|
|
Post by sdm3 on Feb 13, 2019 11:14:59 GMT
3 championships in 4 years? 3 in 5? Are just 2 championships sufficient, so long as they’re back to back? Are back to back championships required for any dynasty?
I think it’s fairly clear that 00s Patriots, 00s Lakers, these are dynasties for sure. Certainly 10s Warriors. 00s Spurs? 10s Patriots? 3 in 5, seems sufficient to me. No back to back titles there, but the Pats did reach 4 Super Bowls in 5 years. How about 10s Blackhawks? 3 titles in 6 seasons. Would the Seahawks have had a dynasty if they’d won SB49? Where’s the cutoff point?
|
|
|
|
Post by weststigersbob on Feb 13, 2019 12:31:02 GMT
Absolute minimum is 5 Championships. Preferably with the same lineup and/or management.
Manchester United won 8 EPL titles in 11 seasons 92/93 to 02/03. Genuine dynasty.
5 in 7 seasons 06/07 to 12/13 - Again, a dynasty.
Joined together (and Ferguson was Manager throughout) 13 EPL titles in 18 seasons is the benchmark.
Others include the Boston Celtics (9 in a row, 11 in 13), Chicago Bulls (6 in 8), NY Yankees (9 in 13 from ‘49 thru ‘62), Canadiens (10 straight Finals, 6 wins ‘51-‘60), Oilers (5 wins in 8 years ‘83 thru ‘90).
Islanders almost make it (4 straight and a finals loss the following year).
Others include recently Lyon and Juventus winning 7 straight leagues in France and Italy respectively.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Feb 13, 2019 12:37:03 GMT
R Madrid won 3 straight CLs but I won't say that they are dynasty because it was primarily due to efforts of one person (CR7). I think an important reason for the classification of dynasties would be that the victories come from the team effort.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Feb 13, 2019 13:29:50 GMT
I don’t know if it differs by league, but 3 in 5 years would be a minimum requirement off the top of my head. When you get too far in length there can be too big a gap in success. For example the Patriots are more accurately 2 separate dynasty’s than one big one. There’s a 10 year gap in the middle where they didn’t win one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Feb 13, 2019 13:33:00 GMT
The Spurs and Patriots both make for an intriguing argument. The Spurs won 5 titles spread out over 15 years, yet the Lakers won 3 in a row and five overall in that same span of time. Can you be a dynasty when another team had a 'dynasty' within your own?
The media awarded the 'dynasty' title to the Dallas Cowboys of the 1990s who won three titles in four years. By that standard, the Patriots three titles in four years in the early 2000s and three in five here in the teens must also be dynasties. The question is, are they all the same dynasty, or two separate smaller ones? It isn't as if the Patriots fell off a cliff in between. They only missed the playoff once since 2004 (their last title of the first dynastic period), and that was in 2008 when they lost their starting QB for the season in week 1. They've gone to 8 straight conference championship games and since 2001 have been to 9 Super Bowls, winning six of them; all with the same QB and head coach. And unlike the Spurs, no other team in the league dominated during that same span. So is it one dynasty, or two smaller ones bookending a solid run in between? Does it even matter?
As a Pats fan I just call it one dynasty but I wouldn't take umbrage to people calling it two separate smaller dynasties. Winning is winning.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Feb 13, 2019 13:38:36 GMT
The Spurs and Patriots both make for an intriguing argument. The Spurs won 5 titles spread out over 15 years, yet the Lakers won 3 in a row and five overall in that same span of time. Can you be a dynasty when another team had a 'dynasty' within your own? The media awarded the 'dynasty' title to the Dallas Cowboys of the 1990s who won three titles in four years. By that standard, the Patriots three titles in four years in the early 2000s and three in five here in the teens must also be dynasties. The question is, are they all the same dynasty, or two separate smaller ones? It isn't as if the Patriots fell off a cliff in between. They only missed the playoff once since 2004 (their last title of the first dynastic period), and that was in 2008 when they lost their starting QB for the season in week 1. They've gone to 8 straight conference championship games and since 2001 have been to 9 Super Bowls, winning six of them; all with the same QB and head coach. And unlike the Spurs, no other team in the league dominated during that same span. So is it one dynasty, or two smaller ones bookending a solid run in between? Does it even matter? As a Pats fan I just call it one dynasty but I wouldn't take umbrage to people calling it two separate smaller dynasties. Winning is winning. Spurs did win all of their rings except the first one with almost with the same core team, which may be a factor in classifying them as a dynasty. |
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Feb 13, 2019 13:45:16 GMT
