Go Back   New Orleans Saints - blackandgold.com > Main > Saints
Shop Horizontal

Will the Saints have a dynasty before Brees retires?

this is a discussion within the Saints Community Forum; Originally Posted by GoofySaint 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 ...

Like Tree9Likes

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-01-2012, 12:23 PM   #21
I donate wisdom
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Finland... formerly Southern Virginia
Posts: 3,915
Re: Will the Saints have a dynasty before Brees retires?

Originally Posted by GoofySaint View Post
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.

Why should being a dynasty be an easy thing to do? I just don't understand that...

But like I said, this is how you define a dynasty and it's naturally your prerogative, especially as the initial poster, but in my opinion dynasties are something that happen only very rarely - not necessarily once in every decade.

The best example, of what a dynasty in the sports world means to me, that I can give you is the Edmonton Oilers dynasty 1983-1990 in the NHL:

5 Stanley Cup Championships
5 Conference Championships
6 Division Championships

That to me is a dynasty.

Edmonton Oilers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
SloMotion likes this.

"I don't think I'll be thinking at all. I think I'm just gonna go out there and play my balls out" - Martez Wilson | "I'm not bashing people, I'm bashing their opinions because in my opinion their opinion is wrong" - Danno
FinSaint is offline  
Latest Blogs
The ArtiChoke Last Blog: 09-18-2014 By: Barry from MS


How to really handle Ray Rice and AP Last Blog: 09-17-2014 By: neugey


The Lost Art of the Trade Last Blog: 08-30-2014 By: jeanpierre


Old 09-01-2012, 02:27 PM   #22
10000 POST CLUB
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cypress Tx.
Posts: 16,193
Re: Will the Saints have a dynasty before Brees retires?

Originally Posted by GoofySaint View Post

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.

Ok I will bite..

First:
The NFC is not dominant because of a per team comparison. It is that way because that is the way it is... But if you would like to compare I would say there is a huge difference... 4-1 Super Bowl trophies.... Or QB's that hold more than 90% of the NFLs QB records (Skill based... not longevity). Between Brees, Rogers, and Favre.. there isn't much left.

In the last 5 years 4 of the SB Champions were NFC.
Last year 4 of the 5 top Offenses were NFC.
Last year 4 of 5 top producing QB's are NFC.

Except for Brady... AFC QBs are at best "good".

2011 top 4 teams combined records: NFC 11% better
NFC 50 - W / 14 - L - 78% W rate
AFC 43 -W / 21 - L - 67% W rate

Winningest Team for the last three years combined including play offs = New Orleans Saints! NFC

Secondly:

I do not know that ANYONE is good yet. I know there were some good teams last year but Detroit and the Broncos did not fall into that category on my planet. Nor do they come close this year based on last year..

Denver: 8-8 <---Please explain so i understand how this is good?
Detriot: Wild Card <---Please explain so I understand how this is good?

49erd HAD a great Defense and the Patriots and Packers HAD great offenses.


LASTLY:
There is nothing about a 10 year period that is a Dynasty. At best its an Era.

Presently there is only one team that comes close to ANYTHING resembling a Dynasty and that is the Pittsburgh Steelers. It has nothing to do with any QB or receiver... its the franchise.

So to answer the question.. No... Brees and two more will retire before the Saints are any where resembling a Dynasty (If we keep our present win rates). With 3 more Brees would have an Era.

Pittsburgh = Dynasty
Terry Bradshaw = Era
Joe Montana = Era

If you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes.

Like and vote https://www.facebook.com/pages/Charl...44287815781246

Last edited by TheOak; 09-01-2012 at 02:29 PM..
TheOak is offline  
Old 09-01-2012, 03:47 PM   #23
I donate wisdom
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Finland... formerly Southern Virginia
Posts: 3,915
Re: Will the Saints have a dynasty before Brees retires?

x626xBlack

Do you have the stat about the winning % of games between NFC and AFC teams, because in my mind that would be more representative of the comparison of strength between the two conferences?
FinSaint is offline  
Old 09-01-2012, 05:16 PM   #24
10000 POST CLUB
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cypress Tx.
Posts: 16,193
NFC 4 Super Bowls
AFC 1 Super Bowl

Sums up the last five years. I do believe you were going to define dynasty by Super Bowls, we should follow suit. Don't ya think?

