Sign in to follow this  
Gourdeau

What defines a dynasty

Recommended Posts

Saw a ridiculous take on NFL network this morning asking if it's too early to consider the Chiefs a dynasty.  A buddy in my league argued that if we consider the precedent that's been set in calling the Patriots a 20 year dynasty, then maybe it's not too crazy. Next year if the Chiefs are back in the Superbowl, win or lose, based on the standard that's been set he argued that they may be considered a dynasty. My argument was that the Pats are not a 20 year dynasty, while they've been dominant for 20 years, they've had 2 separate dynasty periods. They went 9 years without a title and only 2 appearances in that span. But I guess that all depends on how a dynasty is defined. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Win 2 more and then we can talk about a dynasty.

 

Until then, dynasty talk is stupid talk.

 

And by stupid talk, I don't mean you. I mean talking head morans.

Edited by Chief Dick
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinion is that a dynasty needs at least four or five years at or near the top. And at least 2 championships. The Chiefs have the pieces currently but what is their team like in 3 years? Mahomes is a revelation, but he alone isn't going to win games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, DMD said:

My opinion is that a dynasty needs at least four or five years at or near the top. And at least 2 championships. The Chiefs have the pieces currently but what is their team like in 3 years? Mahomes is a revelation, but he alone isn't going to win games.

👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DMD said:

My opinion is that a dynasty needs at least four or five years at or near the top. And at least 2 championships. The Chiefs have the pieces currently but what is their team like in 3 years? Mahomes is a revelation, but he alone isn't going to win games.

 

This.  Any talk of Chiefs being a dynasty right now is just silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The argument was raised because the media likes to paint the Patriots as having a 20 years dynasty even though they went 9 years without a victory and only 2 appearances in those 9 years. So it was said that the media kind of set a standard that titles arent completley required. The aregument was that since the Chiefs went to back to back AFC titles with and now have a Superbowl win, that all they need to do is make the AFC title game next year and they should be a dynasty based on the Patriots standard in those 9 years where they went winless. ( this is a pats fan saying this btw lol) I argued no, simply because the pats aren't a 20 year dynasty. While 9 appearances in 20 years is impressive, they went 9 years between victories. They have 2 spans, one of 4 years and the current of 5 years but not 20 years. Again this one pats fan argued that absolutely 9 superbowl appearances out of 20 years is a full length Dynasty. So I raised the question regarding the steelers. The Steelers went to 3 superbowls in 6 years and won 2 within 4 years from 2005-2010. This occurred during the 9 year span that  those same pats didn't win one and only went to 2.  He said no way were the steelers a dynasty. I said if you consider that 9 year stretch for NE as part of the totality of the dynasty then you have to consider the Steelers from 05-10 as a dynasty because they had a better stretch than NE ( i dont consider those steelers a dynasty) I guess this is where the definition of dynasty comes into play. For me it requires 2 titles in 3 years to start and from that point no more than 1 year without a victory. Seems to me all the dynasty that stick out in history of all sports had that pattern.

Edited by Gourdeau

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mahomes is about to get paid! Let's see how long they can keep this team together. It's easy when your star QB is in a rookie deal. That's about to end. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Gourdeau said:

The argument was raised because the media likes to paint the Patriots as having a 20 years dynasty even though they went 9 years without a victory and only 2 appearances in those 9 years. So it was said that the media kind of set a standard that titles arent completley required. The aregument was that since the Chiefs went to back to back AFC titles with and now have a Superbowl win, that all they need to do is make the AFC title game next year and they should be a dynasty based on the Patriots standard in those 9 years where they went winless. ( this is a pats fan saying this btw lol) I argued no, simply because the pats aren't a 20 year dynasty. While 9 appearances in 20 years is impressive, they went 9 years between victories. They have 2 spans, one of 4 years and the current of 5 years but not 20 years. Again this one pats fan argued that absolutely 9 superbowl appearances out of 20 years is a full length Dynasty. So I raised the question regarding the steelers. The Steelers went to 3 superbowls in 6 years and won 2 within 4 years from 2005-2010. This occurred during the 9 year span that  those same pats didn't win one and only went to 2.  He said no way were the steelers a dynasty. I said if you consider that 9 year stretch for NE as part of the totality of the dynasty then you have to consider the Steelers from 05-10 as a dynasty because they had a better stretch than NE ( i dont consider those steelers a dynasty) I guess this is where the definition of dynasty comes into play. For me it requires 2 titles in 3 years to start and from that point no more than 1 year without a victory. Seems to me all the dynasty that stick out in history of all sports had that pattern.

 

No matter how you slice it, the Patriots are a dynasty. 

 

May truly be the last one we see. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Chief Dick said:

 

No matter how you slice it, the Patriots are a dynasty. 

 

May truly be the last one we see. 

 

Correct, and as other said talking about the Chiefs being a dynasty now is just dumb. They haven't even played in a second SB. Two deep playoff runs and one SB title does not a dynasty make. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.