Modern Sports Dynasties

pgm · **Posted:** Mon Nov 23, 2015 5:02 pm

jumpman8828 wrote:

how bout the early 90s Bills? Four straight Super Bowls is impressive as hell, despite losing all of them

By that measure, you should just include the McNabb-Reid Eagles. Four NFC championship games in a row and five in eight years. And yes, I'm being ridiculous.

jumpman8828 · **Posted:** Mon Nov 23, 2015 5:15 pm

I would for sure include them as one of the top 25 NFL dynasties since 2000

Bruce · **Posted:** Mon Nov 23, 2015 5:23 pm

Eric J wrote:

'71 - '77 Cowboys (only won two, this depends entirely on how they fared in the mid-70s, which I don't know about)

If you bring in 70 and 78 you get two more (losing) Super Bowl appearances.

The 70 team lost the Super Bowl to the Colts, and the 78 team lost to the Steelers. They also lost another one to the Steelers, 74 or 75. All 3 losses were by 3 or 4 points.

Georgi · **Joined:** Thu Oct 07, 2010 4:37 pm **Posts:** 9165

I'm not a fan of these huge length periods. Teams change drastically. Lobanovski said teams had 3 year cycles and I'd be tempted to agree with him.

Tim · **Joined:** Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:47 pm **Posts:** 11199

You also seem to mix up PSV Eindhoven with Feyenoord Bones.

Eric J · **Joined:** Sat Oct 16, 2010 10:07 am **Posts:** 7010

jumpman8828 wrote:

I would for sure include them as one of the top 25 NFL dynasties since 2000

Eric J · **Joined:** Sat Oct 16, 2010 10:07 am **Posts:** 7010

Bruce wrote:

Eric J wrote:

'71 - '77 Cowboys (only won two, this depends entirely on how they fared in the mid-70s, which I don't know about)

If you bring in 70 and 78 you get two more (losing) Super Bowl appearances.

The 70 team lost the Super Bowl to the Colts, and the 78 team lost to the Steelers. They also lost another one to the Steelers, 74 or 75. All 3 losses were by 3 or 4 points.

I'd want to count them then.

Eric J · **Joined:** Sat Oct 16, 2010 10:07 am **Posts:** 7010

Bones wrote:

Eric J wrote:

NFL dynasties using dates of first and last championships. I put in all the ones I thought could possibly enter the discussion. Non sure-things in italics.

'71 - '77 Cowboys (only won two, this depends entirely on how they fared in the mid-70s, which I don't know about)
'72 - '73 Dolphins
'74 - '79 Steelers
'76 - '83 Raiders
'81 - '94 Niners
'92 - '95 Cowboys
'97 - '98 Broncos
'01 - Present Patriots

Patriots and 49ers are the clear 1 and 2 (in some order). How do we judge 4-0 vs. 4-2?

2012-2014 Seahawks?

Again I think we're doing 2 championship wins minimum.

Nick · **Posted:** Mon Nov 23, 2015 6:03 pm

Hang wrote:

Nick wrote:

Hang wrote:

McGrath, Warne, Ponting and Gilchrist were around for this whole period and all 4 could find their way in an all time XI (well, Ponting would struggle, but the other 3 no doubt).

Wait, what are you saying at the end there? That Ponting would struggle to possibly make a World XI and the other 3 are definitely in the discussion or that the other 3 are no doubt in the XI?

I'm saying Ponting is world class and wouldn't be out of place in a world XI but misses out due to the competition in the middle order. And that the other 3 find themselves in an ATGXI more often than not and could be locks.

I don't think there's any such thing as a lock for a Greatest XI besides Don Bradman. I'd put the next two closest to that as Warne and Sobers but you can certainly make arguments against either depending on the make up of that side (if you were including just 1 all rounder you can definitely make arguments - though I wouldn't agree - that it should be, for example, Kallis or Imran and if you went with just 1 spinner you could argue for Murali - though again, I wouldn't agree). And we've mentioned Gilchrist before in the other thread. If you're looking for a batsman-wicketkeeper then he's your man. If you're looking for a gloveman, with any runs being a nice bonus, then I don't think he's even in the discussion. With Bradman, however, there is no argument to be had. He is unquestionably your number 3 bat. Hence he's the only lock.

pgm · **Posted:** Mon Nov 23, 2015 6:44 pm

jumpman8828 wrote:

I would for sure include them as one of the top 25 NFL dynasties since 2000

I think you have to be on top at some point to qualify as a dynasty. It's supposed to be a line of rulers.

Hang · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:04 am **Posts:** 3756

Nick wrote:

Hang wrote:

Nick wrote:

Hang wrote:

McGrath, Warne, Ponting and Gilchrist were around for this whole period and all 4 could find their way in an all time XI (well, Ponting would struggle, but the other 3 no doubt).

Wait, what are you saying at the end there? That Ponting would struggle to possibly make a World XI and the other 3 are definitely in the discussion or that the other 3 are no doubt in the XI?

I'm saying Ponting is world class and wouldn't be out of place in a world XI but misses out due to the competition in the middle order. And that the other 3 find themselves in an ATGXI more often than not and could be locks.

I don't think there's any such thing as a lock for a Greatest XI besides Don Bradman. I'd put the next two closest to that as Warne and Sobers but you can certainly make arguments against either depending on the make up of that side (if you were including just 1 all rounder you can definitely make arguments - though I wouldn't agree - that it should be, for example, Kallis or Imran and if you went with just 1 spinner you could argue for Murali - though again, I wouldn't agree). And we've mentioned Gilchrist before in the other thread. If you're looking for a batsman-wicketkeeper then he's your man. If you're looking for a gloveman, with any runs being a nice bonus, then I don't think he's even in the discussion. With Bradman, however, there is no argument to be had. He is unquestionably your number 3 bat. Hence he's the only lock.

Yep, fair enough. I wasn't suggesting they would be locks in the original post just that they'd be locks to be in the discussion where as I just think Ponting doesn't really have a case (considering he's a 3 and, as you suggest, the 3 is a lock).

What's your XI out of interest, Nick?

zephead8 · **Posted:** Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:48 pm

Eric J wrote:

NFL dynasties using dates of first and last championships. I put in all the ones I thought could possibly enter the discussion. Non sure-things in italics.

'71 - '77 Cowboys (only won two, this depends entirely on how they fared in the mid-70s, which I don't know about)
'72 - '73 Dolphins
'74 - '79 Steelers
'76 - '83 Raiders
'81 - '94 Niners
'92 - '95 Cowboys
'97 - '98 Broncos
'01 - Present Patriots

Patriots and 49ers are the clear 1 and 2 (in some order). How do we judge 4-0 vs. 4-2?

it means the pats went two more super bowls. they lost two but going and losing is clearly better than not going at all.

Eric J · **Joined:** Sat Oct 16, 2010 10:07 am **Posts:** 7010

It's actually 5-0 for the Niners, so that complicates things. Also 3 of them were absolute blowouts.

jumpman8828 · **Posted:** Tue Nov 24, 2015 10:14 am

I think 5 wins definitely gives them the edge for now, but we'll see how this season plays out. The two have had pretty comparable runs though:

One of the times the Niners missed the playoffs was the weird strike season in '82. The other time they missed out on a tiebreaker despite going 10-6. The Pats had the one mediocre-decent year in 2002 and the Cassel year where they also missed on a tiebreaker after going 11-5.

*edit: sorry, Pats won division 12 times

jumpman8828 · **Posted:** Tue Nov 24, 2015 11:00 am

pgm wrote:

jumpman8828 wrote:

I would for sure include them as one of the top 25 NFL dynasties since 2000

I think you have to be on top at some point to qualify as a dynasty. It's supposed to be a line of rulers.

They ruled the entirety of the NFC East!

Modern Sports Dynasties

Who is online