Dynasty's in the NFL. . | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Dynasty's in the NFL. .

syborg

syborg

Rookie
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
604
Reaction score
13
Location
United kingdom
I live in the UK and have been a fan of American Football since the 1st game I ever saw in 1982 SB XVII. . American football took off in the early 80s over here in the Uk and we had quite a few dedicated magazines to the sport. . in one of these I read that a dynasty is considered to be back to back SB wins by a team. .

Is this your understanding of a dynasty or do you view it differently?

for example. . the Bills of the 90s won 4 AFC championships but lost all 4 Superbowls. . are they a dynasty?

Does it have to be a SB win and back to back or can you win 3 in 5 years (for example) and still be classed a dynasty?

For me I see this as seperate issues. .

An overall dynasty needs to be back to back wins in the Superbowl
but then seperately the Bills are an AFC dynasty for 4 champioships in a row despite SB losses. .

Discuss. . :thanks:
 
The Bills are in no way a dynasty since at the end of the day they still have 0 championships. To me, a dynasty team has to win at least 3 championships within a decade.
 
I understand your view but Im talking conference dynasty with the Bills rather than overall NFL dynasty which is what you get with SB winners. .
 
syborg said:
I understand your view but Im talking conference dynasty with the Bills rather than overall NFL dynasty which is what you get with SB winners. .
Click to expand...

No one on this side of the pond has ever really put much attention to a "Conference Dynasty." It's all about finishing first, not second.
 
Dolphins7273 said:
No one on this side of the pond has ever really put much attention to a "Conference Dynasty." It's all about finishing first, not second.
Click to expand...


Fair one. . and I wont dispute that. .

Is a dynasty not to be considered back to back wins though rather than several wins over a longer period. . to use your example 3 championships in a 10 year span. . surely a dynasty is tighter and closer than that. .?
 
syborg said:
Fair one. . and I wont dispute that. .

Is a dynasty not to be considered back to back wins though rather than several wins over a longer period. . to use your example 3 championships in a 10 year span. . surely a dynasty is tighter and closer than that. .?
Click to expand...

3 championships won within a decade isn't really isn't far apart, and that team would more than likely be considered the team of the decade. You could win a championship every other year like the San Antonio Spurs and be considered a dynasty.
 
The difference between a good team and a dynasty is definately championships. The Bills were a good team in the 90's but the cowboys were a dynasty. I agree with above though. Two superbowl wins back to back does not make a dynasty, close but now quite.
Are the Steelers a dynasty? Two superbowl wins in a few years. I say no.
 
3Ply Stagliano said:
I've got to admit, it's the first time I've heard of a 'Conference Dynasty' too.
Click to expand...


Conference dynasty is just something I read. .

Quote:

A sports dynasty is a team that dominates their sport or league for multiple seasons or years. Such dominance is often only realized in retrospect. Whether a team has achieved a dynasty is often subjective, and can be a frequent topic of debate among sports fans. Some argue that a dynasty requires consecutive championships over a period of time, as in the case of UCLA Bruins men's basketball from 1964 to 1975, others suggest that non-consecutive championships are sufficient, as in the case of the Oakland/Los Angeles Raiders of the late 1970s and early 1980s, and some feel that a team must simply dominate its league but need not win championships, as in the case of the Buffalo Bills of the early 1990s who lost four consecutive Super Bowls. Some leagues maintain official lists of dynasties, often as part of a Hall of fame (e.g. National Hockey League).

From Wiki: Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty_(sports)
 
Bills cannot be a dynasty as even though the dominated for 4 yrs in afc they did not dominate the league even once by winning a championship.

The 49 won a few but their was a few yrs gap in which they were good but not great so its a dynasty.

Patriots have 3 SB wins,4 AFc champsionship win,5 afc champsionship apperence,first team to go 16-0 so that is dynasty.
 
Had the Bill's won one of the four straight superbowls they were in I think you could probably call them a dynasty but they lost all four and so I don't think you can call them one. To me the dynasties were:

Green Bay (mid 1960's)
Miami ((1971-1974)
Pittsburgh (1974-1979)
San Francisco (1980's)
Dallas (1990's)
Denver Broncos (late 90's)
New England (early 2000's)

I wouldn't say any other teams were dynasties (from the start of the Superbowlin 1966).
 
syborg said:
I live in the UK and have been a fan of American Football since the 1st game I ever saw in 1982 SB XVII. . American football took off in the early 80s over here in the Uk and we had quite a few dedicated magazines to the sport. . in one of these I read that a dynasty is considered to be back to back SB wins by a team. .

Is this your understanding of a dynasty or do you view it differently?

for example. . the Bills of the 90s won 4 AFC championships but lost all 4 Superbowls. . are they a dynasty?

Does it have to be a SB win and back to back or can you win 3 in 5 years (for example) and still be classed a dynasty?

For me I see this as seperate issues. .

An overall dynasty needs to be back to back wins in the Superbowl
but then seperately the Bills are an AFC dynasty for 4 champioships in a row despite SB losses. .

Discuss. . :thanks:
Click to expand...

Dynasties win championships. Period
 
Dolphins7273 said:
3 championships won within a decade isn't really isn't far apart, and that team would more than likely be considered the team of the decade. You could win a championship every other year like the San Antonio Spurs and be considered a dynasty.
Click to expand...

The Spurs have 4 titles in 10 seasons. They may not be a dynasty today, but they were when they have won 4 titles in a 9 year span.
 
SpurzN703 said:
Dynasties win championships. Period
Click to expand...

I dont wish to defend the Bills but they did dominate the AFC for 4 years straight seeing off all comers to reach 4 bowls. . by winning 4 AFC championships. . despite not winning the Superbowl are they not by definition of winning 4 AFC championships to the dominance of all other AFC teams a dynasty. .?

I guess it depends on your point of view. . sure they were runners up in Superbowl 4 times but still. . .
 
Roman529 said:
Had the Bill's won one of the four straight superbowls they were in I think you could probably call them a dynasty but they lost all four and so I don't think you can call them one. To me the dynasties were:

Green Bay (mid 1960's)
Miami ((1971-1974)
Pittsburgh (1974-1979)
San Francisco (1980's)
Dallas (1990's)
Denver Broncos (late 90's)
New England (early 2000's)

I wouldn't say any other teams were dynasties (from the start of the Superbowlin 1966).
Click to expand...

I agree with all except Denver.

The Dolphins were so dominant in the early 1970's (record wise) it's hard not to call them a dynasty, so i'm lenient with them. But the Cowboys, 49ers, Steelers and Packers are all legitimate dynasties, as are the Patriots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom