Qualification for a dynasty

[alecmatt5]

Chiefs have had a great run the last 6 years. I certainly can't deny that. Getting blown out in two Superbowls doesn't look good and they barely won two other bowls. Pats were dominant over a long period of time and I never called them a dynasty either. They went ten years without winning. They had two great dominant stretches.

The steelers can lay some sort of claim to the dynasty thing because NEVER lost. This is the thing people are not understanding. You can't lose two out of 5 bowls and be a dynasty IMO. A 60% record is C-.

Dynasty is thrown around too much. The islanders in the early 80s were a dynasty. The Lakers with Shaq and Kobe were a dynasty. The Oilers were one probably but they didn't win 3 in a row.

Those are my standards everyone is entitled to their own.

So then I guess your argument is just that you have higher standards than the average person, which alright whatever that's fine because at the end of the day its all just made up. I would argue that's kind of a pretentious way to view it but to each their own I suppose.

However, I still have an issue with how you keep talking about teams losing in the championship game vs teams that didn't lose by not even playing in it to begin with.

Saying the Steelers never lost by going 4-0 in the SB in a 6 year span is technically true but just completely ignoring the fact that every team not playing in the SB did 'lose' the SB that season. By your standards going 4-0 in the SB in 6 years would be better than going 4-2 in the SB in 6 years, which is just objectively a terrible opinion. If this is your opinion, then what you are essentially saying is that the Titans had a better season than the Chiefs this year because in the SB Chiefs 0-1 and Titans 0-0. That's just dumb. When talking about a team dominating their era, 2nd place, 3rd place, 32nd place, etc... matter. 2nd place > 3rd place and so on, and ignoring that fact is lazy.

[ChuckyTheGoat]

Laker, I always find it amazing to think that Ken Morrow won the 1980 Gold with Team USA...and then transitioned right into the Islanders' lineup. Morrow must have been pretty good, even if he wasn't a big points guy.

[mjsuax13]

The Islanders were collectively an incredible group of grit. They had so many good two way players that's what separated them from the rest. They had some great talent as well. Oilers definitely had more talent and the Montreal team that preceded the isles had more talent as well.

Isles dynasty I rate highly because more teams were just added into the league and the first round bye was eliminated at that time so they were the first team to win 4 rounds. I believe they won 19 straight playoff series. That record will never be broken.

That Islanders squad (before my time) was all grit. Played 200 feet, inside the dots, outside the dots and courageous in every series. 19 straight will never be broken. You are absolutely right. They also I believe only played ONE elimination game in the entire 4 year cup run. Amazing.

[stevenash]

I was in 8th grade at the height of that Islanders run.
Those teams were stacked, loaded.

I'm a firm believer of "shit rolls downhill"
It starts at the top, the coach, Al Arbor was a top five GOAT.
Billy Smith, dirty AF, yes, was an elite goalkeeper.
Mike Bossy was arguably the greatest right winder of all time.
Throw in the Potvin boys and the rest, they were unstoppable.

[mjsuax13]

I was in 8th grade at the height of that Islanders run.
Those teams were stacked, loaded.

I'm a firm believer of "shit rolls downhill"
It starts at the top, the coach, Al Arbor was a top five GOAT.
Billy Smith, dirty AF, yes, was an elite goalkeeper.
Mike Bossy was arguably the greatest right winder of all time.
Throw in the Potvin boys and the rest, they were unstoppable.

If I could get my youth hockey teams to play both ends… I’d have no problems!

[lakerboy]

So then I guess your argument is just that you have higher standards than the average person, which alright whatever that's fine because at the end of the day its all just made up. I would argue that's kind of a pretentious way to view it but to each their own I suppose.

However, I still have an issue with how you keep talking about teams losing in the championship game vs teams that didn't lose by not even playing in it to begin with.