The Spurs and Patriots both make for an intriguing argument. The Spurs won 5 titles spread out over 15 years, yet the Lakers won 3 in a row and five overall in that same span of time. Can you be a dynasty when another team had a 'dynasty' within your own? The media awarded the 'dynasty' title to the Dallas Cowboys of the 1990s who won three titles in four years. By that standard, the Patriots three titles in four years in the early 2000s and three in five here in the teens must also be dynasties. The question is, are they all the same dynasty, or two separate smaller ones? It isn't as if the Patriots fell off a cliff in between. They only missed the playoff once since 2004 (their last title of the first dynastic period), and that was in 2008 when they lost their starting QB for the season in week 1. They've gone to 8 straight conference championship games and since 2001 have been to 9 Super Bowls, winning six of them; all with the same QB and head coach. And unlike the Spurs, no other team in the league dominated during that same span. So is it one dynasty, or two smaller ones bookending a solid run in between? Does it even matter? As a Pats fan I just call it one dynasty but I wouldn't take umbrage to people calling it two separate smaller dynasties. Winning is winning. Certainly two separate dynasties. Gronk and pre-Gronk. Head coach and QB are the only things they have in common; otherwise entirely different rosters. For what it's worth, I consider two dynasties to be more impressive than one. BB/TB were able to win in dynastic form in two different decades with totally different rosters. |
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Feb 13, 2019 13:48:37 GMT
The Spurs and Patriots both make for an intriguing argument. The Spurs won 5 titles spread out over 15 years, yet the Lakers won 3 in a row and five overall in that same span of time. Can you be a dynasty when another team had a 'dynasty' within your own? The media awarded the 'dynasty' title to the Dallas Cowboys of the 1990s who won three titles in four years. By that standard, the Patriots three titles in four years in the early 2000s and three in five here in the teens must also be dynasties. The question is, are they all the same dynasty, or two separate smaller ones? It isn't as if the Patriots fell off a cliff in between. They only missed the playoff once since 2004 (their last title of the first dynastic period), and that was in 2008 when they lost their starting QB for the season in week 1. They've gone to 8 straight conference championship games and since 2001 have been to 9 Super Bowls, winning six of them; all with the same QB and head coach. And unlike the Spurs, no other team in the league dominated during that same span. So is it one dynasty, or two smaller ones bookending a solid run in between? Does it even matter? As a Pats fan I just call it one dynasty but I wouldn't take umbrage to people calling it two separate smaller dynasties. Winning is winning. Certainly two separate dynasties. Gronk and pre-Gronk. Head coach and QB are the only things they have in common; otherwise entirely different rosters. For what it's worth, I consider two dynasties to be more impressive than one. BB/TB were able to win in dynastic form in two different decades with totally different rosters. I agree. I don’t think it’s a knock to consider it two...and it’s certainly not like they sucked in between, but winning it all should be, imo, the first and foremost criteria. |
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Feb 13, 2019 13:54:35 GMT
The Spurs and Patriots both make for an intriguing argument. The Spurs won 5 titles spread out over 15 years, yet the Lakers won 3 in a row and five overall in that same span of time. Can you be a dynasty when another team had a 'dynasty' within your own? The media awarded the 'dynasty' title to the Dallas Cowboys of the 1990s who won three titles in four years. By that standard, the Patriots three titles in four years in the early 2000s and three in five here in the teens must also be dynasties. The question is, are they all the same dynasty, or two separate smaller ones? It isn't as if the Patriots fell off a cliff in between. They only missed the playoff once since 2004 (their last title of the first dynastic period), and that was in 2008 when they lost their starting QB for the season in week 1. They've gone to 8 straight conference championship games and since 2001 have been to 9 Super Bowls, winning six of them; all with the same QB and head coach. And unlike the Spurs, no other team in the league dominated during that same span. So is it one dynasty, or two smaller ones bookending a solid run in between? Does it even matter? As a Pats fan I just call it one dynasty but I wouldn't take umbrage to people calling it two separate smaller dynasties. Winning is winning. Certainly two separate dynasties. Gronk and pre-Gronk. Head coach and QB are the only things they have in common; otherwise entirely different rosters. For what it's worth, I consider two dynasties to be more impressive than one. BB/TB were able to win in dynastic form in two different decades with totally different rosters. That's a good way to look at it, too. It is worth noting that the supporting cast is completely different and they won multiple championships on separate occasions, ten years apart. |
|
|
|
Post by FrankSobotka1514 on Feb 13, 2019 14:00:21 GMT
The Patriots may not have the same number of consecutive titles (or X titles in Y years) like those old Canadiens and Celtics teams, but they are a dynasty. I consider them as one dynasty despite the gap in between BECAUSE both segments of their runs have Brady & Belichick in common. It’s not like the Yankees where first it was Ruth & Gehrig, then DiMaggio, then Mantle, and later Jeter (separate dynasties in my opinion). It’s essentially impossible in the NFL’s current age of parity to have consistent success over long periods. So to me, yes, the Patriots are a single dynasty. The Emmit Smith era Cowboys three in four years is impressive, but only lasted 4 years. The Montana / Young 49ers and the 70s Steelers were more impressive to me.
Also yes I consider the Spurs to be a dynasty, as well as Jordan’s Bulls, Shaq & Kobe’s Lakers, and LeBron as a unique dynasty of one player.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Feb 13, 2019 14:03:04 GMT
Re the spurs...4 in 8 years is a lot closer to what I’d call a dynasty than 5 in 15. That 7 year gap between #4 and #5 hurts it imo.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Feb 13, 2019 14:15:50 GMT
The Patriots may not have the same number of consecutive titles (or X titles in Y years) like those old Canadiens and Celtics teams, but they are a dynasty. I consider them as one dynasty despite the gap in between BECAUSE both segments of their runs have Brady & Belichick in common. It’s not like the Yankees where first it was Ruth & Gehrig, then DiMaggio, then Mantle, and later Jeter (separate dynasties in my opinion). It’s essentially impossible in the NFL’s current age of parity to have consistent success over long periods. So to me, yes, the Patriots are a single dynasty. The Emmit Smith era Cowboys three in four years is impressive, but only lasted 4 years. The Montana / Young 49ers and the 70s Steelers were more impressive to me. Also yes I consider the Spurs to be a dynasty, as well as Jordan’s Bulls, Shaq & Kobe’s Lakers, and LeBron as a unique dynasty of one player. Yeah, that's my thinking regarding the Patriots. An era of continued success featuring the same key figures (i.e. Brady/Belichick). For context, the Boston Celtics had two separate dynasties; one stretching from 1957 to 1969, the other took place in the 1980s. I've heard people try to say it was one long dynasty, but the C's only won 2 titles in the 1970s and there was complete turnover of the roster from 1969 to 1981. If it's the same guys who are more responsible than anyone else still running the show, it feels like one dynasty to me. Spurs are tricky. I think they're a dynasty, but it's weird that another franchise also had a dynasty during their own. How can there be two dynasties concurrent with each other? To bring it back to the Pats, I'd be less likely to call it one long dynasty if the Ravens or whoever had won back to back or three in four years during the Pats' reign. |
|
|
|
Post by FrankSobotka1514 on Feb 13, 2019 14:32:20 GMT
The Patriots may not have the same number of consecutive titles (or X titles in Y years) like those old Canadiens and Celtics teams, but they are a dynasty. I consider them as one dynasty despite the gap in between BECAUSE both segments of their runs have Brady & Belichick in common. It’s not like the Yankees where first it was Ruth & Gehrig, then DiMaggio, then Mantle, and later Jeter (separate dynasties in my opinion). It’s essentially impossible in the NFL’s current age of parity to have consistent success over long periods. So to me, yes, the Patriots are a single dynasty. The Emmit Smith era Cowboys three in four years is impressive, but only lasted 4 years. The Montana / Young 49ers and the 70s Steelers were more impressive to me. Also yes I consider the Spurs to be a dynasty, as well as Jordan’s Bulls, Shaq & Kobe’s Lakers, and LeBron as a unique dynasty of one player. Yeah, that's my thinking regarding the Patriots. An era of continued success featuring the same key figures (i.e. Brady/Belichick). For context, the Boston Celtics had two separate dynasties; one stretching from 1957 to 1969, the other took place in the 1980s. I've heard people try to say it was one long dynasty, but the C's only won 2 titles in the 1970s and there was complete turnover of the roster from 1969 to 1981. If it's the same guys who are more responsible than anyone else still running the show, it feels like one dynasty to me. Spurs are tricky. I think they're a dynasty, but it's weird that another franchise also had a dynasty during their own. How can there be two dynasties concurrent with each other? To bring it back to the Pats, I'd be less likely to call it one long dynasty if the Ravens or whoever had won back to back or three in four years during the Pats' reign. Yeah the Spurs are unique. The first one was the only one that had David Robinson, but Duncan and Pop were there for all the rest. They’re like an extended version of the modern SF Giants with the alternating years thing, though I wouldn’t really call the Giants a dynasty, and their run appears to be over anyway. The Spurs to me still feels like a dynasty, unlike any others. Besides the previously mentioned Giants I can’t think of another team with that kind of run. I think in the future we will be able to call the Warriors a dynasty. But will they be like the Cowboys with complete domination over a shorter span or will they have longevity? |
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Feb 13, 2019 14:36:35 GMT
Certainly two separate dynasties. Gronk and pre-Gronk. Head coach and QB are the only things they have in common; otherwise entirely different rosters. For what it's worth, I consider two dynasties to be more impressive than one. BB/TB were able to win in dynastic form in two different decades with totally different rosters. That's a good way to look at it, too. It is worth noting that the supporting cast is completely different and they won multiple championships on separate occasions, ten years apart. You just tricked me into complimenting the Patriots. Or should I say Cheatriots?!! Am I right WarrenPeace?? |
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Feb 13, 2019 14:45:41 GMT
That's a good way to look at it, too. It is worth noting that the supporting cast is completely different and they won multiple championships on separate occasions, ten years apart. You just tricked me into complimenting the Patriots. Or should I say Cheatriots?!! Am I right WarrenPeace?? Thank you on behalf of Shady Brady. |
|
|
|
Post by OrsonSwelles on Feb 13, 2019 15:00:54 GMT
Absolute minimum is 5 Championships. Preferably with the same lineup and/or management. Manchester United won 8 EPL titles in 11 seasons 92/93 to 02/03. Genuine dynasty. 5 in 7 seasons 06/07 to 12/13 - Again, a dynasty. Joined together (and Ferguson was Manager throughout) 13 EPL titles in 18 seasons is the benchmark. Others include the Boston Celtics (9 in a row, 11 in 13), Chicago Bulls (6 in 8), NY Yankees (9 in 13 from ‘49 thru ‘62), Canadiens (10 straight Finals, 6 wins ‘51-‘60), Oilers (5 wins in 8 years ‘83 thru ‘90). Islanders almost make it (4 straight and a finals loss the following year). Others include recently Lyon and Juventus winning 7 straight leagues in France and Italy respectively. Soccer is different though as a few teams in each league are almost always at or near the top for years at a time.
