Dino 6 Rings

Dynasty, how much fun to talk about.

I think the Packers are considered a Dynasty because of their Championships and Superbowl wins all together in the 60s.

70s, Steelers 4 in 6. Dynasty

49ers, 4 in 8 years in the 80s. Considered a Dynasty.

However the Redskins won 3 in 9 years and are not considered by many to be a Dynasty, and they lost one in that same stretch to the Raiders. I find that interesting but think because the 49ers won 4 in the same stretch, that takes away from the accomplishments of the Redskins.

Then you have the Cowboys of the 90s, 3 in 4, considered a near dynasty by some and a true dynasty by others. Kind of a toss up. They made 3 superbowls, won all 3. But does 3 make a true dynasty?

The Patriots. They are right there with the Redskins and Cowboys. More so the Cowboys because they won 3 in 4, which the Steelers and 49ers couldn't do. I toss in the 4th appearance to put them above the Cowboys. Also, the Pats are still in it, they haven't fallen off the map or finished playing good football yet. Some would argue that a Dynasty team never loses a SB, hence the reason the Redskins aren't considered a true dynasty, but I guess it just depends on your point of view.

hambone1818

It's all in the interpretation of the word 'dynasty'. I tend to agree with Bob Ryan's assessment (he mentioned this in 2004, after the Pats won their third SB in 4 seasons) that if we're being slightly literal with the interpretation (dynasty: 'A family or group that maintains power for several generations') then the Patriots are NOT a dynasty, and in fact there have only been a select few true dynasties in all of sports: the Yankees (19 championships in 36 seasons), the Canadiens (16 championships in 26 seasons), and the Celtics (16 championships in 30 seasons)...those are all franchises that have overgone generational changes (from Russell to Bird; from Ruth to DiMaggio to Mantle; from Richard to Plante to Lafleur) and yet continued to dominate the league on a rather consistent basis.

These days, because of impatience by the media and the willingness to create and define greatness before it makes itself apparent ('Who's the next Jordon? Who's the next Gretzky?'), the definition has been modified to include, basically, any team that wins a few championships over the course of 2-4 seasons...hell, I've heard people refer to the Red Sox as a dynasty, and amazingly I saw someone ask 'if the Penguins win the Stanley Cup will people start talking about a dynasty?'...amazing.

Anyway, this thread seems ridiculous for two reasons: 1) Felger, in this case, is technically correct; and 2) someone is actually getting their panties in a bunch over an idiot columnist calling the Patriots anything but a FULL FLEDGED DYNASTY BABY. Ugh.

Fencer

Beat me to it, although I was thinking of "Water is wet."

Zeke_Mowatt

So if you agree with the idiot columnist it's a good citation for your opinion of a dynasty, but if not, it is ridiculous and commenting on it is getting ones panties in a bunch? OK, I guess I see where you're coming from...

__________________
-Zeke-

My Favorite Article Ever...

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

hambone1818

Not at all...to summarize my previous post (because you clearly think I was just blah-ing you to death): 1) the Patriots are, in fact, not a dynasty according to the actual, you know, definition of the word; 2) whether you agree or disagree with what I just wrote, why is it a big deal that some retard said that they were just a *gasp* 'near-dynasty'? Seriously, I understand the hatred geared toward Felger...he's a complete douche. But to express shock and disgust at the fact that he doesn't consider the Patriots to be a 100%, certified 'dynasty' seems a bit outrageous to me.

