- 05/04/2013, 04:50PM ET
HighwayCrossingFrog said 05/04, 04:50 PM
The real dynasty's..
1. 49ers under Montana..
2. Chicago bulls under Jordan..
3. Edmonton oilers under Wayne..
4. New York Yankees, 96-2000..
5. Lakers 3 peat.. With Kobe and Shaquille..
6. Pats winning 3 of 4 in early 2000s..
7. Lakers under magic..
8. Celts under bird..
The notch below dynasty's..
1. Lakers win 2 of 3 with gasol and Kobe..
2. Spurs under Duncan..
3. Red Sox from 2003- 2008.. 2 titles, and a sick team..
4. Houston rockets winning back to back..
5. Toronto blue jays winning back to back..
6. San Fran giants winning 2 titles in impressive fashion..
7. St. Louis winning 2 titles in relatively impressive fashion..
8. Detroit red wings in the late 90's..
9. Big bens steelers, 2 titles..
10. Detroit pistons under rodman..
The consistent dynasty's with bad taste..
1. Atlanta braves, 1 of 15..
2. Eli mannings giants.. 2 titles.. Needs a mention..
3. Peyton's colts.. Won a ton of games, but only one title..
3. Buffalo bills, 4 straight sbs
4. Cleveland Indians.. From 95-2001, that was a damn sick team..
5. Utah jazz, under Stockton and Malone..
6. Packers under favre.. 1 title but a lot of playoffs..
Mrlns Fn said 05/05, 12:47 AM
Not gonna make a ton of changes; just gonna bump up a couple of teams into the "real dynasty" category. Additional "real" dynasties:
No ****-ing way they belong in the same category as Rodman's Pistons and Big Ben's Steelers. That's an insult, to be frank. The Triplets' Cowboys were as dominant an NFL team as I've seen in my lifetime, with a nod to the 49ers, who won more Super Bowls but had a losing record against Dallas in 90's era postseason games.
Four rings. That fact alone indicates a pretty good chance of Duncan's Spurs ' dynastic-ness, or whatever. Duncan also has a higher career winning percentage than any other player in NBA history (minimum 1,000 games) at right around 70%. If the Duncan era Spurs aren't a dynasty I don't know what is.
Thought about Yzerman's Red Wings for the real dynasty category but honestly I don't know enough about the history of the NHL to validate such an entry.
And lastly, you can't put Atlanta in the last category with the Bills and Jazz. The Braves actually won a World Series in that era. Notch below dynasty.
HighwayCrossingFrog said 05/05, 09:53 AM
I totally forgot about dem cowboys ha ha..
I would have put them at number 5 in the real dynasty's..
That was a fantastic team with the rings to prove it..
My only problem with the Duncan spurs..
Is that they will always be considered as the second prettiest in their generation, behind the Shaquille and Kobe lakers..
You can not be considered a real dynasty if you play second fiddle..
In the real dynasty category..
My teams were the ones that gave out the spankings..
The 2000-02 lakers sent Duncan's spurs out back to the whooping shed..
I feel I put the red wings in the right category..
They were a sick team..
But they come no where near the dominance of Edmonton..
2 titles back to back, and one in 2002.. It's just not good enough to make the elite..
I probably should have put them higher in the notch below category to number 1..
But whatever, I'm not a hockey guy..
1 out of 15 is a horrible ratio..
It's like you have a crush on a super model that is balding..
Number one in the third category is perfect..
The bills and jazz, are teams that our generation will remember till we die..
Mrlns Fn said 05/05, 04:44 PM
Alright so we agree that the Boys were a real dynasty then. No point in laboring over Dallas, so...
I disagree that the Spurs played second fiddle to the Lakers during the Duncan era. Granted the Lakers have won five titles to the Spurs four, but those were two completely separate Lakers teams.
The Shaq/Kobe Lakers won a trio, obviously, back to back, and then Kobe's Lakers won two titles several years later at the end of the decade. In my opinion, the Shaq/Kobe Lakers played second fiddle to Duncan's Spurs and then several years later Kobe's Lakers won a pair of titles.
In the Duncan era, the Spurs and Lakers have faced off in seven playoff series. LA won four, SA won three.
Overall the Lakers have been slightly more successful (one additional title, one additional playoff series win) but the difference is negligible and doesn't take away from San Antonio's dynasty.
Both really great team, both true dynasties.
The Red Wings I can concede. I'm no hockey guy, either, so honestly I don't know. All I know is whenever I used to play NHL 94 and all those old hockey games Detroit definitely seemed really good, every year.
And the Braves were better than you say.
HighwayCrossingFrog said 05/06, 11:42 AM
In the third category..
I tried to pick teams, that were nasty, but will go down in history as losers..
The braves fit this to a tee..
While making the playoffs 15 years in a row is fantastic and dynasty like..
1 out of 15.. It's like that girl who looks perfect.. And then she opens her mouth and has really bad brown teeth.. It's not good..
Plus, like I said, this team grossly underachieved..
With Maddox, smoltzie and glavine.. I just don't get it..
Plus they had good bats..
Even I have a better ratio with girls..
If I talk to 15 single girls..
You can damn well bet I'm going to get more than one..
The Duncan spurs watched in horror, the lakers win 3 in a row..
They will always be remembered as runner up in the beauty pageant..
While I appreciate their longevity..
Shaquille and Kobe in their prime would tear their souls apart..
In the real dynasty's, my teams answered to no one..
I picked teams that were head and shoulders above the rest..
It's why I couldn't put gasol and Kobe's team in the real dynasty..
Cause the celts weren't too far behind..
Mrlns Fn said 05/06, 04:33 PM
I guess I can just respond to your Spurs-Lakers argument with much of the same things you said to me.
As the Spurs won four championships the Lakers watched in horror. For those years the Lakers will always be remembered as the runner-up. While I appreciate the Lakers longevity I still know that as of right now the Spurs are infinitely better (hence the sweep) and as of those four years also the Spurs were better.
You didn't pick all the teams that were head and shoulders above the rest. You left out the 90s Cowboys and Duncan Spurs, who were clearly head and shoulders above the rest.
Those are two real dynasties you left out. I added them and therefore my list is more correct than yours.
As far as the Braves... seriously, Frog, you're underrating them like mad.
For one thing, what other team won 15 straight division titles? Hmm?
And we're not talking a weak **** division like the AL West or something, we're talking the NL East. A proud, mighty division, home to the famed Mets and Phillies as well as the upstart Marlins, who despite sucking right now actually won a WS or two during Atlanta's streak.
Good TD, good topic, good luck in the voting.
|2||7#bag _ Com||1098||333||88||75.2%|
|5||Dyhard is a certified stoner||54||25||3||67.7%|
- Awful Announcing
- Free Darko
- Pro Football Talk
- The Big Lead
- Joe Posnanski
- The Sporting Blog
- Big League Stew
- Bugs and Cranks
- Every day Should Be Saturday
- Mr. Irrelevant
- With Leather
- The Sports Hernia