The New England Patriots defeated the Philadelphia Eagles 24-21 to become Super Bowl champs--again. The teams were pretty evenly matched, but a few things stand out explaining why the Pats came out on top. 1. The Patriots have a running game, the Eagles don't. 2. Tom Brady made few mistakes, while Donovan McNabb made many. 3. Both teams have great defenses, but the Patriots have a big-play defense that forces turnovers and plays with an unmatched intelligence. 4. Belichick outcoached Reid. On this last point, the Eagles' obliviousness to the concept of the hurry-up offense may not have cost them the game--it would have been hard to come back anyhow--but it certainly took them out of the game.

The Patriots join the Packers of the '60s, the Steelers of the '70s, the 49ers of the '80s, and the Cowboys of the '90s as dynasties in the modern NFL era. Let the comparisons begin. I say the Pats would beat any of the preceding dynasties. Most of the players from the Green Bay Packers championship teams, for instance, are in their late sixties. I just don't see them being able to withstand a hit from Rodney Harrison. Even the Cowboys championship teams have a mere handful of players left who can still play at an NFL level, so I see the Pats destroying them too.

There exist, however, a few serious reasons why New England compares favorably to the other dynasties. 1. From giving superstar Terry Glenn the boot to refusing to allow introductions of individual players in Super Bowl 36, the Pats are the consumate team. 2. The Patriots won their rings in the age of NFL parity, salary caps, and free agency. 3. The Patriots are throwbacks. Tedy Bruschi lowballed himself in negotiating his own deal just to play for the Pats. Troy Brown and Mike Vrabel line-up on both sides of the ball. In an age of crybaby athletes and unsportsmanlike sportsmen, the Patriots are refreshing. 4. With a few notable exceptions, the past dynasties gave us boring championship games. Each Patriots' win has been competitive and down-to-the-wire. 5. We can offer credible theories about when, precisely, the Patriots' dynasty started--Mo Lewis's near-deadly hit on Drew Bledsoe, in the blinding snow against Oakland, Adam Vinatieri splitting the uprights to end the Rams' "dynasty"--but unlike the Packers, Steelers, 49ers, or Cowboys, we don't know yet when it will end.

The last 2 Superbowls were really, really exciting. In both games, either team could have won. For a few years prior to Superbowl 38, the games were over by halftime.

Hail to the Victors. Would have been nice if Rodney had returned that pick for a garbage score (thus fulfilling my pregame guess of Pats 31, Eagles 21) but it all works out - a buddy of mine here at work won $200 in one of those box things, and another won $100 for the Eagles cover. For the greater good...

On the bright side, Mr. Harrison will forever be known as "Run it Back" Rodney.

I really thought the Pats would blow it wide open at some point in the game but, true to form, they consistently took what the Eagles gave them and methodically dismantled the cheese steak contingent.

Tom Terrific could have easily been the MVP but Branch has been good for so long and such a clutch guy in more games than yesterday’s, that he certainly deserved it.

Also, have to give credit when due: T.O. is a loud mouth, but he is the real deal. Definitely had an impact.

This team is built for the long haul and should be back at it again next year.

What a year for Boston/N.E. fans!!!

Yay.

Congratulations Dan, Boston has itself a dynasty.

That said, the early 90's Cowboys, especially the 1992 team, were far superior. Were that team, via time-machine, to step onto the field with any of the New England teams of the last four years, the Cowboys would win by 30 points.

Yet there's no shame in being the lesser team to Dallas. Who isn't?

I don’t think it would be that easy or at least that lopsided of a score Brad. This is pretty good Patriots team and they are coached by a better group of guys than anything Dallas had.

Remember, this is a team that’s been doing it for the last four years with virtually no star quality players and this year and last won with a number of replacement players at key positions.

Those Dallas teams were top heavy with stars. Most of whom were top round draft picks.

Would have been interesting to see that match up though.

LOL, Brad. Everyone likes to say their team was really superior. (I personally think that Mike Bossy would have eventually been the NHL's all-time goal scorer had his back not forced his retirement; to be fair, one could make the same argument for Super Mario and his time lost to illness/injury.) But THIRTY POINTS? And if you magically bring them forward in time, can the Pats magically heal Ty Law?

(1) Belichick is the best coach around, but "a better group of guys than anything Dallas had" is ridiculous. I'd say the trio of Jimmy, Norv and Dave were pretty great.

