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 x626xBlack 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 ...

Like Tree9Likes

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-01-2012, 08:49 PM   #31
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
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.
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.
It has nothing to do with the "franchise".

The browns always do bad but there franchise itself still exists. It doesn't fall.

In order for a franchise to CONTINUE RISING. Terry bradshaw and every steeler that played in the 70s would have to STILL BE PLAYING NOW the same way. lol.

We don't call the steelers a dynasty. We call the 70s steelers a dynasty. We can't call the organization a dynasty because no organization is perfect. And even then we still can't call it a dynasty because every dynasty eventually falls so it would to be called something.
GoofySaint is offline  
Old 09-02-2012, 03:30 AM   #32
10000 POST CLUB
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cypress Tx.
Posts: 15,615
Re: Will the Saints have a dynasty before Brees retires?

Originally Posted by GoofySaint View Post
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.
It has nothing to do with the "franchise".

The browns always do bad but there franchise itself still exists. It doesn't fall.

In order for a franchise to CONTINUE RISING. Terry bradshaw and every steeler that played in the 70s would have to STILL BE PLAYING NOW the same way. lol.

We don't call the steelers a dynasty. We call the 70s steelers a dynasty. We can't call the organization a dynasty because no organization is perfect. And even then we still can't call it a dynasty because every dynasty eventually falls so it would to be called something.
You have it backwards.

The Steelers are a dynasty.

The 70's Steelers was an era

era/ˈi(ə)rə/

Noun:
  • A long and distinct period of history with a particular feature or characteristic.
  • A system of chronology dating from a particular noteworthy event.
You cant start redefining words to suit what "yall" call something. As far as for some yahoo changing the definition of dynasty so he can have talking points about his team... I am not on board with it. As soon as you slap a time period on it, it becomes an era.
TheOak is offline  
Old 09-02-2012, 05:55 AM   #33
I donate wisdom
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Finland... formerly Southern Virginia
Posts: 3,897
Re: Will the Saints have a dynasty before Brees retires?

Originally Posted by GoofySaint View Post
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".


I'm beginning to see that there's simply no point in debating this thing with you, since you are so set in your own stance and refuse to hear any of my counterarguments, even though your own arguments seem weak at best to me.

Also, I wouldn't use superlatives like never and all, because it's really hard to defend a stance based on superlatives - like the Lakers and the Celtics never had any trouble - yeah I'm sure it was always a walk in the park for them without any problems whatsoever. And all of the Nfl network, all the analysts, all the players, all the coaches, and all the same people who wrote the rulebook in your opinion abide by this same guideline you have described to us - I find that very hard to believe... In fact I find it impossible to believe that such a large group of people would all agree about the definition of a dynasty.

To your point about touchdowns. It really isn't a valid argument and I just can't understand why you persist on using it?! Naturally, there was a time when no one had ever seen what a touchdown was like, but that was clearly in a time before they started to play for Super Bowls (1967). And your definition of a dynasty in football has been based on winning Super Bowls, so why would we even discuss a concept that has no bearing on the game as it is today or has been at least since 1967? That's all about the history of the game, and it among its rules developed the way they did because of the people involved and the events that unfolded, but naturally they could've developed another way - a way in which touchdowns were in fact worth 20 points.


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.

Sorry, but that to me is just ignorant. There are no players in the NHL that are just fighters, and if you knew about the sport, you'd know that the fights are about more than just giving the audience something to cheer about. They are very important strategical tools, which can be used to sway the momentum away from the other team, and in that way they can affect the whole outcome of the game.

Also, there are 82 games in the NHL regular season and a team could potentially have to play in 28 playoff games to win the Stanley Cup if all of the playoff series went to the max 7 games. So, that's a total of 110 games in a winning season, and that's in within the timespan of 180 to 190 days (it varies a bit from year to year). So, 110 games in 190 days means that you have more game days than days off - tell me again how that's not that hard as opposed to football?! And, I'd even argue that the hits the players dish out and receive in the NHL can be more violent than they are in the NFL because of the speed of the game, which allows players to use the skating momentum to launch themselves into other players.


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".

This last part is a very good example of why it's probably best that we just let this thing lie as it is, because you seem to favor other tactics, than presenting valid arguments, to try and win the debate. I don't know if you are trying to refer to the fact that English isn't my native language or that I don't know enough about football to make arguments against your stance, but in either case, this seems like a lost cause.
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  
Old 09-02-2012, 06:53 AM   #34
10000 POST CLUB
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cypress Tx.
Posts: 15,615
Re: Will the Saints have a dynasty before Brees retires?

Come on Fin... We all no you no nothing. Know what I mean?

English is not the native language of most Americans.

When he says "we" like he does I keep imagining a line much like I10/I12 and "we" constitutes everyone north.
FinSaint likes this.

Last edited by TheOak; 09-02-2012 at 08:10 AM..
TheOak is offline  
Old 09-02-2012, 07:47 AM   #35
1000 Posts +
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: "Si quaeris peninsulam amoenam, circumspice"
Posts: 4,298
Blog Entries: 15
Re: Will the Saints have a dynasty before Brees retires?

Originally Posted by FinSaint View Post
I don't know if you are trying to refer to the fact that English isn't my native language or that I don't know enough about football to make arguments against your stance, but in either case, "you're wrong", .
... fixed that for ya', buddy, .
FinSaint likes this.
SloMotion is offline  
Old 09-02-2012, 04:53 PM   #36
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
You have it backwards.

The Steelers are a dynasty.

The 70's Steelers was an era

era/ˈi(ə)rə/

Noun:
  • A long and distinct period of history with a particular feature or characteristic.
  • A system of chronology dating from a particular noteworthy event.
You cant start redefining words to suit what "yall" call something. As far as for some yahoo changing the definition of dynasty so he can have talking points about his team... I am not on board with it. As soon as you slap a time period on it, it becomes an era.
Why are you taking it so literally?

Using the original term for dynasty to prove your argument is like saying that a "sack" in football is when someone hits the qb with a sack of potatoes.

It's not even just yahoo.

NFL network
Analysts
coaches
players

Nfl network even had the top 10 dynasties on their top 10 show.


You could easily say that the entire time period that the steelers have existed is their "era" if you just go out and say "As soon as you slap a time period on it, it becomes an era".

Time period = the time the steelers were founded to now.

So technically every team had an era.
GoofySaint is offline  
Old 09-02-2012, 05:01 PM   #37
500th Post
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 646
Blog Entries: 1
Re: Will the Saints have a dynasty before Brees retires?

I have a question. Are the NY Giants a dynasty?
NOLA54 is offline  
Old 09-02-2012, 05:57 PM   #38
100th Post
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Philipsburg, PA
Posts: 161
Thumbs down Re: Will the Saints have a dynasty before Brees retires?

Originally Posted by FinSaint View Post
I'm beginning to see that there's simply no point in debating this thing with you, since you are so set in your own stance and refuse to hear any of my counterarguments, even though your own arguments seem weak at best to me.

Also, I wouldn't use superlatives like never and all, because it's really hard to defend a stance based on superlatives - like the Lakers and the Celtics never had any trouble - yeah I'm sure it was always a walk in the park for them without any problems whatsoever. And all of the Nfl network, all the analysts, all the players, all the coaches, and all the same people who wrote the rulebook in your opinion abide by this same guideline you have described to us - I find that very hard to believe... In fact I find it impossible to believe that such a large group of people would all agree about the definition of a dynasty.

To your point about touchdowns. It really isn't a valid argument and I just can't understand why you persist on using it?! Naturally, there was a time when no one had ever seen what a touchdown was like, but that was clearly in a time before they started to play for Super Bowls (1967). And your definition of a dynasty in football has been based on winning Super Bowls, so why would we even discuss a concept that has no bearing on the game as it is today or has been at least since 1967? That's all about the history of the game, and it among its rules developed the way they did because of the people involved and the events that unfolded, but naturally they could've developed another way - a way in which touchdowns were in fact worth 20 points.





Sorry, but that to me is just ignorant. There are no players in the NHL that are just fighters, and if you knew about the sport, you'd know that the fights are about more than just giving the audience something to cheer about. They are very important strategical tools, which can be used to sway the momentum away from the other team, and in that way they can affect the whole outcome of the game.

Also, there are 82 games in the NHL regular season and a team could potentially have to play in 28 playoff games to win the Stanley Cup if all of the playoff series went to the max 7 games. So, that's a total of 110 games in a winning season, and that's in within the timespan of 180 to 190 days (it varies a bit from year to year). So, 110 games in 190 days means that you have more game days than days off - tell me again how that's not that hard as opposed to football?! And, I'd even argue that the hits the players dish out and receive in the NHL can be more violent than they are in the NFL because of the speed of the game, which allows players to use the skating momentum to launch themselves into other players.





This last part is a very good example of why it's probably best that we just let this thing lie as it is, because you seem to favor other tactics, than presenting valid arguments, to try and win the debate. I don't know if you are trying to refer to the fact that English isn't my native language or that I don't know enough about football to make arguments against your stance, but in either case, this seems like a lost cause.
"even though your own arguments seem weak at best to me."

hmm. And I'M the one using superlatives?


"Also, I wouldn't use superlatives like never and all, because it's really hard to defend a stance based on superlatives - like the Lakers and the Celtics never had any trouble - yeah I'm sure it was always a walk in the park for them without any problems whatsoever."

Boston Celtics 17 championships

Lakers 15 championships

Please stop nitpicking my argument. You know what I mean when I say they "never had trouble". Unless you can tell me a super bowl team with 17 rings.



And all of the Nfl network, all the analysts, all the players, all the coaches, and all

When NFL network and it's analysts, players, and coaches(including ones from who help write the rules books) get together to make a show called [b]TOP TEN DYNASTIES[b], then the majority of them probably all agree on dynasties.

Once again stop nitpicking me.


"there are 82 games in the NHL regular season"

There's 162 games in baseballs regular season.
There's 82 games in basketball.

"Sorry, but that to me is just ignorant. There are no players in the NHL that are just fighters, and if you knew about the sport, you'd know that the fights are about more than just giving the audience something to cheer about. They are very important strategical tools, which can be used to sway the momentum away from the other team, and in that way they can affect the whole outcome of the game."

Please. If hockey was an actual "strategic tactic" or was in the rulebooks then we'd see little kids in their elementary school hockey punching each other. Why don't we see that? Cause it's not part of the sport. We see kids tackling in peewee football. That's because that's an actual part of the sport. "Sway momentum"? You sway momentum because you just crippled the other team. It's the same thing as saying that beating up the other guy in golf is a strategic tool. It just happens to be legal in hockey.



"Also, there are 82 games in the NHL regular season and a team could potentially have to play in 28 playoff games to win the Stanley Cup if all of the playoff series went to the max 7 games. So, that's a total of 110 games in a winning season, and that's in within the timespan of 180 to 190 days (it varies a bit from year to year). So, 110 games in 190 days means that you have more game days than days off - tell me again how that's not that hard as opposed to football?! And, I'd even argue that the hits the players dish out and receive in the NHL can be more violent than they are in the NFL because of the speed of the game, which allows players to use the skating momentum to launch themselves into other players."

It's not hard because the players aren't getting much workout in the actual sport.

Who cares about the skating momentum? That sounds pretty lazy imo. You're not even running. You're skating across a small 200 ft rink(as opposed to a 100 yard field). You're basically having momentum do the work for you.


"And, I'd even argue that the hits the players dish out and receive in the NHL can be more violent than they are in the NFL because of the speed of the game"

The problem with that is players aren't SUPPOSED to do that. They're supposed to get the puck. Not the player. Football players are supposed to SUPPOSED to hurt each other. Not to mention that hockey players only sometimes hit each other. In football, 3 guys could be getting hit every 10 seconds. And it's much harder.
Clearly you haven't seen many punt returns. The players in football with how fast they run make hockey players look like snails. There's your momentum right there.
Plus I have something better than momentum. It's called gravity.
None of the hockey players can JUMP on each other. D players jumping at o players is common.



"To your point about touchdowns. It really isn't a valid argument and I just can't understand why you persist on using it?! Naturally, there was a time when no one had ever seen what a touchdown was like, but that was clearly in a time before they started to play for Super Bowls (1967). And your definition of a dynasty in football has been based on winning Super Bowls, so why would we even discuss a concept that has no bearing on the game as it is today or has been at least since 1967? That's all about the history of the game, and it among its rules developed the way they did because of the people involved and the events that unfolded, but naturally they could've developed another way - a way in which touchdowns were in fact worth 20 points."

You persist me to stop using touchdowns as an argument but then screw up with football knowledge so why should I?

Football has been around since 1876(WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY before super bowls). That's not the point.
You persist that I'm not listening to your arguments but you continue to ignore my argument and this statement right here is proof of that....



"And your definition of a dynasty in football has been based on winning Super Bowls, so why would we even discuss a concept that has no bearing on the game as it is today or has been at least since 1967?"

I'm not talking about that.
I'm talking about the fact that you just keep making up your own opinions on what a "dynasty" is.


If you can do that NOW, then what exactly would have stopped a minor group back then from saying "hey touchdowns are 20 points"? if the circumstances changed?

You're a minor group right now with this dynasty talk. It's widely accepted in football what a football dynasty is. Michael Vick just made a comment about how he thinks the eagles could have one.

Dynasty is an unofficial term but so is tailgating, fan,etc.

Officially the saints had a bounty, but we all know the truth.






"This last part is a very good example of why it's probably best that we just let this thing lie as it is, because you seem to favor other tactics, than presenting valid arguments, to try and win the debate. I don't know if you are trying to refer to the fact that English isn't my native language or that I don't know enough about football to make arguments against your stance, but in either case, this seems like a lost cause."

This right here is just sad.

1. Nitpicking my words and twisting them to make me look like some close minded elitist is not a "valid argument".

2. I didn't even know that you were foreign.

3. I asked if you sounded "mad" about the term "dynasty" because that's been a common thing on this thread. What do you think I've been talking with black about this whole time? Many on here assume "dynasty" is just a term to make other teams have a bigger ego. It's not.

4. I used "sack" and "collision" as examples of how football makes simple things sound cool.

What was just 2 guys hitting each other has now become cool words like "SACK" AND "COLLISION". I was not referring to whether or not you knew nothing about football.

5. I've met people from Finland. And I'm sure they'd be disappointed that you're somehow using your nationality(which is not needed anyway) to twist my words and make me out to be a hater or something.

6. And when I say WE. I meant the rulebook(the same thing you've been preaching FOR). Are you saying you call it something other than a sack?

The end.

P.S.

I don't hate hockey. I actually enjoy it at times. But it's not football and it never will be to me.
GoofySaint is offline  
Old 09-02-2012, 06:01 PM   #39
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
Come on Fin... We all no you no nothing. Know what I mean?

English is not the native language of most Americans.

When he says "we" like he does I keep imagining a line much like I10/I12 and "we" constitutes everyone north.

When I say WE. I meant the rulebook. Are you saying you call it something other than a sack?

And I wasn't referring to his nationality.

Also I disagree with your claim that all afc qbs except brady are just "good".

I consider big Ben
Peyton manning(I think he'll make a comeback).
to be elite

3 Elite afc qbs in afc
manning
ben
brady

3 elite nfc qbs

eli manning
Drew
Rodgers

Not that bad.

I also consider joe flacco
andrew luck
as having a future of elite status

It should also be mention that even though the nfc has won most of the last super bowls, they have still always been the underdogs

Giants=underdogs
packers=underdogs
saints=underdogs
cardinals=underdogs
giants again=underdogs
GoofySaint is offline  
Old 09-02-2012, 06:11 PM   #40
100th Post
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Philipsburg, PA
Posts: 161
Re: Will the Saints have a dynasty before Brees retires?

Originally Posted by NOLA54 View Post
I have a question. Are the NY Giants a dynasty?
If they had got one more ring in the next 5 years?

Yes they would be a dynasty.

If we got 2 rings in the next 7, so would we.
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 02:37 AM.


Copyright 1997 - 2013 - BlackandGold.com
no new posts