Dynasty?

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

It is stupid to compare teams directly against each other when discussing different eras. What you want to do is compare Team A with its contemporaries and likewise with Team B. Lombardi's Packers were absolutely dominant. Not including the pre-Super Bowl era is like saying that Yankees championships pre-free agency don't count either.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

I don't consider the Pats a dynasty. Not even close. One of the key components of the term "dynasty" is longevity.

 

The term "dynasty" should be reserved for those teams that dominate for so long like the Yankees, the Celtics, the Bruins and even the 90's Bulls. Those are dynasties. Hell, even throw the 80s Lakers into that group.

 

I guess it is the "in" term to use these days but I think it does a huge disservice to teams that actually deserve that distinction.

 

If a dynasty requires more than 4-5 years, then you can effectively throw out every dynasty in MLB history except for Casey Stengel's Yankees. I can't see applying such a strict standard. My thinking is that a dynasty term should run about five years. When you go longer than five years, your definition determines who your pick is for the greatest team, rather than the other way around. In addition, the teams that you compare have such roster turnover in that time period that it becomes a chore to make direct comparisons between two or more teams.

 

The 49ers won four titles in the 80s. They also had sub-.500 seasons in that span. You really can't group the early 80s and late 80s teams together. Each needs to stand on its own merits.

 

As for forgotten dynasties that someone else asked about, the Denver Broncos won back-to-back Super Bowls. It's not long-term, but not many people have done it.

 

On another question, what were the best dynasties/teams of the pre-Lombardi Packers era?

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Green Bay Packers: 1929-31 under Curly Lambeau.

Chicago Bears: 1940, 1941, 1943

 

Those are the two big ones. The problem with the 1950s is that there are two teams at the same time that were extremely successfull. The Detroit Lions (Championships in 52, 53 & 57) and the Cleveland Browns (50, 54 & 55). Usually the Browns are considered to be a dynasty, but you don't hear nearly as much talk about the Lions from the same period.

 

Generally speaking it is harder to win in football than baseball, due to the short seasons and one loss and out playoff games. Luck plays a much bigger factor in football. So usually 3 championships within a short period will get people talking about a dynasty. By far the most overlooked team is the Dolphins of the early 70s. Three straight Super Bowl appearances, two dominating wins, and the only undefeated season in history. But they never won the third and the Steelers era started immediately after.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Would the Atlanta Braves be considered like a half-dynasty?

[Guest Failed Mascot]

For the first time in history Tom Jackson just brought up a good point on SportsCenter. He said that the Patriots players are going to go into next season with the thoughts that they're being disrespected since everybody is already saying they won't be able to win without Crennel or Weis. As much as Czech and some other are going to whine and yell over that statement its true. You can even see it in this thread.

 

Also if the 05-06 Season were to start tommorow then the Pats are $196k over the expected salary cap number. That's before they cut Ty Law afte June 1st which knocks $10mill off the cap and before they restructure both Troy Brown and Tom Brady's contracts. They may also end up asking Rosie Colvin to restructure as well since he's been slowed down by that hip injury. Either way they're going to have room to add one significant player on either defense or offense through FA along with signing all their draft picks.

 

This team is in extremely good shape heading into the next two seasons. After that...who knows.

[NoCalMike 0]

What if Brady wants more money and ends up leaving? It is a possibility.

[Guest Failed Mascot]

Brady said in an interview he has no desire to come near Peyton Manning's record setting contract. He said he knows he'll make his money and he's more interested in just getting that next ring(which he knows he can't do on his own).

[Precious Roy 0]

Yeah, Brady is too smart and humble to get greedy. What's the difference, really, between 40 mil and 100 mil? At a certain point your lifestyle can't get any better, unless you're just absurdly extravagant. Plus, being on a winning team, and with his reputation with the Pats, he can make up some of the difference with endorsement deals. If he signs with the Cardinals or Saints because they offer the most money, and the teams are mediocre, he's not such a hot commodity on Wall St.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Would the Atlanta Braves be considered like a half-dynasty?

They're a full dynasty, in my view. They won ten straight division titles, and led the NL in wins for five years in a row. The 1949-53 Yankees are the only other team to do that. They won three NL titles, and a world championship. Great players? Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, Chipper Jones, and Andruw Jones are likely Hall of Famers, and John Smoltz and Javy Lopez have a chance to post HOF numbers by the time they are through. Yes, they have their postseason failures, but its not easy to win an eight-team tournament, and that is the ONLY strike against them.

[MARTYEWR 0]

I skimmed through the thread, and I don't know if this has been mentioned, but the CFL's Edmonton Eskimos, led by Warren Moon, were very deadly from 1978-82, winning a Grey Cup each of those years. Al's comment about winning = attendance is true for them as they kept having crowds of anywhere between 50,000-60,000, a consistent figure that's rare in the CFL.

[Open the Muggy Gate 0]

I just don't see New England NOT reaching the Super Bowl again next year. The only big name that's up on free agency is the FREAKIN KICKER. Sure they lost Romeo and Charlie, but I think they'll be able to bounce back from that.

 

We may have a 3-peat on our hands. Now if that wouldn't make the critics stand up and go "Yeah that's a dynasty", I don't know what would.

[Damaramu 0]

Yeah, Brady is too smart and humble to get greedy. What's the difference, really, between 40 mil and 100 mil? At a certain point your lifestyle can't get any better, unless you're just absurdly extravagant.

Maybe he wants his own island with a zoo.......

[Guest Brian]

I didn't say it made sense.

I said they would be right that not everyone in the league respects them.

 

Notice how McNabb and many others were extremely respectful and then Mitchell says something incredibly stupid and suddenly the Patriots feel disrespected?

 

It's so simple, just shut up and they don't feel disrespected.

 

It's true. That's just the collective personality of the team, fueled by Belichick's coaching philosophy, where they believe that they must work harder than everyone else to be successful rather than simply relying on god-given talent. This is why belichick drafts the way he does, going for smart, hard-working players rather than the guys with the best combine stats. He's building a system, and that system is predicated on the underdog mindset and the hunger to prove themselves to the world.

 

Does it make sense? Three super bowls says, "yes!"

So is Bellicheck the equivalent of an NFL moneyballer?

[Precious Roy 0]

So is Bellicheck the equivalent of an NFL moneyballer?

 

I'd say so, yeah. And IMO Pioli, Belichick and Kraft have done a better job at it than Oakland in baseball, because they actually get guys to take less money or restructure existing contracts because they want to be a part of this system and team. The A's lose all their big names. In this day and age that is very rare, for an organization to breed such respect and loyalty from it's players.

 

Watching the parade today, I heard that the Patriots have the 23rd highest payroll in the NFL.

 

I just don't see New England NOT reaching the Super Bowl again next year. The only big name that's up on free agency is the FREAKIN KICKER. Sure they lost Romeo and Charlie, but I think they'll be able to bounce back from that.

 

The only thing I'm really worried about is the age of some of the guys on defense. Keith Traylor will be 36 next season, Roman Phifer 37, Willie 34, Ted Johnson and Rodney Harrison both 33. With the system in place, the young guys learning from the vets, and the crafty personnel moves I'm not too worried, but you always get a little antsy when you have to replace veteran contributers.

[Guest Failed Mascot]

Traylor and Phifer are likely to retire(which frees up more cap space mind you) and while McGinest is 34 he's a young 34 since he missed a good portion of the early years of his career due to back injury. He's got another 2-3 years left in him.

[Guest MikeSC]

I've said all along the fact that the Pats missed the playoffs in 2002 makes them not a dynasty, in my eyes. You must AT THE VERY LEAST make the playoffs every year of your "Dynasty".

That's exactly what I was going to say. They're the cloests thing to a dynasty in today's National Football League, but missing the playoffs that year disqualifies them automatically. Now, if they win next year... That'll qualify as a dynasty.

 

As for the best dynasty teams ever, the old school Celtics would probably be the best, but I wasn't around for their run.

 

I'd go with my Chicago Bulls in the early-mid '90s. That was a great time to be a basketball fan in Illinois. They had 2 three-peats and probably would've equaled the Celtics' 8 straight titles if Jordan hadn't retired before the 1993-94 season.

