New Orleans Saints Forums - blackandgold.com - Will the Saints have a dynasty before Brees retires?

New Orleans Saints Forums - blackandgold.com (https://blackandgold.com/community/)

- Saints (https://blackandgold.com/saints/)

- - Will the Saints have a dynasty before Brees retires? (https://blackandgold.com/saints/49183-will-saints-have-dynasty-before-brees-retires.html)

Re: Will the Saints have a dynasty before Brees retires?

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoofySaint (Post 432762)

Dynasty= 3 or more rings in less than 10 years.

Now you could say that you have a different opinion on what dynasty means.

Maybe you think that the bills had a dynasty when they WENT to the super bowl 4 times.

I consider a dynasty something that happens when a teams dominates a decades by winning the most rings in that certain decade than any other team.

The steelers did it in the 70s

The 9ers did it in the 80s

The cowboys did it in the 90s

The patriots did it in the 2000s

And I hope the Saints do it in the 2010s

I feel like our best chances of having a dynasty will happen while Brees is here(although payton will probably be here for a long time but you catch my drift).

So what do you think?

I honestly would of thought a dynasty is 3 rings in 5 years.

By that account, the 49ers would of never had a dynasty.

It took them about 8 years to get 4, and 13 to get 5.

All other teams did it in 4-5 year window, Steelers did it in a 5 year window I believe. Where as all the other 3 SB win teams did it in a 4 year window.

Re: Will the Saints have a dynasty before Brees retires?

I honestly do not believe the Saints will have one of those so called dynasty teams, but I do believe within the next couple of years they could get another Super Bowl. It's not an issue that the Saints aren't capable of a so called dynasty, it is a situation that right now there are so many excellent NFC teams that they will cancel each other out. NFC is freaking loaded and getting even better. Right now out of the 16 NFC teams, you can make a legitimate case for most as to why they will make the playoffs in 2012. It should remain that way for at least a few years.

Re: Will the Saints have a dynasty before Brees retires?

The definition of Dynasty has nothing to do with rings, or wins, it has to do with Blood line... If you want to put rings into it then you find a Grandfather, Father, and Son all with Superbowl rings and then you have a "Dynasty".

Some NFL fans and teams need to quit feeding their ego's by bending definitions to suit their needs.

Re: Will the Saints have a dynasty before Brees retires?

If we can get the the Superbowl win in our own house, I'd say we are off to a great start.

Re: Will the Saints have a dynasty before Brees retires?

We need to get past the Seattles and the 49ers's and the Rams before we can
breathe the D word.

Re: Will the Saints have a dynasty before Brees retires?

Quote:

Originally Posted by FinSaint (Post 432790)

I resent the notion that all it takes to be a dynasty is to win 3 times within 10 years... I've heard 3 times in a row and 5 times a decade, but 3 times just seems too low to be considered a true dynasty.

But like you said, it's a matter of opinion as there are no official determinants to what a dynasty is in the sport world, and with that said, I think the Saints have an opportunity to win couple of more rings with Brees as their QB if things fall into place for them. But with the modern salary cap restrictions - it's hard for one team to really dominate like they did in the past.

5 times? Nobody has done that? How could it be a dynasty if it never even happened? The league has only been around for 47 years.

The point is that a dynasty is whichever team had the most rings in a decade.

Some people take for granted just HOW HARD it is to win ONE super bowl.

If winning 3-4 super bowls was a simple feat, there wouldn't still be long running teams like the titans(oilers), lions, seahawks, falcons, and browns etc who are still missing rings.

Winning 3 or more in 10 years is a pretty difficult feat.

Basketball and a ton of other sports? Not so much.

Re: Will the Saints have a dynasty before Brees retires?

Quote:

Originally Posted by skymike (Post 433067)

We need to get past the Seattles and the 49ers's and the Rams before we can
breathe the D word.

Yeah, I can't figure out why the Saints are the winningest team over the last 3 years, yet we've been owned by the worst division in the league.

Re: Will the Saints have a dynasty before Brees retires?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vrillon82 (Post 432890)

That's not that consistent of a way to look at it. When people think about eras of the last century, they say the 90s, 80s, 60s etc. They don't say 85s, 95s and so on. It just makes more sense to look at it as a decade.

You could also say the raiders had a dynasty in the last half of the 70s combined with the first half of the 80s. But the point of a dynasty isn't really the date or time. It's more about the success.

Re: Will the Saints have a dynasty before Brees retires?

Quote:

Originally Posted by x626xBlack (Post 432903)

You're taking it WAYYYY too literally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty_(sports)

What defines a sports dynasty? - The Hockey News

The "dynasty" that you're referring is more similar to what Chinese kings would go through when they'd pass it down from father to son.

The "dynasty in sports" refers to when a certain team dominates in a short amount of time(similar to what a kingdom does). It's a subjective term. You could say the bills sort of had a dynasty.

It's like saying whether you prefer Joe Montanna or Dan Marino.

Montanna had rings but Marino had stats. It just depends on what you think makes a QB.

It's just the official term for dynasty in sports is winning a lot in a certain era.

It has nothing to do with ego or passing it down through families. I hate the cowboys but I still call what they had in the 90s a "dynasty".

Re: Will the Saints have a dynasty before Brees retires?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MatthewT (Post 432898)

The reasoning I feel that we can become a dynasty is because unlike alot of of those NFC teams(lions, packers, cowboys etc). We actually improve upon ourselves.

We are quite capable of beating the not so obviously elite teams like the eagles, cowboys. We're also able to beat big defenses like the texans and giants and the 9ers(the defense lost us that game, not the offense).

The media has made this crazy idea that the NFC is super powerful compared to the AFC but most of that is based upon how they THINK certain teams will do(eagles, cowboys, bears, redskins, panthers etc).

You take these teams away and the NFC doesn't become much better than the AFC.

Here's NFC teams we KNOW are good.

Saints
Packers
9ers
Giants
Lions

Here's AFC teams we KNOW are good.

Steelers
Ravens
Patriots
Texans
Broncos

Not much difference.

The only obviously good teams in the NFC that actually TRIED to improve upon themselves was us and the 49ers.

The packers still have no defense.

The giants still have a meh running game and struggle in secondary.

And the Lions only consistent players are STILL only Megatron, Stafford, and Suh. Plus they had arrests.

We had problems in defense.

Now we've got a promising linebacking corps with Lofton and Hawthorne(who will be back come week 1), a good all around secondary with Malcolm Jenkins and co, and a d line that has shown greatness before and just got akiem hicks who looks like a pro.

If our defense somehow made SHANLE look good(which it did in the texans game) then we've got to be doing something right.