(2) You've hit the nail on the head. The thing that sets Dallas apart from New England is the number of stars on the former. Both are great teams, but the Cowboys were loaded with future Hall-of-Famers.

(3) The Pats could magically heal whomever they want, they would still be no match for the Troy, Irvin, Emmitt and Jay, and the best offensive line ever assembled.

That Dallas team was strong enough from a talent perspective that Moe, Larry and Curly could have coached them to success. In fact, when Johnson was jettisoned, Switzer came in and they barely missed a beat. So, what did Jimmy really lend to the process?

As a group Jimmy, Norv and Dave don’t even come close to matching up with the Patriots coaching triad.

The Patriots beat all comers including two of the strongest teams in the AFC with a group of players that had few stars and a lot of lower round draft picks and replacements parts.

That, my friend, is organization and coaching. Something that the Cowgirls, even in their best years, did not have.

The really interesting thing would be to see how J, N & D would have done the same job with the Patriots roster as constituted as they did with a bunch of stars. I venture to say not as well.

On second thought, you've got a point. If Switzer could win one, so could I.

Mark it on your calendars! Brad conceeded that somebody had a point. ;)

I remember that year - if Larry Brown hadn't switched jerseys and gotten two airmail gifts from Neil Uh-O-Donnell, Switzer WOULDN'T have won that SB. And let's not forget that two years prior, at halftime, the '93 Cowboys were losing their rematch with Buffalo. See how fun this is?

Yes, the Giants went 10-22 the past two years and traded a good head coach for a lousy one. No, I'm not bitter.

And let's also not forget that a football game is four quarters, and that Dallas won that game 30-13. We can add to our recollections the paradigm of dominance, 52-17 (were it not for Leon, 59-17) annihilation of the Bills the year before.

These provide a stark contrast to New England's last-second field goal style of victory.

Granted the 1995 Super Bowl had alot to do with some unforced turnovers. The same could be said of yesterday's game.

Hey Brad the trouble with putting together a game between the Pats and the Cowboys of the 90's would be getting the Cowboy players weekend furloughs from the institutions with razor-wire fences they now occupy!

So what are you guys thinking about next year's Super Bowl?

The Colts have lost some key players and thats going to give them a lot of trouble, and if the Steelers lose Jerome Bettis they are in trouble as well. I think most of the NFL's domination teams will have figured out Roethlisberger's beat by next year, and he won't be able to dominate as much. In the NFC lets just face it, the only two good teams that are good are the Eagles and the Falcons, and the Falcons just arent as good as the Eagles. I expect Eli Manning to play much better next season (remember, he played better than his older brother Peyton did in HIS rookie year.) Eli is a fixer-upper but I bet the Giants will have a much better season next year.

It seems to me that in the top AFC teams the only team that will go in without big changes will be the Patriots (I dont think losing Crennel and Weis will do much, I am confident Bellichick has guys trained right up behind them to take their place.) And the NFC is relatively unchanged as well. If Eli Manning proves a quick learner the Giants could have a good year and threaten the Eagles for the NFC title.

Where Randy Moss ends up going could be big. If Moss gets on a team that was ALMOST THERE this year, such as the Bills or the Jets, he could be a huge factor.

But right now, with the draft looking as mediocre-at-best as it does, I am going to predict Super Bowl XL to be a Patriots vs Eagles rematch. Of course it is early to be calling at this point, but that's my vision of it.

Just got back from the Patriots victory parade. Gets bigger every year! Apparently, the faithful never get sick of this stuff.

Next year’s will be bigger and better than ever.

Anybody with common sense would concede that the Dallas teams of Super Bowl yore were extremely talented and should have beaten the Bills by those lopsided scores.

They were very lucky to have made the deal of the century with Minnesota to acquire all of that talent and certainly were a team for the ages. Today, with caps and free agency, I suspect you will not see the likes of so much talent in one place again.

And, although the margin of victory was a paltry three points for all of their visits to the big game, all three Patriots entries have been some of the most exciting and interesting Super Bowls ever.

As you may have guessed, we are particularly proud of the our newest NFL Dynasty (as Andruzzi says: emphasis on the “nasty”) not just because of what they’ve accomplished but also by how they’ve done it: with player, coaching and management excellence and intelligence.

If you view any sport as entertainment, these were the best games imaginable!

Unless you’re a Ram, Panther or Eagle.

Being a Patriots fan, I cant say I mind these last few Super Bowls. ^_^