Didn't the 49'ers miss the playoffs once during the 1980's?

 

Are they not a dynasty because of that?

-=Mike

[2GOLD 0]

Rechecking something, nevermind

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Would the Atlanta Braves be considered like a half-dynasty?

They're a full dynasty, in my view. They won ten straight division titles, and led the NL in wins for five years in a row. The 1949-53 Yankees are the only other team to do that. They won three NL titles, and a world championship. Great players? Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, Chipper Jones, and Andruw Jones are likely Hall of Famers, and John Smoltz and Javy Lopez have a chance to post HOF numbers by the time they are through. Yes, they have their postseason failures, but its not easy to win an eight-team tournament, and that is the ONLY strike against them.

The thing is dynasties usually refer to a single team, but Atlanta has gone through numerous transformations in that decade. Aside from Smoltz, who else is still playing for Atlanta in 1991? I consider that more a great franchise that has good management and a knack for finding players than a single dynasty.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Would the Atlanta Braves be considered like a half-dynasty?

They're a full dynasty, in my view. They won ten straight division titles, and led the NL in wins for five years in a row. The 1949-53 Yankees are the only other team to do that. They won three NL titles, and a world championship. Great players? Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, Chipper Jones, and Andruw Jones are likely Hall of Famers, and John Smoltz and Javy Lopez have a chance to post HOF numbers by the time they are through. Yes, they have their postseason failures, but its not easy to win an eight-team tournament, and that is the ONLY strike against them.

The thing is dynasties usually refer to a single team, but Atlanta has gone through numerous transformations in that decade. Aside from Smoltz, who else is still playing for Atlanta in 1991? I consider that more a great franchise that has good management and a knack for finding players than a single dynasty.

The Braves have gone through alot of roster turnover since 1991 and still won, but I could hardly hold that against the dynasty. I consider their dynasty era 1995-99, and during that time they maintained most of their core, with a few changes here and there. Anything around that time period is window dressing for this club.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Yeah, Brady is too smart and humble to get greedy.  What's the difference, really, between 40 mil and 100 mil?  At a certain point your lifestyle can't get any better, unless you're just absurdly extravagant.

Maybe he wants his own island with a zoo.......

In other news, ESPN finalized the deal that would move the network's headquarters from Bristol, Conn., to Brady Island.

[Guest Failed Mascot]

I hope there are vicious Baboons on that island to take out Stuart Scott.

[The Czech Republic 0]

I hope there's a Trampoline Baboon for Tony and Mike to watch.

[Guest Vitamin X]

LOOK AT THE BABOONS BOUNCE BAYBEE!

[The Czech Republic 0]

ESPN Original Entertainment (EOE) presents:

 

Escape From Brady Island

 

Three well-meaning sports journalists are out to cover a story for the NFL playoffs, but they got more than they bargained for.

 

"It's 27 miles to the mainland, Jim! We'll never make it past the sharks!"

 

"If we want to make it out alive, we're going to have to make some sacrifices."

 

"YOU TELL ME WHAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT IN LIFE!"

 

(these would be the clips that would be about a 0.8, 0.95 Everest)

 

Escape From Brady Island. Premieres this Thursday at 8, on ESPN. Also, don't miss "The Making Of Escape From Brady Island." on ESPN2.

[Damaramu 0]

How long after it's shown before it makes it to DVD? 2 hours? 3?

[The Czech Republic 0]

The DVD will come out first.

[MrRant 0]

Would the Atlanta Braves be considered like a half-dynasty?

They're a full dynasty, in my view. They won ten straight division titles, and led the NL in wins for five years in a row. The 1949-53 Yankees are the only other team to do that. They won three NL titles, and a world championship. Great players? Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, Chipper Jones, and Andruw Jones are likely Hall of Famers, and John Smoltz and Javy Lopez have a chance to post HOF numbers by the time they are through. Yes, they have their postseason failures, but its not easy to win an eight-team tournament, and that is the ONLY strike against them.

The thing is dynasties usually refer to a single team, but Atlanta has gone through numerous transformations in that decade. Aside from Smoltz, who else is still playing for Atlanta in 1991? I consider that more a great franchise that has good management and a knack for finding players than a single dynasty.

