U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Pro Football
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: The greatest NFL dynasty of the SB era
Dallas Cowboys 1 3.57%
Green Bay Packers 1 3.57%
New England Patriots 18 64.29%
Pittsburgh Steelers 4 14.29%
San Francisco 49ers 4 14.29%
Voters: 28. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-17-2018, 04:16 AM
 
15,396 posts, read 5,215,456 times
Reputation: 5915

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by SonnyCrockett View Post
Then you have a very different definition than probably most football fans when it comes to the definition of "dynasty". No way in hell can I put the Giants of any era in that category. They are one of the top franchises between 1986 and present. No question. 4 Super Bowl wins, 5 appearances. The 86 Giants are one of the great one year teams ever. But there has to be sustained success with some sort of similar characters (coaches/players) to be called a dynasty. For four seasons between the Super Bowl victories of 1986 and 1990 for example, the Giants won ZERO playoff games and had ONE playoff appearance. Between 2007 and 2011, ironically, they duplicated those exact numbers in that four year span. After 1990 until the 2000 NFC Title game, they won again just ONE playoff game with just TWO appearances. Since 2000, the Giants have won playoff games in exactly TWO seasons only- granted of course, they made the most of those years which they did during the Coughlin regime. In no way do I think of any era of New York Giants football as being a dynasty compared to those 70s Dolphin teams, nor the Redskins under Gibbs, even with three different Super Bowl winning QBs.
If you have the Skins ,you must have the Giants , for the exact same reasons will will include the Raiders.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-17-2018, 05:04 AM
 
929 posts, read 296,681 times
Reputation: 799
Quote:
Originally Posted by DOUBLE H View Post
^^^^Lots of good points!^^^^

Without a doubt, I believe Miami could have taken it to 1975 regarding their Super Bowl run of the early 1970's. When the Memphis Southmen of the WFL signed Warfield, Kiick, and Csonka, no doubt it hurt the Dolphins offense. Keep in mind this--in those days players salaries for journeyman players were in the $30-$40 thousand dollar range. And those players worked off season jobs.

Dolphin owner Joe Robbie also had a reputation of being cheap. I didn't realize just how cheap he was until I saw on the Showtime Channel "Full Color Football-The History Of The American Football League." Runnin back Joe Auer told a story of head coach George Wilson sending Auer to a dry cleaners to pick up an order of team clothing. And Auer ran into a problem with the business regarding payment and had to wind up paying for the clothing out of his own pocket. And it took him a while to get repaid! Sheesh!
Great story. Ironically, the Dolphins were so much better under Robbie than with Wayne Huizenga and Stephen Ross, but economics generally matter way more in running a professional team than they use to. Today's modern day version of Joe Robbie would have to be the Brown family and how they have run the Bengals thru the years.

The Dolphins sure seem to have been bitten with bad luck since that Sea of Hands game. The WFL situation and then while they were a contender most years thru out the 70s and early-mid 80s, they missed the playoffs I think twice in the late 70s with 10-4 records due to tie breakers vs the Baltimore Colts and not involving head-to-head but more obscure ones; back then there was only one wildcard and four teams per conference that made the playoffs. Then came the heartbreaking divisional playoff losses and Super Bowl loss from 1981 to 1983. Then the 84 Super Bowl and 85 AFC Championship losses with teams that just weren't good enough and deteriorated just as Marino and the Dolphins' aerial assault entered into the league. And since then, mostly average or bad teams and god awful ownership and personnel decisions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2018, 05:31 AM
 
929 posts, read 296,681 times
Reputation: 799
Quote:
Originally Posted by G1.. View Post
If you have the Skins ,you must have the Giants , for the exact same reasons will will include the Raiders.
I thought I was clear about this. Let me spell it out even more specifically. And yes, the reasons are very different. Between 1982 and 1992 (11 seasons), the Redskins won the Super Bowl three times under Gibbs and only missed the playoffs three times. In that time span just in the seasons when the Redskins DID NOT win the Super Bowl, they still managed to sport a 6-5 record, reaching the NFC Championship two other times and Super Bowl one other time.

From 1967 (Super Bowl II year) thru 1985, the Raiders missed the playoffs only FOUR times, many of those seasons encompassing years where only four teams made the playoffs per conference. For eleven seasons from 1967 thru 1977, the Raiders won playoff games in NINE of those seasons. And every season that they did make the playoffs from 1973 thru 1983, the Raiders won at least one playoff game, including three Super Bowl triumphs from 1976 thru 1983 and a 12-2 playoff record. From 1967 thru 1983, it is 19-10.

No Super Bowl era of New York Giants football remotely comes close to those numbers. The Giants the last 30 plus years have won more Super Bowls and made the most out of their playoff appearances. They can be argued to be the better franchise, even with the crappy teams they put on the field for eons before Parcells arrived. But I don't look at any of the franchise's existence in the Super Bowl years as being one thought of as a dynasty, nor have I ever seen it referred to as such when the dynasty discussion comes up on NFL special segments, etc... .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2018, 06:09 PM
 
15,396 posts, read 5,215,456 times
Reputation: 5915
Quote:
Originally Posted by SonnyCrockett View Post
I thought I was clear about this. Let me spell it out even more specifically. And yes, the reasons are very different. Between 1982 and 1992 (11 seasons), the Redskins won the Super Bowl three times under Gibbs and only missed the playoffs three times. In that time span just in the seasons when the Redskins DID NOT win the Super Bowl, they still managed to sport a 6-5 record, reaching the NFC Championship two other times and Super Bowl one other time.

