Dynasty's in the NFL. . | Page 2 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Dynasty's in the NFL. .

This is further complicated with salary cap as the definition of a dynasty has changed. in the old days players played with 1 team as FA was absent and roster size was big not any more.

An avg NFL team has 18 or more new players in the starting 53. the 01 pats and 04s had like 13 common players i think.
 
syborg said:
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. . .
Click to expand...

As I said, winning championships makes a team a dynasty. While what the Bills did was impressive, I will guarantee you that they wanted to win all four Super Bowls, not just get to them.
 
Oh absolutely. Buffalo was a great team then but just couldn't get over the final hurdle. Looking back, I don't get how they managed to lose so many consecutive Superbowls (especially against New York). Scott Norwood probably goes over that one in his head too.
 
3Ply Stagliano said:
Oh absolutely. Buffalo was a great team then but just couldn't get over the final hurdle. Looking back, I don't get how they managed to lose so many consecutive Superbowls (especially against New York). Scott Norwood probably goes over that one in his head too.
Click to expand...

The AFC didn't beat the NFC in a Super Bowl from 1984-1997 so it's not just the Bills who couldn't beat the NFC. The NFC was simply a better conference for that stretch, the Bills peaked as the best team in the AFC at the wrong time.
 
Yeah but there were years when, throughout the season, the Bills were the best team in the NFL and could beat anyone. It only seemed to be when it came to deep in the playoffs, another team would raise their game a bit and the Bills couldn't seem to match it. Either that or the Bills would slump slightly right at the end of their campaign.

They beat the Giants during the '90 season and the Cowboys during the '93 season and went on to lose to both in Superbowls. In the four regular seasons where they lost Superbowls they were 14-2 against the NFC. One loss was against the Lions ('90) and one was against the Redskins ('91). Both losses were in the last game of the season, when the Bills had already wrapped up their division and home field advantage.

They were also 4-1 (with the one loss being the '91 Redskins season finale I mentioned above) against the teams which beat them in the Superbowls during those four regular seasons.

It seemed to be only when the Superbowl came round that they would screw up against the NFC. They just couldn't seem to 'peak' when it mattered most. It still kind of baffles me. They were a great team but couldn't make it over the final hurdle.
 
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...

The Bills were an AFC dynasty not an NFL one. Since the 60s there haven't been too many dynasties:

60s: Packers
70s: Steelers
80s: Niners
90s: Cowboys
00s: Pats
 
SpurzN703 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I look at the 3/5 championships when describing the Spurs dynasty. Going 3 years w/o eliminates me to consider the 99 championship part of the dynasty.

In terms of dynasty as far as conference and things like that. It's been Spurs/Lakers virtually every season to see who decides the west.
 
djfresh47 said:
I look at the 3/5 championships when describing the Spurs dynasty. Going 3 years w/o eliminates me to consider the 99 championship part of the dynasty.

In terms of dynasty as far as conference and things like that. It's been Spurs/Lakers virtually every season to see who decides the west.
Click to expand...

That's fine man. Either way, the Spurs were a dynasty for 5 years whereas Buffalo never has been.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom