|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Feb 13, 2019 23:05:34 GMT
You also have to take older dynasties with a grain of salt. The Yankees had to wine one seven game series in their dynasty days. Now you have to win three series. More land mines. Same with the other sports. If playoffs existed before 1969, I bet the Yankees ring case would be smaller.
|
|
|
|
Post by FrankSobotka1514 on Feb 13, 2019 23:23:16 GMT
I consider them as one dynasty despite the gap in between BECAUSE both segments of their runs have Brady & Belichick in common. By that same reasoning would you classify the 2000s Lakers are 1 dynasty or 2 dynasties? 2000-2004 - The Lakers went to the NBA Finals 4 times in 5 years and won 3 straight titles. 2008-2010 - The Lakers went to the NBA Finals 3 straight years and won back-to-back titles. Both segments of their run had Kobe Bryant and Phil Jackson in common. Sure, why not? Shaq wasn’t there for all of them but Kobe and Phil were. |
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Feb 14, 2019 13:27:28 GMT
A sustained period of dominance where everyone views you as the team to beat. Plus multiple championships.
|
|