Saying the Steelers never lost by going 4-0 in the SB in a 6 year span is technically true but just completely ignoring the fact that every team not playing in the SB did 'lose' the SB that season. By your standards going 4-0 in the SB in 6 years would be better than going 4-2 in the SB in 6 years, which is just objectively a terrible opinion. If this is your opinion, then what you are essentially saying is that the Titans had a better season than the Chiefs this year because in the SB Chiefs 0-1 and Titans 0-0. That's just dumb. When talking about a team dominating their era, 2nd place, 3rd place, 32nd place, etc... matter. 2nd place > 3rd place and so on, and ignoring that fact is lazy.

You totally twisted what I said into something that makes your thoughts about KC feel better to yourself. Obviously only Philly was better then them this season. Losing Superbowls doesn't add to your legacy and Brady highlighted that point on Sunday. Those are the games that haunt him the most. Pittsburgh won two in a row two times with a two year break. Not losing in the big game matters. KC was blown out two times. I'm not questioning what KC did but I'm not giving them dynasty status. Going to 5 in a row is an incredible achievement for sure. They are a great team.

[lakerboy]

That Islanders squad (before my time) was all grit. Played 200 feet, inside the dots, outside the dots and courageous in every series. 19 straight will never be broken. You are absolutely right. They also I believe only played ONE elimination game in the entire 4 year cup run. Amazing.

That 1982 playoffs was my first season really watching. I remember the elimination game you are talking about. Isles were down 3-1 with 6-7 minutes left and forced ot and tonelli scored to win it. He was super clutch.

[guitarjosh]

They were a true dynasty plus they won 4 in a row. Bulls did 2 three peats. Lakers did a 3 peat. Losing like this is ugly.

80s Lakers didn't win 3 in a row. They probably would have if Magic & Byron Scott didn't get hurt after the 1989 WCF, but they did win 5 rings in 9 years. 49ers won 4 in 8.

[lakerboy]

80s Lakers didn't win 3 in a row. They probably would have if Magic & Byron Scott didn't get hurt after the 1989 WCF, but they did win 5 rings in 9 years. 49ers won 4 in 8.

I was referring to Kobe and Shaq Lakers the last 3 peat team in pro sports. Niners were great over a long stretch and NEVER lost in the Superbowl with Montana. Not a dynasty though. Just a great team.

[guitarjosh]

I was referring to Kobe and Shaq Lakers the last 3 peat team in pro sports. Niners were great over a long stretch and NEVER lost in the Superbowl with Montana. Not a dynasty though. Just a great team.

I get you were referring to the 2000-2002 Lakers, but by your definition, the 80-91 Lakers, which went to all but 3 finals in that period, winning 5, wouldn't be a dynasty.

[ChuckyTheGoat]

Good thread. Definition of Dynasty might be:

a powerful group or family that maintains its position for a considerable time.

That definition allows for considerable judgment. Logical cutoffs for me would be:
*4 championships in 5 years,
*5 championships in 7 years, or
*7 championships in 10 years.

Were the Brady Patriots a Dynasty? Was more like them being super-competitive for a long period of time. There was a long gap between Brady's 3rd title and his 4th title.

[ChuckyTheGoat]

In fairness to Mahomes, don't judge him on one game:
*He's been the starter for seven years. They made the AFC Final each time.
*They are 5-2 in AFC Finals. He made the bowl 5 of 7x...and won three Bowls.
*The modern NFL has a lot of parity. Hard to separate from the pack. Give credit to the Chefs for basically owning the AFC for seven years...and doing it against some quality teams (too).

[blankoblanco]

Just to echo Chucky's sentiments: I personally don't really even like Mahomes. But judging a QB on a single terrible game vs. a great defense would be crazy. The margins are so thin, the reads have to be made so quickly. It sucks for Mahomes that he had maybe his worst pro game ever in a Super Bowl (based on what mattered, not garbage time stats), but he's still an all-time great QB and his legacy is just fine

[alecmatt5]

You totally twisted what I said into something that makes your thoughts about KC feel better to yourself. Obviously only Philly was better then them this season. Losing Superbowls doesn't add to your legacy and Brady highlighted that point on Sunday. Those are the games that haunt him the most. Pittsburgh won two in a row two times with a two year break. Not losing in the big game matters. KC was blown out two times. I'm not questioning what KC did but I'm not giving them dynasty status. Going to 5 in a row is an incredible achievement for sure. They are a great team.

I certainly am not trying to make myself feel better about the Chiefs as I am an Eagles fan. Feels weird that I have to be the one defending the Chiefs. But again I just totally disagree with you and I'm not even sure how I am twisting your words when you keep saying the same thing, which is that losing in the title game is worse than not making it... Totally disagree. I think that on the surface level 4-0 looks better than 4-2 but if you are able to use your brain a tiny bit to realize that 4-0 just means they weren't even good enough to get to the title game 2 of the year then you realize that 4-2 > 4-0 (in the same 6 year time frame).

Dynasty, not dynasty, I don't really care. That's a word that's completely made up in the context of sports. But losing in the championship game is better than not making it. And if you disagree then I think your brain is uncapable of understanding context and nuance.

[lakerboy]

I certainly am not trying to make myself feel better about the Chiefs as I am an Eagles fan. Feels weird that I have to be the one defending the Chiefs. But again I just totally disagree with you and I'm not even sure how I am twisting your words when you keep saying the same thing, which is that losing in the title game is worse than not making it... Totally disagree. I think that on the surface level 4-0 looks better than 4-2 but if you are able to use your brain a tiny bit to realize that 4-0 just means they weren't even good enough to get to the title game 2 of the year then you realize that 4-2 > 4-0 (in the same 6 year time frame).

Dynasty, not dynasty, I don't really care. That's a word that's completely made up in the context of sports. But losing in the championship game is better than not making it. And if you disagree then I think your brain is uncapable of understanding context and nuance.

Lots of brain talk. The bills of the early 90s were a dynasty in your brain. They got to 4 straight Superbowls unlike this so called chiefs dynasty. Getting there matters not winning.

[ChuckyTheGoat]

Lots of brain talk. The bills of the early 90s were a dynasty in your brain. They got to 4 straight Superbowls unlike this so called chiefs dynasty. Getting there matters not winning.

The Bills showed themselves in the four bowls. Some weaknesses showed up:
1) Could have (or should have) won the game vs the Giants. Very close.
2) By the fourth bowl I think they were spent. Troy Aikman commented on this. Troy thought they were shot in the 2h of the game.

[lakerboy]

The Bills showed themselves in the four bowls. Some weaknesses showed up:
1) Could have (or should have) won the game vs the Giants. Very close.
2) By the fourth bowl I think they were spent. Troy Aikman commented on this. Troy thought they were shot in the 2h of the game.

Fun times in Western New York. I remember all 4 runs fondly. Gmen just took the ball away. Thomas forgot his helmet vs Washington. Leon Lett play was funny.

Bills had some great wins in that time especially the Houston comeback and the win in Pittsburgh.

[ChuckyTheGoat]

Fun times in Western New York. I remember all 4 runs fondly. Gmen just took the ball away. Thomas forgot his helmet vs Washington. Leon Lett play was funny.

Bills had some great wins in that time especially the Houston comeback and the win in Pittsburgh.

You are correct. Giants held the ball for > 40:00. I wrote about that game in the SB thread.

The game was on a knife-edge. About three plays that swing that game.

[ChuckyTheGoat]

I could say more about that game. When I say weaknesses, I mean subtle things:

1) Thurman was a great back. But it was his quickness, not his power.
2) Reed had great agility. But the Giant DBs punished him in that game.
3) Bruce Smith almost had the strip-sack TD in the end-zone. He was a lighter Def End, so all the rushing plays sweat him out. Look at the picture of him at the end of the game, and think about how many pounds he lost.

[alecmatt5]

Lots of brain talk. The bills of the early 90s were a dynasty in your brain. They got to 4 straight Superbowls unlike this so called chiefs dynasty. Getting there matters not winning.

Lol absolutely insane to say I was twisting your words and then say this. This is what twisting words looks like. Give me a break. Its clear nuance is lost on you