From 1967 (Super Bowl II year) thru 1985, the Raiders missed the playoffs only FOUR times, many of those seasons encompassing years where only four teams made the playoffs per conference. For eleven seasons from 1967 thru 1977, the Raiders won playoff games in NINE of those seasons. And every season that they did make the playoffs from 1973 thru 1983, the Raiders won at least one playoff game, including three Super Bowl triumphs from 1976 thru 1983 and a 12-2 playoff record. From 1967 thru 1983, it is 19-10.

No Super Bowl era of New York Giants football remotely comes close to those numbers. The Giants the last 30 plus years have won more Super Bowls and made the most out of their playoff appearances. They can be argued to be the better franchise, even with the crappy teams they put on the field for eons before Parcells arrived. But I don't look at any of the franchise's existence in the Super Bowl years as being one thought of as a dynasty, nor have I ever seen it referred to as such when the dynasty discussion comes up on NFL special segments, etc... .
I see you are counting the strike seasons that the Skins were in the super bowl.I don't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2018, 06:31 PM
 
929 posts, read 296,681 times
Reputation: 799
Quote:
Originally Posted by G1.. View Post
I see you are counting the strike seasons that the Skins were in the super bowl.I don't.
Really? I don't know, that seems harsh. They seemed to be the best team in 1982 either way and there were no byes for that playoff season. Every playoff participant had to play three games to reach the Super Bowl. 1987 was still a 12 game season with regular players and I don't recall any team ultimately benefitting in the grand scheme of things, because it had an exceptional "scab" team. They caught a break via the Niners' upset loss to the Vikings with a hobbling Joe Montana being benched, but that isn't something Washington controlled.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2018, 06:58 PM
 
Location: Greensboro, NC
5,756 posts, read 4,231,898 times
Reputation: 3829
Quote:
Originally Posted by G1.. View Post
I see you are counting the strike seasons that the Skins were in the super bowl.I don't.
That's dumb. If it were your Giants, you would most definitely be counting those strike years. After all, the '87 strike was not a shortened year.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2018, 06:44 AM
 
15,396 posts, read 5,215,456 times
Reputation: 5915
Quote:
Originally Posted by SonnyCrockett View Post
Really? I don't know, that seems harsh. They seemed to be the best team in 1982 either way and there were no byes for that playoff season. Every playoff participant had to play three games to reach the Super Bowl. 1987 was still a 12 game season with regular players and I don't recall any team ultimately benefitting in the grand scheme of things, because it had an exceptional "scab" team. They caught a break via the Niners' upset loss to the Vikings with a hobbling Joe Montana being benched, but that isn't something Washington controlled.
All I am saying is you are talking "Dynasty" right,then those years don't count in the discussion ,do they count for real yes of course but not in this case.Giants went to the Super Bowl 3 times in eleven years won it twice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2018, 07:17 AM
 
929 posts, read 296,681 times
Reputation: 799
Quote:
Originally Posted by G1.. View Post
All I am saying is you are talking "Dynasty" right,then those years don't count in the discussion ,do they count for real yes of course but not in this case.Giants went to the Super Bowl 3 times in eleven years won it twice.
my head is spinning. They don't count. But they do count for real. But not in this case. Compelling case you make.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2018, 01:29 PM
 
16,527 posts, read 20,975,025 times
Reputation: 47970
I don't quite know about what makes a "dynasty" here, but for the record lets compare where both clubs wound up.

G1..'s case for the NY Giants (2000-2011)---12 seasons---(3 losing seasons and 2 break even seasons)

2000-12-4
2001- 7-9
2002- 10-6
2003- 4-12
2004- 6-10
2005- 11-5
2006- 8-8
2007- 10-6
2008- 12-4
2009- 8-8
2010- 10-6
2011- 9-7

Skinsguy37's case for the Washington Redskins (1982-1991) (10 seasons--1 losing season)

1982- 8-1
1983- 14-2
1984- 11-5
1985- 10-6
1986- 12-4
1987- 11-4
1988- 7-9
1989- 10-6
1990- 10-6
1991- 14-2

I believe Washington's 10 year run is better than New York's twelve year run.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2018, 03:11 PM
 
15,396 posts, read 5,215,456 times
Reputation: 5915
Quote:
Originally Posted by DOUBLE H View Post
I don't quite know about what makes a "dynasty" here, but for the record lets compare where both clubs wound up.

G1..'s case for the NY Giants (2000-2011)---12 seasons---(3 losing seasons and 2 break even seasons)

2000-12-4
2001- 7-9
2002- 10-6
2003- 4-12
2004- 6-10
2005- 11-5
2006- 8-8
2007- 10-6
2008- 12-4
2009- 8-8
2010- 10-6
2011- 9-7

Skinsguy37's case for the Washington Redskins (1982-1991) (10 seasons--1 losing season)

1982- 8-1
1983- 14-2
1984- 11-5
1985- 10-6
1986- 12-4
1987- 11-4
1988- 7-9
1989- 10-6
1990- 10-6
1991- 14-2

I believe Washington's 10 year run is better than New York's twelve year run.
Thank you ,you have actually help me. I am only counting 9 seasons for the Skins and 11 season for the Giants. I never said discount the Skins I said if you count them ,then you count the Giants all so.


Redskins have an * by the 82* and 87* season becuase them being the strike season's.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Pro Football
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top