PDA

View Full Version : Eli: Giants haven't done enough to be called a dynasty



RoanokeFan
08-01-2012, 04:47 PM
ELI: GIANTS HAVEN'T DONE ENOUGH TO BE CALLED A DYNASTY (http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/giants/eli_giants_have_not_done_enough_e0sanhBda8bujYkhnL BDXK)

Excerpt: "Don’t use the ‘D’ word in front of Eli Manning.
The Giants quarterback was direct in saying that his team is not a dynasty (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/08/01/eli-manning-giants-are-not-a-dynasty/)in an interview on NFL AM despite them winning two of the past five Super Bowls.


“No, no, we’re not,” Manning said on the NFL Network show. “We had a little break — the two years prior to last year we didn’t make the playoffs. We’ve got work to do. We have good players on this team, we have the potential to be a playoff team and to make a run once we get into the playoffs.” Read more...

Diamondring
08-01-2012, 05:28 PM
I don't need to read more and I am HAPPYYYYY AS HELLLLLLLLLL!!! GO GIANTS!!!!

Antwuan
08-01-2012, 05:31 PM
Go Giants!!!

Go Eli!!!

G-Men4Supes
08-01-2012, 06:00 PM
My definition of a dynasty is winning at least 3 championships over a period as long as 6 years. If a team wins 3 titles during a period in which they are winning at least half the championships in their entire sport, that says dominance and dynasty to me. It's extremely unlikely that any other team would be able to match that success during that time (if they did, you could call them co-dynasties).

So the G-Men have a mini-dynasty going right now (2/5). If they win this year, it would become a dynasty in my eyes. Is suppose a case could be made for extending the time period beyond 6 years, especially if many key players are retained over the entire run.

gumby74
08-01-2012, 06:14 PM
I completely agree with Eli. Dynasties dominate for the most part. Dynasties are consistent. Dynasties also win SBs. Our Giants only qualify for one. We don't dominate nor are we consistent.

Captain Chaos
08-01-2012, 09:25 PM
Now there is a man with perspective....