|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Dec 8, 2021 17:40:52 GMT
I'll ask a question in this thread - if the Patriots win a SB in the next 3 seasons, is it tied to the dynasty? I think I'm torn. I suppose Hightower & McCourtey winning a 4th ring seems not enough of a tie, & yet a Belichick-Kraft 7th isn't nothing? The Steve Young 49ers & Mark Messier Oilers won without their prior leaders, yet they had many more ties yes? What is the definition of a sports dynasty? The players/personnel or the team name & laundry? This is the real question, isn't it? It's been asked before, were the Patriots a dynasty from 2001-2018, or separate dynasties from 2001-2004 and 2014-2018? And do the two Super Bowl losses in between those mini-dynasties not count for anything, despite one of them coming at the end of an undefeated season? I'd say two separate dynasties. Despite the continued level of success, ten years between titles is a long time. After last year's crash and burn, you'd have to say this is a new era. Same coach and owner, but a ton of new personnel. The best 'dynasty' question in sports involves the Spurs. Were they ever a dynasty? Five titles in fifteen years, three in five years at one point, but the Lakers had a threepeat in between their first and second titles, and five titles overall during the Spurs alleged reign of dominance. Hard to call it a dynasty when another team had its own dynasty at the same time. Then again, that's exactly what the Celtics and Lakers did in the 80s, and everyone says those were dynasties.
|
|