+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 71
  1. #31
    Administrator Die-Hard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,293
    Quote Originally Posted by Cut View Post
    Any player can say anything they want. If the miami dolphins want to go out and say they'll win the next super bowl, they can. They're professional athletes voicing their opinion about what their team has the potential to do. Way better than a dumb fan on a forum saying a 10-6 team that wins a bowl and a 9-7 team that wins a bowl over a span of 5 years qualifies as a dynasty. The closest thing to a dynasty in today's nfl is the packers, probably followed by the patriots.
    Based on what? Regular season records?

    You have no idea what a dynasty in sports is, do you? Dynasties are built around Championships. GB has the potential to become a dynasty because they're obviously a very strong team and they've won a Championship within the last 2 years. The Pats haven't won a thing since Feb 6, 2005

    The Giants, with 2 SB's in a 5 year span, aren't even in the conversation, huh? Theres a big rock in the middle of Philly. On that rock is chiseled the following:

    1960

    Go climb back under it for another 52 years

  2. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by scoopscj View Post
    Love the cartoon . . . .lol

  3. #33
    Bench Player
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Die-Hard View Post
    Based on what? Regular season records?

    You have no idea what a dynasty in sports is, do you? Dynasties are built around Championships. GB has the potential to become a dynasty because they're obviously a very strong team and they've won a Championship within the last 2 years. The Pats haven't won a thing since Feb 6, 2005

    The Giants, with 2 SB's in a 5 year span, aren't even in the conversation, huh? Theres a big rock in the middle of Philly. On that rock is chiseled the following:

    1960

    Go climb back under it for another 52 years
    Dynasties are built on great teams that successfully go out year after year and smack around every team they face. Yes, you win championships when you're better than everyone, but it's about how you play the games too. The patriots were a dynasty, they won bowls and they went 18-1 losing only the super bowl. That's still dominant. They are still dominant, and one of the closest to a dynasty because they still have Brady. They are on the downswing, but i'd still say 2nd closest.
    The packers are on the upswing, possibly. They won the bowl as a 10-6 team, but came out the next year with a 15-1 record. They lose in the playoffs, but that's still a feared team. If they come out the next couple years and do the same thing and add another bowl or two to that record, and yeah i'd call them a dynasty. So they're the closest.
    Dynasties are not teams that go 9-7 and then beat everyone in the playoffs. They're teams that are known to be the best and prove it on a weekly basis. The giants have only won the division 2 years since 2007, and this past division win was with a record of 9-7 (winning by default). That's not dynastic play. Their best record was 2008, and they got beat in the divisional round of the playoffs. No, they're not in the conversation. Niether are the eagles. Shove that rock up your... mouth.

  4. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Cut View Post
    Dynasties are built on great teams that successfully go out year after year and smack around every team they face. Yes, you win championships when you're better than everyone, but it's about how you play the games too. The patriots were a dynasty, they won bowls and they went 18-1 losing only the super bowl. That's still dominant. They are still dominant, and one of the closest to a dynasty because they still have Brady. They are on the downswing, but i'd still say 2nd closest.
    The packers are on the upswing, possibly. They won the bowl as a 10-6 team, but came out the next year with a 15-1 record. They lose in the playoffs, but that's still a feared team. If they come out the next couple years and do the same thing and add another bowl or two to that record, and yeah i'd call them a dynasty. So they're the closest.
    Dynasties are not teams that go 9-7 and then beat everyone in the playoffs. They're teams that are known to be the best and prove it on a weekly basis. The giants have only won the division 2 years since 2007, and this past division win was with a record of 9-7 (winning by default). That's not dynastic play. Their best record was 2008, and they got beat in the divisional round of the playoffs. No, they're not in the conversation. Niether are the eagles. Shove that rock up your... mouth.
    This post is some straight up bull****. 10 years from now, no one remembers the teams that dominated regular seasons did and not win the Super Bowl. If you actually make it, then you will get some level of props. You are not a dynasty if you can't close the deal. Dynasties are defined my Championships, not by almost winning championships. Almost only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. So based on your bogus logic, the late 80's Cleveland Browns are a dynasty. They are recognized historically as a team that did not get the job done despite having great regular season records They aren't praised. They are clowned. I understand that you hate the New York Giants as an eagles fan should. Therefore, your logic is clouded by hate. GTFO of here with this bull****

  5. #35
    Bench Player
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    25
    Ricky, i specifically said that championships and good records have to go hand in hand. If a team over a span of 5 years has 2 bowl wins, 2 bowl losses, and a combined record of 70-10, then yeah, i'd call em a dynasty, even with the lost ships. I think most analysts would agree. Your giants are nowhere near that good.

  6. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Cut View Post
    And one regular season loss away from not making the playoffs. Teams that go 9-7 are not dynasties.

    Lesean McCoy can say whatever he wants. He's the most elusive back in football.
    he can also kiss osi 2 rings

  7. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Cut View Post
    Yeah, take note that i said the packers and patriots are the closest things to dynasties in the nfl today. I didn't say the eagles were. But neither did any of the eagles players. They said they could become a dynasty. But i'm sure you agree with your buddy ricky that two bowls in 5 years, both of which were wildcard teams, qualify the giants to be a dynasty. Go ahead, make that claim, see if i start a thread about it.
    giants won the divsion title in 2011 buddy

  8. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Cut View Post
    Ricky, i specifically said that championships and good records have to go hand in hand. If a team over a span of 5 years has 2 bowl wins, 2 bowl losses, and a combined record of 70-10, then yeah, i'd call em a dynasty, even with the lost ships. I think most analysts would agree. Your giants are nowhere near that good.
    They also didn't get to play the Jets, Bills and Miami twice a year over that 5 year stretch!
    Forget the Past, Live for the Future!

  9. #39
    Bench Player
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by ELITEGIANTS0711 View Post
    giants won the divsion title in 2011 buddy
    this is true

  10. #40
    2 wild card appearances, 2 division titles, and 2 sb rings in the last 5 years. I will take that all day, everyday. Not saying it is a dynasty, but I am cool with it being up for debate.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts