PDA

View Full Version : If we win another Superbowl would you call us a dynasty?



AllTuckedUp
05-19-2012, 03:14 AM
Personally, I wouldn't. I see a dynasty as a dominant team for many years. If you look at our regular season records we haven't been dominant.

shotcalla39
05-19-2012, 03:18 AM
Yes ... We would be as close to a dynasty as possible in this salary cap parity era.. we've been pretty Damn consistent... We haven't had a losing season since 04 when losing seasons were every other year

giantsfan420
05-19-2012, 03:18 AM
Personally, I don't. I see a dynasty as a dominant team for many years. If you look at our regular season records we haven't been dominant.

If we win another one with this group of guys and coaches in the next 3 yrs, wed be a dynasty w/o a doubt,

I personally believe we e already in dynasty mode, 2 sb wins in four yrs with an extremely young n talented roster with an elite qb...
understand if others dont c it the way i do but im confident the world will c us as a dynasty after next season...if we can even simply get to another sb and not necessarily win, itd be amazing in todays fa era

FBomb
05-19-2012, 09:08 AM
Yes.

SweetZombieJesus
05-19-2012, 09:09 AM
There's no real definition.

The ones that aren't arguable:

60's Packers (5 in 7 years)
70's Steelers (4 in 6 years)
90's Cowboys (3 in 4 years)
00's Patriots (3 in 4 years)

If we can win another one we'd be a lot like the late 70's - early 80's Raiders who won 3 (76 80 83) and the 49ers (81 84 88 89).

I think most people would agree that the Raiders and 49ers were dynasties, right?

paul007
05-19-2012, 12:17 PM
I agree

GMEN023
05-19-2012, 01:12 PM
There's no real definition.

The ones that aren't arguable:

60's Packers (5 in 7 years)
70's Steelers (4 in 6 years)
90's Cowboys (3 in 4 years)
00's Patriots (3 in 4 years)

If we can win another one we'd be a lot like the late 70's - early 80's Raiders who won 3 (76 80 83) and the 49ers (81 84 88 89).

I think most people would agree that the Raiders and 49ers were dynasties, right?


The 49ers were def a dynasty. They had the same core group throughout those years. I don't believe that many people consider the Raiders a dynasty they are often forgotten. They were overshadowed by the Steelers mostly and the 49ers a bit. They also had different coaches and starting QBs.
IDK if I would consider us a dynasty. I guess it depends when we win another one and in what fashion we do it. I think many people won't consider us a dynasty because the perception is we got "hot" during our SB titles and had mediocre regular seasons. We’ll see though. Gotta win the 3rd first.

KidA
05-19-2012, 01:28 PM
If we won the SB again within the next few years I think it would come down to how we do in the playoffs during the non-SB years. To be a dynasty you ought to be a contender throughout most of your era and we haven't quite lived up to that in recent seasons.

Jet-Blue
05-19-2012, 01:52 PM
If we won the SB again within the next few years I think it would come down to how we do in the playoffs during the non-SB years.* To be a dynasty you ought to be a contender throughout most of your era and we haven't quite lived up to that in recent seasons.


I really think you've summed it up. They need to be consistant for a long period of time, right now they are not. Add a few more years going deep into the playoffs and another SB win in 2 or 3 years then yes.

gumby742
05-19-2012, 02:20 PM
Normally, I'd say without a doubt. However, there's one difference between us, if we win another one, and say the Patriots or the Steelers. The Pats and Steelers are good pretty much every year and are a lock to make the playoffs. Since 2007, we've missed the playoffs twice. We aren't what you'd call a convincing team. Dynasties imo, need to be convincing.

There's a reason why we're always getting disrespected.

Consistency is key.

Mohann
05-19-2012, 02:28 PM
Personally, I don't. I see a dynasty as a dominant team for many years. If you look at our regular season records we haven't been dominant.

If we win another one with this group of guys and coaches in the next 3 yrs, wed be a dynasty w/o a doubt,

I personally believe we e already in dynasty mode, 2 sb wins in four yrs with an extremely young n talented roster with an elite qb...
understand if others dont c it the way i do but im confident the world will c us as a dynasty after next season...if we can even simply get to another sb and not necessarily win, itd be amazing in todays fa era

And right here is where the 2 SBs in 4yrs breaks down. You measure dynasties by seasons. The Pats were 3 in 4 seasons, as were the Cowboys. For comparison, we have 2 in 5 seasons, not 2 in 4.

Diamondring
05-19-2012, 02:31 PM
Nope. At least three in a short period of time. The Pats where the last team that I know of that had a dynasty.

SweetZombieJesus
05-19-2012, 04:32 PM
Normally, I'd say without a doubt. However, there's one difference between us, if we win another one, and say the Patriots or the Steelers. The Pats and Steelers are good pretty much every year and are a lock to make the playoffs. Since 2007, we've missed the playoffs twice. We aren't what you'd call a convincing team. Dynasties imo, need to be convincing.

There's a reason why we're always getting disrespected.

Consistency is key.

Good points but there is some mitigation to be said.

On the Pats and Steelers and 49ers -- dominating the division is key. The Pats have owned the AFC East lock stock and barrel largely because the rest of the franchises are pathetic. Not that the Pats aren't good, they are, but they fatten up on the crappy teams in their division and pretty much cakewalk to the division title. Same of the 49ers, the rest of the NFC West was abysmal. As for the Steelers I don't remember what the division looked like in the late 70s but probably Browns, Bengals for starters.

Hard to dominate the NFC East... The Jimmy Johnson era Cowboy dynasty got lucky in that the Giants and Redskins (coming off consecutive Super Bowl wins themselves, I might add) got old real fast.

On our consistency, it looks worse than it is.

- No losing seasons since 2004
- Record since 2005 is something like 68-44
- Made playoffs 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2011 (and deserved to at 10-6 in 2010). That leaves one season where we didn't deserve the playoffs during our run, 2009.
- 8-3 playoff record
- Won division 3x
- Start off 6-2 every year (except 2008, 7-1)

Not exactly the 70s Steelers but consistent in their own inconsistent way.

SweetZombieJesus
05-19-2012, 04:37 PM
And right here is where the 2 SBs in 4yrs breaks down. You measure dynasties by seasons. The Pats were 3 in 4 seasons, as were the Cowboys. For comparison, we have 2 in 5 seasons, not 2 in 4.


This is why I asked about the Raiders (76-80-83).

Also, note the 49ers dynasty (81-84-88-89). I think it's the back-to-back at the end that cements it. If they didn't win in 89, would 81-84-88 be good enough to call them a dynasty? Does anybody remember if the press called them a dynasty when they won in 88?

chasjay
05-19-2012, 04:45 PM
Are there Elite Dynasties that we have to differentiate from regular old run-of-the-mill dynasties? I get so confused!!

WHEN we win another Super Bowl, I'll be shickled titless - that's all I know!

Mohann
05-19-2012, 04:51 PM
And right here is where the 2 SBs in 4yrs breaks down. You measure dynasties by seasons. The Pats were 3 in 4 seasons, as were the Cowboys. For comparison, we have 2 in 5 seasons, not 2 in 4.


This is why I asked about the Raiders (76-80-83).

Also, note the 49ers dynasty (81-84-88-89). I think it's the back-to-back at the end that cements it. If they didn't win in 89, would 81-84-88 be good enough to call them a dynasty? Does anybody remember if the press called them a dynasty when they won in 88?


I think SF needed the 4th because of the gaps, I think we'll need a 4th and back to back somewhere to be a dynasty. I do not consider the Raiders a Dynasty. Or even us if we win this year, we'll still need another, in my mind, to be a dynasty.

RagTime Blue
05-19-2012, 04:54 PM
Well, 2 dynasties can't rule at the same time, so a lot of it depends on what a few other teams do. If the Pats win, or the Steelers or Packers (or Saints??), it will diminish our claim to "Dynasty".

titwio
05-19-2012, 04:57 PM
I would consider it if the Giants were dominant this year and closed it out the same...

If they were to win like last year and 07 then...no, I wouldn't consider them a dynasty. Dynasty's are elite for a period of time and are dominant teams. The Giants have been up and down through the courses of their championship runs in the regular season.

bigblue58
05-19-2012, 05:29 PM
Personally, I wouldn't. I see a dynasty as a dominant team for many years. If you look at our regular season records we haven't been dominant..

A dynasty dominates a decade or wins an unprecedented number of titles in their history like the Yankees.
I'm quite satisfied with the number of SB's thus far and the manner in which we won them. I don't give a hoot about things like Dynasty's or who's in the top 100 in 2012. I take it one season at a time and i look forward to each new one to see what surprises are in store.

Roswell777
05-19-2012, 06:38 PM
If they won this year...

Two in a row, three in six years, same core with respect to the high profile QB and D line, same coaching staff...

Seems like a dynasty to me.

giantsfan420
05-19-2012, 07:33 PM
Normally, I'd say without a doubt. However, there's one difference between us, if we win another one, and say the Patriots or the Steelers. The Pats and Steelers are good pretty much every year and are a lock to make the playoffs. Since 2007, we've missed the playoffs twice. We aren't what you'd call a convincing team. Dynasties imo, need to be convincing.

There's a reason why we're always getting disrespected.

Consistency is key.

We havent had a losing season since 05, and one of the two missed playoffs, we won ten games.

We r a consistently solid team year to year. Just not able to overcome every obstacle...we make it to another sb we r a dynasty, win another one its a lock. Fa era makes it almost impossible to be as successful as we have been.

Drez
05-19-2012, 09:22 PM
Well, 2 dynasties can't rule at the same time, so a lot of it depends on what a few other teams do. If the Pats win, or the Steelers or Packers (or Saints??), it will diminish our claim to "Dynasty".

No, I don't think it would... But, for ether of those teams to establish themselves as a dynasty it'd be at the cost of ours. Think about it, it's been 3 years since NO won their SB and in one of the intervening years they lost to the only team to have ever made the playoffs with a losing record.

GB had their "repeat" year ended by us. In their house.

Both NO and GB need to win a couple more to enter in the discussion. so we're already ahead of them in that respect.

The Pats are completely irrelevant in this discussion for two main reasons. One being they play in the other conference. There can definitely be two concurrent dynasties with one in each conference. The other reason is that two of our SB wins have come at the expense of the Pats.

Drez
05-19-2012, 09:24 PM
Personally, I wouldn't. I see a dynasty as a dominant team for many years. If you look at our regular season records we haven't been dominant..

A dynasty dominates a decade or wins an unprecedented number of titles in their history like the Yankees.
I'm quite satisfied with the number of SB's thus far and the manner in which we won them. I don't give a hoot about things like Dynasty's or who's in the top 100 in 2012. I take it one season at a time and i look forward to each new one to see what surprises are in store.
So, winning 3 titles in 6 or 7 seasons, making the playoffs 7 out of 10 years, winning the division at least 3 times in 10 years, and having the best record in the conference since 2004 isn't dominating a decade?

JJC7301
05-19-2012, 11:46 PM
Yes I would. A third SB over the next few years with many of the key players still on the team and most of the same coaches, I certainly would.

miked1958
05-20-2012, 12:50 AM
I agreeAnd I am going to agree with you

Diamondring
05-20-2012, 01:54 AM
I would consider it if the Giants were dominant this year and closed it out the same...

If they were to win like last year and 07 then...no, I wouldn't consider them a dynasty. Dynasty's are elite for a period of time and are dominant teams. The Giants have been up and down through the courses of their championship runs in the regular season.To have a dynasty, the team has got to produce championships within a small amount of time. They don't have to be dominant at it especially not in these days and times.

Yet if you look at the Giants play in the playoffs last year, they beaten Greenbay by a good amount and Greenbay was one of the best teams that beaten the Giants a good amount of times. I say if the Giants can win a Superbopwl this year or next, then they have that dynasty because they produce championships in a small mount if time..

Dorkasaurus
05-20-2012, 08:29 AM
Personally, I wouldn't. I see a dynasty as a dominant team for many years. If you look at our regular season records we haven't been dominant.

Regrular season only gets you the the playoff it is what you do there that shows you are dominant. In our two SB wins we beat the most dominant reagular season teams...The Pats at 18-0 and GB at 15-1.

So I say one more SB in the next 2-3 Years and yeah you could look at the Giants as having a Dynasty....

gumby742
05-21-2012, 10:17 AM
Normally, I'd say without a doubt. However, there's one difference between us, if we win another one, and say the Patriots or the Steelers. The Pats and Steelers are good pretty much every year and are a lock to make the playoffs. Since 2007, we've missed the playoffs twice. We aren't what you'd call a convincing team. Dynasties imo, need to be convincing. There's a reason why we're always getting disrespected. Consistency is key. We havent had a losing season since 05, and one of the two missed playoffs, we won ten games. We r a consistently solid team year to year. Just not able to overcome every obstacle...we make it to another sb we r a dynasty, win another one its a lock. Fa era makes it almost impossible to be as successful as we have been.</P>


Problem is that dynasties in general are convincing teams. They dominate. How many division titles have we won? How many years going into the playoffs did we feel really good about our team. For me, the ONLY year we had a great team was 2008. The rest of the years, we whimpered into the playoffs.</P>


There's a reason why we're always being disrespected. We don't play consistent, dominant football.</P>

Morehead State
05-21-2012, 10:43 AM
Personally, I wouldn't. I see a dynasty as a dominant team for many years. If you look at our regular season records we haven't been dominant.</P>


We've lowered the standards for so many things.....why not add dynasties to that list?</P>


</P>


In other words....No.</P>


A sports Dynasty is the Celtics, Canadians, Yankees (all in their eras). Not a team that wins 3 SB's in 7 years and struggles otherwise.</P>


Its complete nonsense. Lets just enjoy the fact that we are champs for God's sake.</P>

JimC
05-21-2012, 11:08 AM
Dynasties.......I hate that word. Are discussed ONLY in historical reference. In other words they have to have happened already. Dynasties are discussion points nothing more.

Geez....lets just try and win football games instead of worrying about what the New York Giants legacy is going to be in 10 years.

GMENAGAIN
05-21-2012, 11:12 AM
If we win another SB with Eli at the helm, I won't give a **** whatanyone calls it!

bigblue58
05-21-2012, 11:39 AM
Personally, I wouldn't. I see a dynasty as a dominant team for many years. If you look at our regular season records we haven't been dominant..

A dynasty dominates a decade or wins an unprecedented number of titles in their history like the Yankees.
I'm quite satisfied with the number of SB's thus far and the manner in which we won them. I don't give a hoot about things like Dynasty's or who's in the top 100 in 2012. I take it one season at a time and i look forward to each new one to see what surprises are in store.
So, winning 3 titles in 6 or 7 seasons, making the playoffs 7 out of 10 years, winning the division at least 3 times in 10 years, and having the best record in the conference since 2004 isn't dominating a decade?


You only read half my post because my main point was that I couldn't care less about being thought of as a dynasty! Titles like that are unimportant to me.....I couldn't care less.
The only title that matters to me is "REIGNING CHAMPIONS"!
And no......you can't realistically consider just making the playoffs enough in the years when we were one and done. We keep telling the Jets fans to zip it about the 2 straight AFCCG they went to because they lost both of them. Just making the post season is enough for the Giants but nobody else? Cmon man...you have to be fair and keep the rules the same for everyone.
Are the Bills a dynasty for making 4 consecutive SB's? No, because they lost all 4...so how can the Giants be considered a dynasty for just making the playoffs? Thats why this debate and other debates like it are so meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

JimC
05-21-2012, 11:40 AM
If we win another SB with Eli at the helm, I won't give a **** whatanyone calls it!

I like this logic!

JimC
05-21-2012, 11:41 AM
Personally, I wouldn't. I see a dynasty as a dominant team for many years. If you look at our regular season records we haven't been dominant..

A dynasty dominates a decade or wins an unprecedented number of titles in their history like the Yankees.
I'm quite satisfied with the number of SB's thus far and the manner in which we won them. I don't give a hoot about things like Dynasty's or who's in the top 100 in 2012. I take it one season at a time and i look forward to each new one to see what surprises are in store.
So, winning 3 titles in 6 or 7 seasons, making the playoffs 7 out of 10 years, winning the division at least 3 times in 10 years, and having the best record in the conference since 2004 isn't dominating a decade?


You only read half my post because my main point was that I couldn't care less about being thought of as a dynasty! Titles like that are unimportant to me.....I couldn't care less.
<font color="#0000FF" size="5">The only title that matters to me is "REIGNING CHAMPIONS"!</font>
And no......you can't realistically consider just making the playoffs enough in the years when we were one and done. We keep telling the Jets fans to zip it about the 2 straight AFCCG they went to because they lost both of them. Just making the post season is enough for the Giants but nobody else? Cmon man...you have to be fair and keep the rules the same for everyone.
Are the Bills a dynasty for making 4 consecutive SB's? No, because they lost all 4...so how can the Giants be considered a dynasty for just making the playoffs? Thats why this debate and other debates like it are so meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

Amen!

titwio
05-21-2012, 04:34 PM
If we win another SB with Eli at the helm, I won't give a **** what*anyone calls it!

Probably because it'll just be called luck like the rest of their SB victories and the Cowboys or Eagles will just be the favorites the following season.

Giants fans in general shouldn't give a ****

G-Man67
05-21-2012, 04:38 PM
if we win the Super Bowl this season we are absolutely a dynasty by today's (post FA/Salary Cap) standards</P>


that would mean we woulda won half of all the Super Bowls since 2008</P>

keyofgmen
05-21-2012, 06:53 PM
3 in 4 or 4 in 6 is baseline.

burier
05-23-2012, 05:24 PM
You can't miss the playoffs completely in the middle of your dynasty or....you are NOT a dynasty PERIOD.

Edit:

In our case. say we win the Superbowl this season. To suggest a Dynasty that goes back to 07 would be to suggest that we were a dynasty despite. a 1 and done appearence in the playoffs, Followed by back to back seasons without a playoff appearence.

Sorry but there is no way anyone other than homer Giants fans will consider us a Dynasty with that resume.

We have a chance to go back-to-back which puts us in very exclusive company and would be a great foundation for a Dynasty....if we did build a Dynasty is wouldn't include anything prior to the 2011 season.