It's quite amusing that he thinks the Patriots are some current dynasty. They didn't win a Super Bowl for 10 years. They were a dynasty from 2002 until 2005, with 3 superbowls in 4 seasons. That's incredible. But this current team has virtually nothing in common with that team and that era. FFS multiple teams have won more superbowls than the Pats since in the 10 years since. Both the Steelers and Giants. Even Peyton has the same record in Super Bowls as Brady post-2005.
Ever since the Pats switched from a defense dominant team from the 3 Super Bowl champion era, to a pass-reliant, offense-dominant team, they haven't been anywhere near the NFLs most dominant team. 10 years and a 1-2 super bowl record. Same record as Peyton Manning in the Super Bowl post-2005. The Steelers are 2-1, the Giants are 2-0. The Seahawks are 1-1. For teams with multiple super bowl trips. It's pretty clear the best team of the past 10 years has been the Steelers, however much I despise them and Big Ben, the rapist.
The funny bit is acmilan seems to think Brady has destroyed the NFL for the last 10 years, when he has had the exact same amount of postseason success as Manning, and has actually lost 2 conference championships games to Peyton and 2 SBs to Eli. Brady's post-2005 record in the playoffs against the Mannings. 0-4
The guy is such an insufferable homer, it's almost ridiculous. He completely fails to recognize that Brady's inexperience was hidden behind a dominant defense for those first 3 playoff runs. Was he a very good game manager in his early 20s. Yes. But he was nowhere near the fantastic QB he became post-2005.
It's pretty evident that in the last 10 years Brady has had no more success than Peyton, and less success than Eli and Big Ben. My idea of a dynasty isn't 1 super bowl in ten years. Nor is trying to suggest this current Pats team is in the slightest part of the early 2000s Pats dynasty, anything but absurd.