Since it was the Super Bowls the previous 5 years that people used to name the AFC dominate.
TheOak is offline  
Old 09-01-2012, 07:32 PM   #25
100th Post
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Philipsburg, PA
Posts: 161
Re: Will the Saints have a dynasty before Brees retires?

Originally Posted by x626xBlack View Post
Ok I will bite..

First:
The NFC is not dominant because of a per team comparison. It is that way because that is the way it is... But if you would like to compare I would say there is a huge difference... 4-1 Super Bowl trophies.... Or QB's that hold more than 90% of the NFLs QB records (Skill based... not longevity). Between Brees, Rogers, and Favre.. there isn't much left.

In the last 5 years 4 of the SB Champions were NFC.
Last year 4 of the 5 top Offenses were NFC.
Last year 4 of 5 top producing QB's are NFC.

Except for Brady... AFC QBs are at best "good".

2011 top 4 teams combined records: NFC 11% better
NFC 50 - W / 14 - L - 78% W rate
AFC 43 -W / 21 - L - 67% W rate

Winningest Team for the last three years combined including play offs = New Orleans Saints! NFC

Secondly:

I do not know that ANYONE is good yet. I know there were some good teams last year but Detroit and the Broncos did not fall into that category on my planet. Nor do they come close this year based on last year..

Denver: 8-8 <---Please explain so i understand how this is good?
Detriot: Wild Card <---Please explain so I understand how this is good?

49erd HAD a great Defense and the Patriots and Packers HAD great offenses.


LASTLY:
There is nothing about a 10 year period that is a Dynasty. At best its an Era.

Presently there is only one team that comes close to ANYTHING resembling a Dynasty and that is the Pittsburgh Steelers. It has nothing to do with any QB or receiver... its the franchise.

So to answer the question.. No... Brees and two more will retire before the Saints are any where resembling a Dynasty (If we keep our present win rates). With 3 more Brees would have an Era.

Pittsburgh = Dynasty
Terry Bradshaw = Era
Joe Montana = Era
No offense but you're confusing me

"I do not know that ANYONE is good yet."



Denver: 8-8 <---Please explain so i understand how this is good?
Detriot: Wild Card <---Please explain so I understand how this is good?

49erd HAD a great Defense and the Patriots and Packers HAD great offenses.

?????????????????

You're basing your first findings of the broncos and lions on how teams USED to be but then say that what the 9ers, packers, and pats didn't matter???? That's contradictory.

The giants went 9-7 and they're superbowl champions. The lions went 10-6.

If the Broncos are good enough to send TEBOW to the playoffs and then beat the steelers then imagine what they could do with a 4 time MVP.

And the lions have the best wide receiver in the league and they shouldn't be underestimated either.

Who cares what teams in the NFC did before? You yourself just said that the 9ers and packers may not repeat. The NFC teams are almost ALWAYS the underdogs.


"The most widely-accepted sports dynasties are those with multiple championships over a limited period of time, either consecutively with or without interruption"

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


"Teams were required to have won at least three championships in a short amount of time to be considered."

Read more: Top 10 Sports Dynasties Of All Time - AskMen

The steelers had a dynasty but they had terry bradshaw throughout that dynasty. The steelers were considered a dynasty WAYYYYY before they won the rings in the 2000s.

The 49ers had a dynasty because they won 4 in a short time. What you call an "era" is simply the name given for the time instead of calling it a simple decade.

The 90s were a super bowl era and a dynasty was born in said era.

Same with 80s, 70s, and 2000s.

The 50s were not a super bowl era because there was no super bowl to win.


Super Bowl dynasties - NFL - Sporting News

I never said Brees was the dynasty for the saints. I said that he was our best chance at one.
GoofySaint is offline  
Old 09-01-2012, 07:41 PM   #26
100th Post
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Philipsburg, PA
Posts: 161
Re: Will the Saints have a dynasty before Brees retires?

Originally Posted by FinSaint View Post
Why should being a dynasty be an easy thing to do? I just don't understand that...

But like I said, this is how you define a dynasty and it's naturally your prerogative, especially as the initial poster, but in my opinion dynasties are something that happen only very rarely - not necessarily once in every decade.

The best example, of what a dynasty in the sports world means to me, that I can give you is the Edmonton Oilers dynasty 1983-1990 in the NHL:

5 Stanley Cup Championships
5 Conference Championships
6 Division Championships

That to me is a dynasty.

Edmonton Oilers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Super bowl dynasties are rare. There's only been 4. But looking at how basketball teams do, the term "sports" dynasty varies.

There's tons of different "sports" dynasties.

But a "super bowl" or "football" dynasty is considered by most as 3 or more in less than a decade.


Dynasties in certain sports are different. It was much easier to win championships in football before the merger because there were less teams.

But saying something like 5 rings is tough to say. In order to call something a dynasty, it would have to have happened already.
GoofySaint is offline  
Old 09-01-2012, 07:46 PM   #27
I donate wisdom
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Finland... formerly Southern Virginia
Posts: 3,915
Re: Will the Saints have a dynasty before Brees retires?

Originally Posted by GoofySaint View Post
In order to call something a dynasty, it would have to have happened already.

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, so I hope you don't take this the wrong way... But what is the logic behind that statement?!
FinSaint is offline  
Old 09-01-2012, 07:52 PM   #28
100th Post
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Philipsburg, PA
Posts: 161
Re: Will the Saints have a dynasty before Brees retires?

Originally Posted by FinSaint View Post
I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, so I hope you don't take this the wrong way... But what is the logic behind that statement?!
Are you saying that we can just make stuff up? We can't just say " oh you have to win this many rings before you're a dynasty".

If no one ever scored a touchdown, we wouldn't know what it looks like to score a touchdown and wouldn't be able to describe the details. What if somebody said "oh touchdowns are now worth 20 points instead of 7"?

So how can we come up with a legit def for a football dynasty if it has never happened?

Hockey isn't the same as football. One game. Not 6.
GoofySaint is offline  
Old 09-01-2012, 08:19 PM   #29
I donate wisdom
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Finland... formerly Southern Virginia
Posts: 3,915
Re: Will the Saints have a dynasty before Brees retires?

Originally Posted by GoofySaint View Post
Are you saying that we can just make stuff up? We can't just say " oh you have to win this many rings before you're a dynasty".

If no one ever scored a touchdown, we wouldn't know what it looks like to score a touchdown and wouldn't be able to describe the details. What if somebody said "oh touchdowns are now worth 20 points instead of 7"?

So how can we come up with a legit def for a football dynasty if it has never happened?

Hockey isn't the same as football. One game. Not 6.

First, in the Stanley Cup Finals, it's best out of 7 not 6, and some might argue that it's easier to win a single game than 4, but that's besides the point.


Second, there's quite a lot of difference between the definition of a dynasty and a touchdown, because for one, the other is pretty distinctly described in the rule book and the other is simply one term for greatness in sports.

So, in effect, I'm saying we can just make stuff up, because that is what f.e. those websites you sited have done. They've made up definitions for what a dynasty is in their opinion and according to those made-up guidelines they've handed out dynasty titles to some teams. As opposed to the touchdown, which I can't really make up a new definition for, I'm as free as those websites to define the term dynasty as whatever I please, because there's no unified and written down definition for what the term means other than of course some type of greatness. But for there to be a change in the points awarded by a touchdown, there'd have to be quite a few meetings between the league and the owners, and an official decision about it.

It just doesn't compute with me that you are saying that we can't define a dynasty to be something that hasn't already happened, because if that was the penultimate criteria no one could've even talked about a potential dynasty before a certain team won enough games/championships, and after that somebody went: "Hey, you know what, I think this team should be called a dynasty!" If that's the criteria, someone could've said right after the first Super Bowl in '67 that the Packers were a dynasty because they just won the Super Bowl. That would be as legit of a definition as any other based on the fact that the defining characteristic of a dynasty is that it has to be something that has already taken place.

"I don't think I'll be thinking at all. I think I'm just gonna go out there and play my balls out" - Martez Wilson | "I'm not bashing people, I'm bashing their opinions because in my opinion their opinion is wrong" - Danno
FinSaint is offline  
Old 09-01-2012, 08:45 PM   #30
100th Post
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Philipsburg, PA
Posts: 161
Re: Will the Saints have a dynasty before Brees retires?

Originally Posted by FinSaint View Post
First, in the Stanley Cup Finals, it's best out of 7 not 6, and some might argue that it's easier to win a single game than 4, but that's besides the point.


Second, there's quite a lot of difference between the definition of a dynasty and a touchdown, because for one, the other is pretty distinctly described in the rule book and the other is simply one term for greatness in sports.

So, in effect, I'm saying we can just make stuff up, because that is what f.e. those websites you sited have done. They've made up definitions for what a dynasty is in their opinion and according to those made-up guidelines they've handed out dynasty titles to some teams. As opposed to the touchdown, which I can't really make up a new definition for, I'm as free as those websites to define the term dynasty as whatever I please, because there's no unified and written down definition for what the term means other than of course some type of greatness. But for there to be a change in the points awarded by a touchdown, there'd have to be quite a few meetings between the league and the owners, and an official decision about it.

It just doesn't compute with me that you are saying that we can't define a dynasty to be something that hasn't already happened, because if that was the penultimate criteria no one could've even talked about a potential dynasty before a certain team won enough games/championships, and after that somebody went: "Hey, you know what, I think this team should be called a dynasty!" If that's the criteria, someone could've said right after the first Super Bowl in '67 that the Packers were a dynasty because they just won the Super Bowl. That would be as legit of a definition as any other based on the fact that the defining characteristic of a dynasty is that it has to be something that has already taken place.
You missed my point. I said that if touchdowns had never happened. What if in the history of football no one ever scored one? Would it be in the rule book the same way? Would somebody who wrote the rulebook suddenly say "hey let's make them 20 points so they'll want it more"?


"some might argue that it's easier to win a single game than 4, but that's besides the point."

Not really. The lakers and celtics have had around 40 rings and they never had trouble. They play 6 games too.

The amount of work in 1 football is like 10 hockey games. They wouldn't bring hockey players that are ONLY there to fight if they cared for the sport.



It's not just these cites.

Nfl network
Analysts
Players
coaches
the same people who wrote the rulebook
all consider the idea of a dynasty as 3 or more rings in a decade.
It's unofficial yeah but why wouldn't you call it that? It's not like they didn't happen.

It's easier than saying "the steelers/9ers won 4 rings in the 70s/80s because of this, this, and that.

Just say "the steelers/9ers had a dynasty in the 70s/80s".






A dynasty implies rise and fall.

A team rules for an era, then stops and we move on to the next era.
The only way for a team to "rule" would be to win rings so it just makes sense.

Are you mad that the term "dynasty" sounds cool or something?

Cause we call stuff like hitting a qb a "sack" which can be confusing if you no nothing about football. We call players hitting stuff "collisions".
GoofySaint is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

LinkBacks (?)
LinkBack to this Thread: http://blackandgold.com/saints/49183-will-saints-have-dynasty-before-brees-retires.html
Posted By For Type Date Hits
Will the Saints have a dynasty before Brees retires? This thread Refback 08-30-2012 02:41 PM 2


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:51 AM.


Copyright 1997 - 2013 - BlackandGold.com
no new posts