So, my beloved Patriots, winners of back-to-back Super Bowls and 3 out of the last 4. With all the talk before the game about "Dynasty", it's pretty clear now that either "Dynasty" or "Dominance" must be mentioned in the same breath when describing Belichick's reign in Foxboro.

Aaron Schatz and the team at Football Outsiders take a good look at the "Dynasty" label, as well as trying to assess the impact of this year's team as one of the greatest of all time. In the end, I totally agree, that the brain-fart of a loss to the Dolphins on Monday Night Football -- with Harrison's interferance in the endzone, and Brady's late picks, seal the deal that losing to such a weak team in a late game comeback is unacceptable, and would pop them out of the running for the "best team of all time".

And perhaps last year's squad would seem less dominant, as well, given the early self-destruction in Buffalo and then a hapless loss in Washington, or perhaps on the basis of weaker offensive stats (compared to this year's numbers with Dillon). But that's it, folks, you can count the losses on one hand for the last two seasons: Buffalo, Washington, Pittsburgh, and Miami. No losses in the post season. Credit for winning goes all across the board: Pioli and the scouts for building a team with quality depth and flexibility, and the coaches for making the most out of all the player's abilities, and, of course, players who can make the play. I suspect, that in retrospect, that these will be the Willie McGinest years, just as much as the Belichick years, or the Dynasty years.

Or maybe we'll look back at this "Dynasty", much as one can point to the pass interferance rules and Steelers balanced attack, and the Patriots and the (re)advent of instant replay. Not only for the "Tuck Rule", but for the many times that use of instant replay somehow miraculously goes the Patriot way. I don't have any misgivings about that -- if instant reply is used right it only gives an advantage to the right call, not to any particular team. Of course, you gotta use the truth to your advantage, and if I recall correctly Dungy didn't buzz once this year for Indy.

And, although the media is doing their appropriate group-speak right now, it's striking to note what a shift this is just from just a few weeks ago in the playoffs. Not to sound like Rodney Harrison, looking for the disrespect, but even Don Banks, who called the Super Bowl for the Patriots before the season even began, didn't include the Patriot's record setting winning streak in his Top Five news items for the season. And, speaking of taking "group speak" to a new level, kudos to Bruce Allen of Boston Sports Media Watch, for uncovering more damning evidence on Patriot's beat guy from Worcestor, Ken Powers, and his obvious and embarrasing plagarism. Yikes.

But back to the favorite topic of "no respect" or a "lack of stars". I don't think it's magic that there are "no stars" on this team -- but a core part of the design. Each game is unique, and each gameplan is distinct. The Pats don't smother you with one dominant part of their ability (pass you to death with Manning; eat you with the defense like the Ravens, etc.), but gameplan to attack your weaknesses, take advantage of all of their own strengths, and focus on the details, the situational football, that will turn every game. Seems logical, right? But hard to characterize and hard to pidgeon hole into a single catch-phrase, impossible to diagnose as simply this-or-that. No, the game is more complicated than that, and the team is too smart to play the game on their opponent's terms. The Patriots don't have one way to beat you, they can beat you in a lot of different ways, and most often, find a way to get you to beat yourself.

All of which makes for an unpredictable story, with too many details and too many if-then scenarios for the pundits and writers to cover in a five-second soundbite. Playing harder and smarter doesn't fill out an article, does it?

Three for Three, anyone? I think the odds are clearly against it, but there's one guy I wouldn't bet against, and that's Belichick. What worries me? The coaches leaving; the secondary being young and thin (if they release Ty Law and Ty Poole); linebackers like Ted Johnson and Willie McGinest and Tedy Bruschi getting up there in years (I figure Phifer will retire, right? We got Banta-Cain and Klecko on deck?); depth on the offensive line (I say that every season). That having been said, we're set at wide receiver (unless they botch David Given's RFA status, which I doubt), should be set at tight end with Watson coming back, and deep and young and strong at defensive line. It seems like no matter what happens, this staff can make adjustments and "coach 'em up" like no other staff in the league.

Nobody's figured how to do win three in a row in the Super Bowl era, even pre-salary cap. And a guy who can take a team like the 2001 squad to the big game and win in the biggest upset in recent memory -- could surprise us all. Again.