Will the Saints have a dynasty before Brees retires?

TheOak · 08-31-2012, 04:53 AM

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.

GoofySaint · 08-31-2012, 07:18 PM

Originally Posted by x626xBlack

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.

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".

Mardigras9 · 08-31-2012, 09:45 AM

If we can get the the Superbowl win in our own house, I'd say we are off to a great start.

skymike · 08-31-2012, 05:53 PM

We need to get past the Seattles and the 49ers's and the Rams before we can
breathe the D word.

Utah_Saint · 08-31-2012, 07:08 PM

Originally Posted by skymike

We need to get past the Seattles and the 49ers's and the Rams before we can
breathe the D word.

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.

FinSaint · 09-01-2012, 03:47 PM

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?

TheOak · 09-01-2012, 05:16 PM

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.

GoofySaint · 09-01-2012, 08:49 PM

Originally Posted by x626xBlack

NFC 4 Super Bowls
AFC 1 Super Bowl

Sums up the last five years. I do believe you were going to define dynasty by Super Bowls, we should follow suit. Don't ya think?

Since it was the Super Bowls the previous 5 years that people used to name the AFC dominate.

A dynasty implies rise and fall.

A team rules for an era, then stops and we move on to the next era.
The only way for a team to "rule" would be to win rings so it just makes sense.
It has nothing to do with the "franchise".

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

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

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

TheOak · 09-02-2012, 03:30 AM

Originally Posted by GoofySaint

A dynasty implies rise and fall.

A team rules for an era, then stops and we move on to the next era.
The only way for a team to "rule" would be to win rings so it just makes sense.
It has nothing to do with the "franchise".

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

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

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

You have it backwards.

The Steelers are a dynasty.

The 70's Steelers was an era

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.

GoofySaint · 09-02-2012, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by x626xBlack

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.

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.

08-31-2012, 04:53 AM	#1
TheOak 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Cypress Tx. Posts: 19,051	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.

08-31-2012, 07:18 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 x626xBlack 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. 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".

08-31-2012, 09:45 AM	#3
Mardigras9 Site Donor 2015 Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Land Mass between LA and AL Posts: 4,375	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.

08-31-2012, 05:53 PM	#4
skymike E. Side Cholo Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: The Barrio, H-town Posts: 6,089	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. Utah_Saint likes this.

08-31-2012, 07:08 PM	#5
Utah_Saint Site Donor 2019 Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Salt Lake City, Utah Posts: 3,521	Re: Will the Saints have a dynasty before Brees retires? Originally Posted by skymike We need to get past the Seattles and the 49ers's and the Rams before we can breathe the D word. 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.

09-01-2012, 03:47 PM	#6
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? 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?

09-01-2012, 05:16 PM	#7
TheOak 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Cypress Tx. Posts: 19,051	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.

09-01-2012, 08:49 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 x626xBlack NFC 4 Super Bowls AFC 1 Super Bowl Sums up the last five years. I do believe you were going to define dynasty by Super Bowls, we should follow suit. Don't ya think? Since it was the Super Bowls the previous 5 years that people used to name the AFC dominate. A dynasty implies rise and fall. A team rules for an era, then stops and we move on to the next era. The only way for a team to "rule" would be to win rings so it just makes sense. It has nothing to do with the "franchise". The browns always do bad but there franchise itself still exists. It doesn't fall. In order for a franchise to CONTINUE RISING. Terry bradshaw and every steeler that played in the 70s would have to STILL BE PLAYING NOW the same way. lol. We don't call the steelers a dynasty. We call the 70s steelers a dynasty. We can't call the organization a dynasty because no organization is perfect. And even then we still can't call it a dynasty because every dynasty eventually falls so it would to be called something.

09-02-2012, 03:30 AM	#9
TheOak 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Cypress Tx. Posts: 19,051	Re: Will the Saints have a dynasty before Brees retires? Originally Posted by GoofySaint A dynasty implies rise and fall. A team rules for an era, then stops and we move on to the next era. The only way for a team to "rule" would be to win rings so it just makes sense. It has nothing to do with the "franchise". The browns always do bad but there franchise itself still exists. It doesn't fall. In order for a franchise to CONTINUE RISING. Terry bradshaw and every steeler that played in the 70s would have to STILL BE PLAYING NOW the same way. lol. We don't call the steelers a dynasty. We call the 70s steelers a dynasty. We can't call the organization a dynasty because no organization is perfect. And even then we still can't call it a dynasty because every dynasty eventually falls so it would to be called something. You have it backwards. The Steelers are a dynasty. The 70's Steelers was an era 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.

09-02-2012, 04:53 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 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. 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.

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