Will the Saints have a dynasty before Brees retires?
 

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?

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

Depends on how our defense looks this season... We all know Drew can get us to the playoffs, the defense has let us down th past couple of years

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

Just need some takeaways and we are fully capable of returning to the bowl. We don't need a stellar defense, just good enough.

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

Depends on how long Brees can play at an elite level. I say he has about 3 more years to play at the level he is now and will slightly drop off from year to year after that. If we can win two more SBs I would consider us a dynasty but I don't know if the national media would. It will also depend on how long we can keep Payton and Brees together. 3 years ago Payton said he could not see him coaching for another 5 years, so who knows.

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

I think the Saints are good enough to do it. But not only do you have to be very good, the ball has to bounce your way a few times too.

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

The national media can suck it. We won't ever get the recognition we deserve, we never have.

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

The chances are much better with him.

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

I believe that we are a team of destiny. Therefore, we have the team to do it. If we win one more Superbowl and continue to put up- numbers like we do I believe that we are a dynasty in the making. I don't know that we would have to win three to be considered a dynasty. It's all in the eyes of the beholder. Payton has built a foundation that would support a dynasty.

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

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.

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

They'd better get a move on...

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

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?
 

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?
 

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?
 

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?
 

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?
 

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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?!

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

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.

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

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.

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

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".

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

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.

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

You have it backwards.

The Steelers are a dynasty.

The 70's Steelers was an era

e·ra/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.

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

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.

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.:bugeyes:

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

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

... fixed that for ya', buddy, :mrgreen:.

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

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.

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

I have a question. Are the NY Giants a dynasty?

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

"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.

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

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

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

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.