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?!

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.

GoofySaint · 09-01-2012, 08:45 PM

Originally Posted by FinSaint

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

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

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

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

You missed my point. I said that if touchdowns had never happened. What if in the history of football no one ever scored one? Would it be in the rule book the same way? Would somebody who wrote the rulebook suddenly say "hey let's make them 20 points so they'll want it more"?

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

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

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

It's not just these cites.

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

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

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

A dynasty implies rise and fall.

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

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

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

FinSaint · 09-02-2012, 05:55 AM

Originally Posted by GoofySaint

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.

09-01-2012, 12:23 PM	#1
FinSaint Site Donor 2015 Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Finland... formerly Southern Virginia Posts: 4,964	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: 4,964	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	#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 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	#5
FinSaint Site Donor 2015 Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Finland... formerly Southern Virginia Posts: 4,964	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

09-01-2012, 08:45 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 First, in the Stanley Cup Finals, it's best out of 7 not 6, and some might argue that it's easier to win a single game than 4, but that's besides the point. Second, there's quite a lot of difference between the definition of a dynasty and a touchdown, because for one, the other is pretty distinctly described in the rule book and the other is simply one term for greatness in sports. So, in effect, I'm saying we can just make stuff up, because that is what f.e. those websites you sited have done. They've made up definitions for what a dynasty is in their opinion and according to those made-up guidelines they've handed out dynasty titles to some teams. As opposed to the touchdown, which I can't really make up a new definition for, I'm as free as those websites to define the term dynasty as whatever I please, because there's no unified and written down definition for what the term means other than of course some type of greatness. But for there to be a change in the points awarded by a touchdown, there'd have to be quite a few meetings between the league and the owners, and an official decision about it. It just doesn't compute with me that you are saying that we can't define a dynasty to be something that hasn't already happened, because if that was the penultimate criteria no one could've even talked about a potential dynasty before a certain team won enough games/championships, and after that somebody went: "Hey, you know what, I think this team should be called a dynasty!" If that's the criteria, someone could've said right after the first Super Bowl in '67 that the Packers were a dynasty because they just won the Super Bowl. That would be as legit of a definition as any other based on the fact that the defining characteristic of a dynasty is that it has to be something that has already taken place. You missed my point. I said that if touchdowns had never happened. What if in the history of football no one ever scored one? Would it be in the rule book the same way? Would somebody who wrote the rulebook suddenly say "hey let's make them 20 points so they'll want it more"? "some might argue that it's easier to win a single game than 4, but that's besides the point." Not really. The lakers and celtics have had around 40 rings and they never had trouble. They play 6 games too. The amount of work in 1 football is like 10 hockey games. They wouldn't bring hockey players that are ONLY there to fight if they cared for the sport. It's not just these cites. Nfl network Analysts Players coaches the same people who wrote the rulebook all consider the idea of a dynasty as 3 or more rings in a decade. It's unofficial yeah but why wouldn't you call it that? It's not like they didn't happen. It's easier than saying "the steelers/9ers won 4 rings in the 70s/80s because of this, this, and that. Just say "the steelers/9ers had a dynasty in the 70s/80s". A dynasty implies rise and fall. A team rules for an era, then stops and we move on to the next era. The only way for a team to "rule" would be to win rings so it just makes sense. Are you mad that the term "dynasty" sounds cool or something? Cause we call stuff like hitting a qb a "sack" which can be confusing if you no nothing about football. We call players hitting stuff "collisions".

09-02-2012, 05:55 AM	#7
FinSaint Site Donor 2015 Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Finland... formerly Southern Virginia Posts: 4,964	Re: Will the Saints have a dynasty before Brees retires? Originally Posted by GoofySaint 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'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