Will the Saints have a dynasty before Brees retires?

FinSaint · 09-01-2012, 12:23 PM

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 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

GoofySaint · 09-01-2012, 07:41 PM

Originally Posted by FinSaint

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.

FinSaint · 09-01-2012, 07:46 PM

Originally Posted by GoofySaint

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?!

jeanpierre · 08-30-2012, 04:40 PM

They'd better get a move on...

Vrillon82 · 08-31-2012, 12:44 AM

Originally Posted by GoofySaint

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.

GoofySaint · 08-31-2012, 07:09 PM

Originally Posted by Vrillon82

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.

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.

MatthewT · 08-31-2012, 01:55 AM

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.

GoofySaint · 08-31-2012, 11:48 PM

Originally Posted by MatthewT

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.

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.

TheOak · 09-01-2012, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by GoofySaint

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

GoofySaint · 09-01-2012, 07:32 PM

Originally Posted by x626xBlack

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.

09-01-2012, 12:23 PM	#1
FinSaint Site Donor 2015 Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Finland... formerly Southern Virginia Posts: 4,963	Re: Will the Saints have a dynasty before Brees retires? 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 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'm not bashing people, I'm bashing their opinions because in my opinion their opinion is wrong" - Danno

09-01-2012, 07:41 PM	#2
GoofySaint 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 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.

09-01-2012, 07:46 PM	#3
FinSaint Site Donor 2015 Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Finland... formerly Southern Virginia Posts: 4,963	Re: Will the Saints have a dynasty before Brees retires? Originally Posted by GoofySaint 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?!

08-30-2012, 04:40 PM	#4
jeanpierre Site Donor 2018 Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Thibodaux Posts: 43,543 Blog Entries: 39	Re: Will the Saints have a dynasty before Brees retires? They'd better get a move on... Crusader likes this.

08-31-2012, 12:44 AM	#5
Vrillon82 1000 Posts + Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 1,127	Re: Will the Saints have a dynasty before Brees retires? Originally Posted by GoofySaint 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.
Vrillon82 1000 Posts + Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 1,127

08-31-2012, 07:09 PM	#6
GoofySaint 100th Post Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Philipsburg, PA Posts: 161	Re: Will the Saints have a dynasty before Brees retires? Originally Posted by Vrillon82 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. 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.

08-31-2012, 01:55 AM	#7
MatthewT 1000 Posts + Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Mississippi Posts: 2,729	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.

08-31-2012, 11:48 PM	#8
GoofySaint 100th Post Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Philipsburg, PA Posts: 161	Re: Will the Saints have a dynasty before Brees retires? Originally Posted by MatthewT 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. 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.

09-01-2012, 02:27 PM	#9
TheOak 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Cypress Tx. Posts: 19,047	Re: Will the Saints have a dynasty before Brees retires? Originally Posted by GoofySaint 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
	It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see. ~ Henry David Thoreau Last edited by TheOak; 09-01-2012 at 02:29 PM..

09-01-2012, 07:32 PM	#10
GoofySaint 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 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.

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: https://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