I truly believe, it’s a vital part of the offense.
David: You need a running game. Do you need one back who can carry the ball 35 times a game? No.
I think the best would be a dual running back setup. But, that’s just me.
Earl: I think you can survive without a dominant running back, as long as that running back does offer some contribution. If, you have a non existent running game, then you won’t succeed.
Look at the Patriots. Blount had 18 rushing TD’s for them, but, you can’t really call him a dominant back. The running game does just enough on the ground and in the air to support Tom Brady, and, I think as long as you get something out of the running game you can survive in the NFL.
5) Is it finally time for everyone in New England Patriot world… from the Patriots owner to Tom Brady to the Patriot fans… to put Deflategate behind and move on? Or, is Roger Goodell… at least in the Massachusetts area… never going to be able to get the stink of Deflategate off of his legacy?
Chad: The Patriots won. It’s over. Move on Boston.
I never thought it was that big of a deal and thought that it was overblown from the get-go. Time to just forget about it and put it behind us. The Patriots have been good and have shown that they don’t need video taping or deflating footballs to win. Just drop it. Both of those scenarios were overblown in my opinion. Put them behind us and just move on!
David: People moved on from Spygate as soon as Deflategate happened and not one minute before.
Those that cared anyway.
Earl: Goodell is going to get his abuse in New England. I think it is what it is with that.
But, we should be able to put Deflategate behind us by now. It’s gotten old. The Pats have won two rings since the whole thing has gone down. Enough is enough.
Tiny URL for this post: