Qualification for a dynasty

**ChuckyTheGoat** · 02-09-25, 09:09 PM

Originally posted by lakerboy

People can argue whatever way they want but IMO this is how it should be

3 peat is mandatory UNLESS you win

4/5.

5/7 gets you in as well but honestly NEVER losing a final is really helpful

Laker, you make a good point. My personal criteria = 4 in 6 years.
...That would put the Steelers in that class.
...Steelers missed two years when they had injuries. Raiders/Broncos advanced those seasons.

**19th Hole** · 02-09-25, 09:11 PM

Originally posted by lakerboy

People can argue whatever way they want but IMO this is how it should be

3 peat is mandatory UNLESS you win
4/5.
5/7 gets you in as well but honestly NEVER losing a final is really helpful

~~~

Not sure what you mean?

"3 peat is mandatory UNLESS you win"

Win 4 out of 5 or 5 out of 7 to be considered a dynasty?

**ChuckyTheGoat** · 02-09-25, 09:14 PM

*Also the Patriot championships under Brady are different.
...Six titles over an 18-year span. That may not be matched.
...But it wasn't a concentration of dominance. Great success over a longer period of time.
...And the only team that LOOKED like they couldn't lose was the 18-0 team that lost to the Giants.

**JIBBBY** · 02-09-25, 09:33 PM

PHILLY to strong this year. KC was barely winning close games all year long. Mahomes has no protection to throw the ball bottom line. KC better work on building that OL next year..

**lakerboy** · 02-09-25, 09:40 PM

Originally posted by JIBBBY

PHILLY to strong this year. KC was barely winning close games all year long. Mahomes has no protection to throw the ball bottom line. KC better work on building that OL next year..

You fell for the spin line or you crafted it? All of the sudden this guy has no line. Please this guy has been extremely lucky for years to win the Superbowl. He should be 1-4.

**JIBBBY** · 02-09-25, 09:59 PM

Originally posted by lakerboy

You fell for the spin line or you crafted it? All of the sudden this guy has no line. Please this guy has been extremely lucky for years to win the Superbowl. He should be 1-4.

Mahomes is great just not under pressure. That's the way I see it Lakerboy. Boring superbowl...

**lakerboy** · 02-09-25, 10:27 PM

Originally posted by 19th Hole

~~~

Not sure what you mean?

"3 peat is mandatory UNLESS you win"

Win 4 out of 5 or 5 out of 7 to be considered a dynasty?

It's pretty self explanatory. KC isn't qualified they didn't win 3 in a row or 4/5. I guess they can try 5/7?

**DrunkHorseplayer** · 02-09-25, 10:35 PM

By today's standards, they are a dynasty; three titles and five SB appearances in six years. I am glad that they lost.

**lakerboy** · 02-09-25, 10:44 PM

Originally posted by DrunkHorseplayer

By today's standards, they are a dynasty; three titles and five SB appearances in six years. I am glad that they lost.

You agreed to the lower standard?

**19th Hole** · 02-09-25, 10:44 PM

Originally posted by lakerboy

It's pretty self explanatory. KC isn't qualified they didn't win 3 in a row or 4/5. I guess they can try 5/7?

~~

Thank You.

KC certainly didn't sniff a dynastic performance today.

**stevenash** · 02-09-25, 10:46 PM

A sports dynasty is a team that dominates their sport for an extended period of time.
Rather vague if you ask me.

New York Islanders were a dynasty from 1979-1985.
They dominated that period.
They went to the Stanley Cup finals five consecutive times, won the first four Cups in a row before losing.

**lakerboy** · 02-09-25, 10:48 PM

Originally posted by stevenash

A sports dynasty is a team that dominates their sport for an extended period of time.
Rather vague if you ask me.

New York Islanders were a dynasty from 1979-1985.
They dominated that period.
They went to the Stanley Cup finals five consecutive times, won the first four Cups in a row before losing.

They were a true dynasty plus they won 4 in a row. Bulls did 2 three peats. Lakers did a 3 peat. Losing like this is ugly.

**ChuckyTheGoat** · 02-09-25, 10:53 PM

Originally posted by stevenash

A sports dynasty is a team that dominates their sport for an extended period of time.
Rather vague if you ask me.

New York Islanders were a dynasty from 1979-1985.
They dominated that period.
They went to the Stanley Cup finals five consecutive times, won the first four Cups in a row before losing.

This is a good topic. I think it varies a little by sport. A few obvious ones come to mind:
*Coll Bask: UCLA - 9 in 10 years
*NBA: Celtics - 9 in 10 years
*NHL: Islanders - 4 straight, Oilers - 4 in 5 years

Other sports like Wrestling: teams can win several titles in a short span of time. Iowa w/ Gable and Penn St w/ Cael have had amazing strings of success.

**ChuckyTheGoat** · 02-09-25, 10:54 PM

NFL is mostly viewed as a league of parity. Never been 3-straight in the SB era.

4 in 6 years is my criteria. History will dictate whether the Chiefs qualify. They can come back next year, but it's gonna be tough.

**lakerboy** · 02-09-25, 11:03 PM

Chiefs have been outscored in the Superbowl games right?

**stevenash** · 02-09-25, 11:10 PM

Originally posted by ChuckyTheGoat

This is a good topic. I think it varies a little by sport. A few obvious ones come to mind:
*Coll Bask: UCLA - 9 in 10 years
*NBA: Celtics - 9 in 10 years
*NHL: Islanders - 4 straight, Oilers - 4 in 5 years

Other sports like Wrestling: teams can win several titles in a short span of time. Iowa w/ Gable and Penn St w/ Cael have had amazing strings of success.

Geno's women just might be the greatest dynasty of them all.

**johnnyvegas13** · 02-09-25, 11:25 PM

Laker what’s ur point

u had no play pre game posted

**lakerboy** · 02-09-25, 11:32 PM

Originally posted by johnnyvegas13

Laker what’s ur point

u had no play pre game posted

I gave you the odds on KC to trail and win. How often do books pay on + money? You should know that as a plus money bettor with a 16% winning record.

Cheers

**S0BRiquet** · 02-10-25, 12:09 AM

For the way they toss "dynasty" around in recent years, I'd give to KC. Five SB in 6 years earns it. Very difficult to do. This is as good as what Steelers did in 70's and nobody ever disagreed with their status.

**S0BRiquet** · 02-10-25, 12:12 AM

Football is different from hoops, baseball and hockey. It's that one loss and your done problem. Many superior teams have lost Game1 of 5 or 7 game series but regrouped and went on to take series and advance.

**DrunkHorseplayer** · 02-10-25, 01:54 AM

Originally posted by lakerboy

Chiefs have been outscored in the Superbowl games right?

Irrelevant. Winning or losing by one is as good or bad as by a hundred, especially in the title game.

**alecmatt5** · 02-10-25, 04:08 AM

Originally posted by lakerboy

People can argue whatever way they want but IMO this is how it should be

3 peat is mandatory UNLESS you win

4/5.

5/7 gets you in as well but honestly NEVER losing a final is really helpful

Such a weird take. First off let me say I'm not a Chiefs fan, so I really don't care on that level, but this is so dumb. No NFL team has ever won 3 SB in a row so holding them to that standard is ridiculous. Also I'll never understand the people who think that losing in the SB is somehow worse than not even making it.

People clearly hate the Chiefs and are using this game to take a victory lap but they won 3 of 5 and have been in 5 of the 6. Not really sure why everyone is so quick to discredit them.

Patriots second time around they won 3 of 5 but were only in 4 and no one is arguing they weren't a 'dynasty'

**JAKEPEAVY21** · 02-10-25, 08:30 AM

Not a Chiefs fan either, in fact I loathe them. That said, agree with those defending them here as making 5/6 Superbowls while winning 3 of them is a dominant stretch.

**franklee168** · 02-10-25, 09:07 AM

3 out of 5 but I'm talking about a different sport.

**lakerboy** · 02-10-25, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by S0BRiquet

For the way they toss "dynasty" around in recent years, I'd give to KC. Five SB in 6 years earns it. Very difficult to do. This is as good as what Steelers did in 70's and nobody ever disagreed with their status.

How many super bowls did the Steelers lose in that run?

**lakerboy** · 02-10-25, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by alecmatt5

Such a weird take. First off let me say I'm not a Chiefs fan, so I really don't care on that level, but this is so dumb. No NFL team has ever won 3 SB in a row so holding them to that standard is ridiculous. Also I'll never understand the people who think that losing in the SB is somehow worse than not even making it.

People clearly hate the Chiefs and are using this game to take a victory lap but they won 3 of 5 and have been in 5 of the 6. Not really sure why everyone is so quick to discredit them.

Patriots second time around they won 3 of 5 but were only in 4 and no one is arguing they weren't a 'dynasty'

Chiefs have had a great run the last 6 years. I certainly can't deny that. Getting blown out in two Superbowls doesn't look good and they barely won two other bowls. Pats were dominant over a long period of time and I never called them a dynasty either. They went ten years without winning. They had two great dominant stretches.

The steelers can lay some sort of claim to the dynasty thing because NEVER lost. This is the thing people are not understanding. You can't lose two out of 5 bowls and be a dynasty IMO. A 60% record is C-.

Dynasty is thrown around too much. The islanders in the early 80s were a dynasty. The Lakers with Shaq and Kobe were a dynasty. The Oilers were one probably but they didn't win 3 in a row.

Those are my standards everyone is entitled to their own.

**EvagorasP** · 02-10-25, 12:19 PM

Dynasty shmynasty.

By my standard Mahomes is the most amazing athlete this sport has ever seen, similar to Lebron James in basketball. As much as I hate the NFL rule changes that protect players from injuries, being able to see #15 on the football field for an extra 3-4 years because he won't get murdered by a linebacker, kind of makes up for it.

And whatever the highest 'team award' fans or journalists have come up or will come up with in the future - the Chiefs certainly qualify. They are, thanks to selecting The One 10th overall in the 2017 NFL Draft, already among top 4-5 NFL top teams in history (Superbowl Era), will most likely be top 2 by the time Mahomes and Reid are done, and have at least 20-25% chance to be the greatest ever - possibly by some margin.

I doubt you were this outspoken a year ago. Or two years ago, lakerboy.

**lakerboy** · 02-10-25, 01:22 PM

I forgot to mention the bulls of course they were definitely a dynasty.

**ChuckyTheGoat** · 02-10-25, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by lakerboy

I forgot to mention the bulls of course they were definitely a dynasty.

Good one, Laker. 6 in 8 years. And the two misses come w/ asterisks.*

*No Jordan and then Jordan coming back from time-off.

**Eddy Munny** · 02-10-25, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by lakerboy

They were a true dynasty plus they won 4 in a row. Bulls did 2 three peats. Lakers did a 3 peat. Losing like this is ugly.

You can't compare hockey and basketball to football. In a 7-game series you have greater margin for error, teams can impose their superiority over such a span. In the NFL, you have one bad day at the office or come in with a crooked game-plan and you're cooked. It's much harder to sustain postseason dominance in the NFL.

By all reasonable measures the Chiefs are/were a dynasty.

**lakerboy** · 02-10-25, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by Eddy Munny

You can't compare hockey and basketball to football. In a 7-game series you have greater margin for error, teams can impose their superiority over such a span. In the NFL, you have one bad day at the office or come in with a crooked game-plan and you're cooked. It's much harder to sustain postseason dominance in the NFL.

By all reasonable measures the Chiefs are/were a dynasty.

You can go both ways on it. Winning 16 games vs 3 maybe 4? Superbowl has been dominated by a selection of very few teams. The Stanley Cup is the hardest trophy to win. Brutal travel over a two month stretch with games that go to multiple ots. NBA because you only need a few guys to be great on a small roster I agree has very little parity and home court is such a huge advantage.

**ChuckyTheGoat** · 02-10-25, 10:49 PM

Originally posted by lakerboy

You can go both ways on it. Winning 16 games vs 3 maybe 4? Superbowl has been dominated by a selection of very few teams. The Stanley Cup is the hardest trophy to win. Brutal travel over a two month stretch with games that go to multiple ots. NBA because you only need a few guys to be great on a small roster I agree has very little parity and home court is such a huge advantage.

Laker, going to ask you a very technical question based on your Hockey knowledge. How highly do you rate the Islander teams from 1980 to 1983?

1) They weren't ALWAYS the best Regular Season in that span.
2) To your point on hockey, it's a game of fine margins. Need to be good but also need to be lucky.
3) What stuck out to me on the Islanders was the toughness. As veterans, they put everything into it.
In my mind they were good but not the most skilled. They succeeded on a lot of grit. I'd rate the Edmonton teams as much better for pure skill.

Gretzky's story from 1983 sticks out to me. Islanders sweep EDM, 4-0. Gretzky goes to the Islander locker room to congratulate the players.

He expects to hear a party atmosphere where they're celebrating. No, it's silent, almost like a morgue. He walks into the Trainer's room. He sees four guys on training tables. I THINK it was Potvin, Gillies, Trottier and Goring.

They're not saying a word. Each guy has ice bags on his knees. And each guy is drinking a can of beer.

**lakerboy** · 02-11-25, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by ChuckyTheGoat

Laker, going to ask you a very technical question based on your Hockey knowledge. How highly do you rate the Islander teams from 1980 to 1983?

1) They weren't ALWAYS the best Regular Season in that span.
2) To your point on hockey, it's a game of fine margins. Need to be good but also need to be lucky.
3) What stuck out to me on the Islanders was the toughness. As veterans, they put everything into it.
In my mind they were good but not the most skilled. They succeeded on a lot of grit. I'd rate the Edmonton teams as much better for pure skill.

Gretzky's story from 1983 sticks out to me. Islanders sweep EDM, 4-0. Gretzky goes to the Islander locker room to congratulate the players.

He expects to hear a party atmosphere where they're celebrating. No, it's silent, almost like a morgue. He walks into the Trainer's room. He sees four guys on training tables. I THINK it was Potvin, Gillies, Trottier and Goring.

They're not saying a word. Each guy has ice bags on his knees. And each guy is drinking a can of beer.

The Islanders were collectively an incredible group of grit. They had so many good two way players that's what separated them from the rest. They had some great talent as well. Oilers definitely had more talent and the Montreal team that preceded the isles had more talent as well.

Isles dynasty I rate highly because more teams were just added into the league and the first round bye was eliminated at that time so they were the first team to win 4 rounds. I believe they won 19 straight playoff series. That record will never be broken.

**ChuckyTheGoat** · 02-11-25, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by lakerboy

The Islanders were collectively an incredible group of grit. They had so many good two way players that's what separated them from the rest. They had some great talent as well. Oilers definitely had more talent and the Montreal team that preceded the isles had more talent as well.

Isles dynasty I rate highly because more teams were just added into the league and the first round bye was eliminated at that time so they were the first team to win 4 rounds. I believe they won 19 straight playoff series. That record will never be broken.

Good stuff, Laker. I'll ponder your two-way player comment.

Good point about expansion. Only twelve NHL teams before 1970. And that's when Montreal won most of their Cups.