Dynasties in the NHL have to be looked at differently as individual players have less control over the final outcome. Montreal's 5 wins in a row occured in a 6 team league at a time they annually had dibs on the 2 best Quebec junior players. I'd say their 4 in a row to end the 70s was more impressive as was the Islanders right after. As good as those Oiler teams were they never won more than 2 in a row. The NHL doesn't lend itself well to teams winning multiple Championships in a row.
|
|
|
|
Post by millar70 on Feb 13, 2019 15:17:09 GMT
Winning 3 in 5 years gets you close, but would you call the San Francisco Giants a dynasty? That's a tough call, but I say no.
If a team wins 5 with a basic core of guys, like the Jeter Yankees, that's a dynasty. The Shaq/Kobe Lakers, yes.
I call the Pats a dynasty, although there definitely is a pre-Gronk and post-Gronk feel to them. Somewhat different than the 80s Niners, the 70s Steelers, and the 60s Packers
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Feb 13, 2019 15:40:49 GMT
Winning 3 in 5 years gets you close, but would you call the San Francisco Giants a dynasty? That's a tough call, but I say no. If a team wins 5 with a basic core of guys, like the Jeter Yankees, that's a dynasty. The Shaq/Kobe Lakers, yes. I call the Pats a dynasty, although there definitely is a pre-Gronk and post-Gronk feel to them. Somewhat different than the 80s Niners, the 70s Steelers, and the 60s Packers Interesting, that's the second mention of the 'Gronk era' in this thread. I never thought about it that way. He's definitely been a huge factor in their general success since he was drafted, though he only played in 8 games in 2016 and missed the entire post-season while the Patriots won the Super Bowl anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by FrankSobotka1514 on Feb 13, 2019 15:43:37 GMT
Winning 3 in 5 years gets you close, but would you call the San Francisco Giants a dynasty? That's a tough call, but I say no. If a team wins 5 with a basic core of guys, like the Jeter Yankees, that's a dynasty. The Shaq/Kobe Lakers, yes. I call the Pats a dynasty, although there definitely is a pre-Gronk and post-Gronk feel to them. Somewhat different than the 80s Niners, the 70s Steelers, and the 60s Packers Interesting, that's the second mention of the 'Gronk era' in this thread. I never thought about it that way. He's definitely been a huge factor in their general success since he was drafted, though he only played in 8 games in 2016 and missed the entire post-season while the Patriots won the Super Bowl anyway. There is no “Gronk” era. The entire run from the Rams to the Rams is the Brady era. Gronk is great, yes, but he’s hurt half the time. |
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Feb 13, 2019 15:51:07 GMT
Winning 3 in 5 years gets you close, but would you call the San Francisco Giants a dynasty? That's a tough call, but I say no. If a team wins 5 with a basic core of guys, like the Jeter Yankees, that's a dynasty. The Shaq/Kobe Lakers, yes. I call the Pats a dynasty, although there definitely is a pre-Gronk and post-Gronk feel to them. Somewhat different than the 80s Niners, the 70s Steelers, and the 60s Packers Interesting, that's the second mention of the 'Gronk era' in this thread. I never thought about it that way. He's definitely been a huge factor in their general success since he was drafted, though he only played in 8 games in 2016 and missed the entire post-season while the Patriots won the Super Bowl anyway. No one’s saying that Gronk won them those titles by himself, he’s just a simple marker between two distinct eras of rosters. |
|