Zeke_Mowatt

- OK, first, the "blah" was to shorten the quote and remove things that didn't relate to the point at hand, but please feel free to take it personally. More to the point, I find it hilarious that you use the actual, you know, definition of "dynasty" as presented by Bob Ryan. How about this, since you want to really focus on the meaning of the word Dynasty, you use it by the actual, you know, definition:
1. a sequence of rulers from the same family, stock, or group: the Ming dynasty.
2. the rule of such a sequence.
3. a series of members of a family who are distinguished for their success, wealth, etc. None of those have anything to do with sports franchises in general (neither the ones I've suggested or the ones you have...repeated sports titles over multi generations such as the Celts, Packers, Steelers, or Yanks don't qualify any better than single generational 3 title or 4 title groups which are no more viable by the actual, you know, definition), so you can either abandon your point entirely since NONE of your examples fit the actual, you know, definition of a dynasty, or open it up to debate and stop acting like you are working from the end all be all definition of the word as it relates to sports. I've already admitted that I'm (since you love numerical bullet points) 1) petty AND bored 2) not particularly concerned with the "weight" of threads at this point in the offseason as each topic splits the proverbial winter firewood of Belichick's lady friends, other mediot hatred fests, and 3rd string offeason practice squad signings, and 3) completely unimpressed with your "citation" of Bob Ryan as anything other than a mediot Celtic Ball Washing asshat who has no more right to state his opinion as fact(or fart in public) than I (or you) do. Hope I didn't Eight Belles your high horse.

P.S. Don't get your panties in a bunch, I'm just an idiot on an internet fan-board having a little fun while I'm petty AND bored.

__________________
-Zeke-

My Favorite Article Ever...

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

hambone1818

Haha...well done. I enjoy pettiness, and I'm also bored, so we have a few things in common.

I just want to point out that the ONLY reason I brought up Bob Ryan was that it was the first time I had really heard that stance taken, and after thinking about the way he interpreted it, and reading an actual definition, it made perfect sense...the definition that I cited is, as you see below, from an actual dictionary, not from Ryan...sorry if I was confusing in that regard.

Also, regarding the definition, I do have to say that my point there stands: if you interpret the definition of dynasty to mean something along the lines of (straight from dictionary.com--the American Heritage Dictionary definition) 'A family or group that maintains power for several generations', then consider the 'group' part to include sports teams, you have the definition I was refering to...to me, the only teams that fit that description, imo, are the three I mentioned.

I also wanted to mention that the entire purpose of my first post was to back up Felger and mention that it isn't a cut-and-dried case of the Pats being a dynasty, that in fact there is a very credible reason to believe that they AREN'T a dynasty.

And finally, my high horse ran off on me a long time ago, I much prefer my trusty, stationary soapbox.

Zeke_Mowatt

LOL - Glad you didn't take it the wrong way, fun is fun, *****ting on sports radio snozberries is a hoot regardless of the "stimulus" so I'm glad you didn't feel it was personal. I personally think over-qualifying the idea of 'dynasty' is silly, in sports, to me, dominating a decade is very much a dynastic activity, and there isn't much by the OED definition that supports either of us which is why I wanted to poke some fun at the definition point of it. The Oxford English of the whole shebang really focuses on a multi-generational monarchy of country/empirewide rulership, so to cite a def is a bit self defeating for either of us, but hell, at least it's fun. I totally see your point, don't get me wrong, and it is something that I find genuinely open for discussion, but to do it the way Felcher did, in a Celtics discussion, was very obviously (esp. if you heard that asshat say it) a dig, and not any type of open forum invitation for debate. That's what got my panties in a bunch (and that's hard with silkies) moreso than anyone suggesting that 3/4 or whatever wasn't necessarily a definitive dynasty.

__________________
-Zeke-

My Favorite Article Ever...

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Rob0729

I still don't get the passion over whether the Patriots are a dynasty or not. It is just a word that has different meaning to different people. Whether the Pats are called a dynasty or not doesn't change their accomplishments one iota.

I don't think Felger meant anything by what he said. In fact, he said as much on his show today and didn't even remember calling the Patriots a near dynasty until he got a bunch of hate mail. There is a lot to criticize the guy about, but I really don't see this as one of them.

I already said before and I will say again, there are only three real dynasties in American Sports - the Celtics, Yankees, and Canadiens. Everyone else are watered-down versions of dynasties that have different meanings to different people.

Can't we just let it rest?

mojocaster.com

Felger still involved in MA sports? I hadn't noticed...

__________________