gantrules Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 made it to the SB this year and won would you consider them a dynasty? If they made it to the SB and lost would you consider them a dynasty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJ (not THAT RJ) Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 made it to the SB this year and won would you consider them a dynasty? If they made it to the SB and lost would you consider them a dynasty? 25685[/snapback] I have two answers. One is that I think the term "dynasty" is over-used and incorrectly-used in sports. A dynasty suggests several "generations," so a true dynasty would be a team that was so good for so long that it could even survive a change in key players and remain on top. The Yankees, Canadiens, and Celtics are thus the ultimate dynasties, with championships stretching over decades with different casts of characters. The Braves actually can make a claim to this type of dynasty, when you consider how different the 2004 team is from the 1991 team. My more restrictive definition creates an interesting dynamic, because some very good teams that won multiple champiionships in a relatively short period but then faded (like say the Steelers of 1974-1980, who won 4 titles in 6 years with pretty much the same players, but fell back into the pack once those players like Bradshaw, Harris, Greene and co. aged) are actually less of a dynasty than say the Raiders of 1967-1983, who "only" won three championships in that period, but remained an elite team despite substantial changes in coaching and personnell over the entire 17 seasons, reaching conference champtionships 12 times over that period. The Dolphins (shudder) also are more of a dynasty, since they remained a competitor for championships from 1971 to 1985 despite some major personnel turnover. That claim would carry more weight, though, if they had one a championship after Super Bowl VIII. The Cowboys are a dynasty, having been a dominant team for most of the years between 1966 and 1966, despite a couple of down years. Teams like the Packers are similar, but since the "drought" was much longer, their claim (under my definition) could be questioned. The 49ers are under this definition probably a dynasty, since they did have major changes between 1981 and 1994, but the Bills of 1988-1994, as much as it pains me to say it, are not, not just because they failed to win titles, but because they remained much the same team through the entire period. A great team, certainly, but not a dynasty according to my anti-inflationary use of the term. Thus my initial answer is to say the Pats are not a dynasty, at least not yet. That, however, is not a smack at the Pats, because as you see, I do not think there really are many true dynasties anyway. Despite the pain I feel when thinking about it, though, the current Pats should be given their props as one of the finest teams in recent NFL history for they way they have come together. I would say that is true even if they do not go to the Bowl this year. Flame away, but they are no fluke. They have had good fortune, yes, but every championship requires some of that. That is why they are so hard to come by. Go Bills! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts