Will the Saints have a dynasty before Brees retires?

FinSaint · 08-30-2012, 04:24 PM

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.

GoofySaint · 08-31-2012, 07:07 PM

Originally Posted by FinSaint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?!

GoofySaint · 09-01-2012, 07:52 PM

Originally Posted by FinSaint

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.

FinSaint · 09-01-2012, 08:19 PM

Originally Posted by GoofySaint

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.

08-30-2012, 04:24 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? 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.
	"I'm not bashing people, I'm bashing their opinions because in my opinion their opinion is wrong" - Danno

08-31-2012, 07:07 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 I resent the notion that all it takes to be a dynasty is to win 3 times within 10 years... I've heard 3 times in a row and 5 times a decade, but 3 times just seems too low to be considered a true dynasty. But like you said, it's a matter of opinion as there are no official determinants to what a dynasty is in the sport world, and with that said, I think the Saints have an opportunity to win couple of more rings with Brees as their QB if things fall into place for them. But with the modern salary cap restrictions - it's hard for one team to really dominate like they did in the past. 5 times? Nobody has done that? How could it be a dynasty if it never even happened? The league has only been around for 47 years. The point is that a dynasty is whichever team had the most rings in a decade. Some people take for granted just HOW HARD it is to win ONE super bowl. If winning 3-4 super bowls was a simple feat, there wouldn't still be long running teams like the titans(oilers), lions, seahawks, falcons, and browns etc who are still missing rings. Winning 3 or more in 10 years is a pretty difficult feat. Basketball and a ton of other sports? Not so much.

09-01-2012, 12:23 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 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	#4
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	#5
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?!

09-01-2012, 07:52 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 FinSaint 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.

09-01-2012, 08:19 PM	#7
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 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'm not bashing people, I'm bashing their opinions because in my opinion their opinion is wrong" - Danno

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