Swiss Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 thats ridiculous, thats like saying the 9ers werent a dynasty because they didnt win 3 in a row.A dynasty is a team that dominates in an era. 3 Super Bowls in 4 years especially in this era of free agency would be considered a dynasty in my books I agree 101% with you. It's great to be young and a Giant! - Larry Doyle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CZzyzx41 Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 I also agree. I don't mind if someone sets tougher standards for dynastys but usually it only happens when a team that person hates is being discussed as a dynasty team. Sure you have the Bears in the 40s, Browns and Lions in the 50s, Packers in the 60s, Steelers in the 70s, 49ers in the 80s and Cowboys in the 90s. So if you want to make it so that a team has to win three in a row I don't have a problem with that, but that's not how I determine a dynasty. You win 3-5 championship in a period of 5 years. That's a dynasty to me. Not conference championships either. League titles. Conference Championships just makes you a Great team, not a dynasty. So sorry to the Braves and Bills of the 90s, Sorry to the Lakers of the early 80s, sorry to the Vikings in the 70s, sorry to the Redskins of the 40s and everyone else that came close. You just don't make the cut. Surely the Lakers finally strung a few together in the end but the rest never made it to the dynasty level. They were just great teams. -DanielCheck Out My Podcast! Latest Episode 273: The Color BlinkyLatest Photo Upload: January 7, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stampman Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 So to you, the NFL has never had a dynasty? I guess not--there have been dominant teams--but in my books a dominant team is not necessarily a dynasty--although dynasties are always dominant teams--it's basically a matter of degree, I'm just a bit more strict on using the word... Comic Sans walks into a bar, and the bartender says, "Sorry, we don't serve your type here." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winters in buffalo Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 3 out of 4 is pretty damn impressive, especially in today's game. They get a yes from me.... and I hate 'em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintsfan Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 I think that the Pats are going to be seen as a dynasty. Whether or not they win, I think they will be thought as a dynasty. They will stay very competetive for a couple more years I think. 2011/12 WFL Champions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KennyRock Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 I had a guy try to argue the Bills with me a few days back - he insisted I call them a dynasty. In my mind, a dynasty actually has to win something. It's great that the Bills made four straight Superbowls, but losing all four doesn't exactly meet any criteria for a dynasty. The unofficial Dynasty definition is the domination of an era. In Hockey, the number of Stanley Cup wins neccessary for a "dynasty" label has been four. Nowadays ,with free agency and player turnover, I think three in three, four in four or four in five would qualify a team as a dynasty (I don't think three in four is good enough, even today).Other NHL Dynastys:1919-1927 Ottawa Senators1947-1951 Toronto Maple Leafs1950-1955 Detroit Red Wings1956-1960 Montreal Canadiens1962-1967 Toronto Maple Leafs1965-1969 Montreal Canadiens1976-1979 Montreal Canadiens1980-1984 New York Islanders1984-1990 Edmonton OilersIn Basketball, there have only been four. 1948-1954 Minneapolis Lakers1958-1969 Boston Celtics1990-1998 Chicago Bulls1999-2002 Los Angeles LakersYou can debate the 99-02 Lakers if you want, but the sheer dominance of Kobe and Shaq during those three title wins must count for something. I think basketball follows much the same criteria as hockey, three in three, four in four, four in five.In baseball, the criteria becomes a lot different. You can debate all of these if you want, but I think that as soon as a team goes three seasons without a title, that's the end of the dynasty in baseball.1912-1918 Boston Red Sox1936-1939 New York Yankees1949-1954 New York Yankees1972-1974 Oakland Athletics1996-2000 New York YankeesAnd finally, football - I feel 3 out of 4 is the minimum here, 4 out of 6, etc.1975-1980 Pittsburgh Steelers 1982-1990 San Francisco 49ers1993-1996 Dallas CowboysOh, yeah, the whole point of this? Pats are a dynasty if they win this year. New York Jets |3-3| First, AFC EastNew York Mets |74-88| Fourth, NL EastNew York Islanders|34-37-11| Fifth, Atlantic DivisionNew Orleans Hornets |21-45| Third, Southwest Division Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CZzyzx41 Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 Oh and the NFL has seen a dynasty under Stampman rules.1961 NFL Championship: Green Bay Packers 37, New York Giants 01962 NFL Championship: Green Bay Packers 16, New York Giants 71963 NFL Championship: Green Bay Packers 40, Cleveland Browns 23and again:1965 NFL Championship: Green Bay Packers 13, Baltimore Colts 10 (OT)1966 AFL-NFL Championship: Green Bay Packers 35, Kansas City Chiefs 101967 AFL-NFL Championship: Green Bay Packers 33, Oakland Raiders 141964: Lost 3rd Place game to the St. Louis Cardinals 24-171960: Lost the NFL Championship to the Eagles 17-13.If that's not a dynasty, then I don't know what is. -DanielCheck Out My Podcast! Latest Episode 273: The Color BlinkyLatest Photo Upload: January 7, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCScout76 Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 Let's spell "D"ynasty with a capital D - I would think that 5-10 years would best suit a professional sport, but with free agency, I'd say 3-5 years would be the new watermark for our age of sports.So yes - I would say that they would be. I just hope for another great game!!!  Kansas City Scouts (CHL) Orr Cup Champions 2010, 2019, 2021     St. Joseph Pony Express (ULL)  2023 Champions   Kansas City Cattle (CL) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stampman Posted February 6, 2005 Share Posted February 6, 2005 Oh and the NFL has seen a dynasty under Stampman rules.1961 NFL Championship: Green Bay Packers 37, New York Giants 01962 NFL Championship: Green Bay Packers 16, New York Giants 71963 NFL Championship: Green Bay Packers 40, Cleveland Browns 23and again:1965 NFL Championship: Green Bay Packers 13, Baltimore Colts 10 (OT)1966 AFL-NFL Championship: Green Bay Packers 35, Kansas City Chiefs 101967 AFL-NFL Championship: Green Bay Packers 33, Oakland Raiders 141964: Lost 3rd Place game to the St. Louis Cardinals 24-171960: Lost the NFL Championship to the Eagles 17-13.If that's not a dynasty, then I don't know what is. Okay--I'll go along with that...(and as people who disagree with me have pointed out they hate the Pats--Well I'm not a Packers fan--ugly uniforms too...) Comic Sans walks into a bar, and the bartender says, "Sorry, we don't serve your type here." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaltimoreFan Posted February 6, 2005 Share Posted February 6, 2005 I think Micheal Irvin put it best. They are a dynasty they just dont look like it because they dont have any superstars. If you look at past dynasties they had great players like Steve Young, Jerry Rice, Ricky Watters, and Deion Sanders of the 49ers. For baseball, would you add the 1966-1983 Baltimore Orioles. Alot of Orioles fans I know consider it a dynasty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaolinaJoe Posted February 6, 2005 Share Posted February 6, 2005 I think Micheal Irvin put it best. They are a dynasty they just dont look like it because they dont have any superstars. If you look at past dynasties they had great players like Steve Young, Jerry Rice, Ricky Watters, and Deion Sanders of the 49ers. For baseball, would you add the 1966-1983 Baltimore Orioles. Alot of Orioles fans I know consider it a dynasty. Montana, Rice, Walsh, Clark,& Craig made the 49ers a Dynasty, not Young, Seifert, Watters, & Sanders. "It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of thepress. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom ofspeech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given usthe freedom to demonstrate. And it is the soldier who salutes theflag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, andwho allows the protester to burn the flag."Marine Chaplain Dennis Edward O' Brien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaltimoreFan Posted February 6, 2005 Share Posted February 6, 2005 I think Micheal Irvin put it best. They are a dynasty they just dont look like it because they dont have any superstars. If you look at past dynasties they had great players like Steve Young, Jerry Rice, Ricky Watters, and Deion Sanders of the 49ers. For baseball, would you add the 1966-1983 Baltimore Orioles. Alot of Orioles fans I know consider it a dynasty. Montana, Rice, Walsh, Clark,& Craig made the 49ers a Dynasty, not Young, Seifert, Watters, & Sanders. Sorry I just watched the Super Bowl XXIX film last night. So they just came into my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.