I don't think it refers to a single team of certain players at all. I think in say a 10 year scope it is based on dominant records during most of their seasons, divisional titles, and championships and consistently being the champion or around the championship.

 

If you look at the Braves like Al was talking about just in the 90's they won 1 WS, 5 NL Championships, won 8 Division titles (not counting the whole 1994 thing). That's a hell of a 10 year span for any sport. I could consider them to be a dynasty for the 90's for sure as they were a dominant force.

 

Just as the Bulls were a dominant force during the 90's in the NBA and there was a good amount of turnover between the first three peat and the second so I don't think the "players" part holds too much water.

[Guest goodhelmet]

To alkeiper...

 

You mentioned earlier that the Yankees would be the ony team to be considered a dynasty under certain criteria. In my view, the Yankees are the only baseball team I have ever considered to be a dynasty.

 

If you look at the Boston Celtics, They won 11 championships in 13 years. Two more in the 70's and 3 more in the 80s. THAT is how you have a dynasty. One Len Bias curse later and the dynasty crumbles.

 

The Lakers lost to the Celtics 7 times in the NBA finals but they were never considered a dynasty. They were considered the Celtics bitch. In the 80s that changed.

 

UCLA dominated college hoops under Wooden. No other college team will ever recreate that kind of dominance.

 

I agree wholehheartedly that in today's sports world, it is much harder to keep on a winning pace for such a long time. I even agree that the salary cap prevents teams from dominating like they could in the past. My sole disagreement is with the term DYNASTY. Because of the rules, it is much harder to have dynasties. you don't change the meaning of the word because the rules have changed.

 

The Pats are not a dynasty if the term is used properly. If you want to call them the "salary cap dynasty" or the "millenium powerhouse" or some other bullshit term, go right ahead. Only years later will we be able to reflect and judge if the Pats are truly a sports dynasty.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Would the Atlanta Braves be considered like a half-dynasty?

They're a full dynasty, in my view. They won ten straight division titles, and led the NL in wins for five years in a row. The 1949-53 Yankees are the only other team to do that. They won three NL titles, and a world championship. Great players? Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, Chipper Jones, and Andruw Jones are likely Hall of Famers, and John Smoltz and Javy Lopez have a chance to post HOF numbers by the time they are through. Yes, they have their postseason failures, but its not easy to win an eight-team tournament, and that is the ONLY strike against them.

The thing is dynasties usually refer to a single team, but Atlanta has gone through numerous transformations in that decade. Aside from Smoltz, who else is still playing for Atlanta in 1991? I consider that more a great franchise that has good management and a knack for finding players than a single dynasty.

I don't think it refers to a single team of certain players at all. I think in say a 10 year scope it is based on dominant records during most of their seasons, divisional titles, and championships and consistently being the champion or around the championship.

 

If you look at the Braves like Al was talking about just in the 90's they won 1 WS, 5 NL Championships, won 8 Division titles (not counting the whole 1994 thing). That's a hell of a 10 year span for any sport. I could consider them to be a dynasty for the 90's for sure as they were a dominant force.

 

Just as the Bulls were a dominant force during the 90's in the NBA and there was a good amount of turnover between the first three peat and the second so I don't think the "players" part holds too much water.

I think you can tie together the two three-peats with Jordan/Pippen/Jackson and easily call it one dynasty, yeah.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

You mentioned earlier that the Yankees would be the ony team to be considered a dynasty under certain criteria. In my view, the Yankees are the only baseball team I have ever considered to be a dynasty.

 

That is a very strict definition to apply for a dynasty. The Oakland Athletics won three straight World Championships from 1972-74, and they weren't a dynasty?

 

To me, a dynasty is simply a consistantly dominant team. Look at the Braves. If MLB didn't have a playoff system, they would have won five consecutive NL pennants. I could certainly argue that the Yankees would NOT have won five straight pennants if they had to win two more rounds of playoffs every year. And I just can't see crowning only one team a dynasty simply because of the circumstances under which they played. If you took the 1949-53 Yankees and played them in the 1990s National League, they couldn't possibly win five straight.