Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Every 50 Years...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    If I recall, our "Last time the Kansas City Chiefs won a Superbowl picture show thread was based on them winning it. We still have hope that they will lose. There is no excuse for them to win a few SBs while they have Mahones so it is way too early to let them get his 1st one. It will be so Chiefs' like to choke this away. Is that thread in the HOF section? That is our last Chiefs suck hope of the AFC team. Let us keep it alive...GO 49ers!

    Comment


    • #47
      FKC... Go 9ers!!!
      ​​​​​

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by broncosjf View Post
        Holy **** is right...


        There really are...

        Hey guys, let's make a list of all the teams that were almost good enough to be actual winners for a bunch of years in a row. Even though they didn't actually win anything we'll call them a dynasty anyway. I wouldn't have pegged you as the trophy generation type, but I guess in your eyes everyone should get to know what it's like to have a dynasty. It's not fair if only winners get the title right?
        That means that this is Reid's 2nd Dynasty then huh? Oh an then there was the Schottenheimer KC dynasty, they averaged 10 wins per season and made the playoffs 7 out of 9 seasons.

        Also when will this Pittsburgh Dynasty end so some other team will get a chance? They've averaged 10.25 wins per season since 2000 with 2 different HC and 4 different QB's.

        It's an ocean of Dynastys!

        Comment


        • #49
          I’d agree that a few titles are needed before you call it a dynasty (although, you could call the 90s Bills an AFC dynasty).

          Give it a few years!

          Comment


          • #50
            1. I wouldn't want to call the Bills a dynasty, or the Braves...dynasties are about championship runs...that said, KC is primed to become a dynasty.

            2. And...so some here have mentioned keeping talent together once Mahomes gets paid. .....so it's a little premature to go full on about this until the next CBA is signed, but some important things to consider that would lead one to think the dynasty is at hand....The following guys are under contract through 2020:

            Mahomes
            Clark
            Hill
            Mathiue
            Fisher
            Schwartz
            Kelce
            Butker
            Okafor
            Sorenson
            Kpass
            Ward
            Hardman
            Thornhill
            Nahdi
            D. Williams
            (and others)

            ......and of the following are under contract through 2021
            Mahomes
            Clark
            Hill
            Mathieu
            Fisher
            Schwartz
            Kelce
            Okafor
            Butker
            Hardman
            Thornhill
            Nhadi

            .....That's MOST of the team in 2020, and the core is still fully intact in 2021. ....that doesn't even account for the Mahomes contract....these dudes are already SIGNED up.

            we have space, and we have the core guys on lock down.....

            This also doesn't include Chris Jones.....either we sign that guy this offseason to an extension, or we franchise and trade.

            We are in great shape. The dynasty is at hand.

            there simply is no other team in the AFC for sure, and probalby not in the entire leauge, better set up for sustained success over the next 2-3 years. Period.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Zerovoltz View Post
              1. I wouldn't want to call the Bills a dynasty, or the Braves...dynasties are about championship runs...that said, KC is primed to become a dynasty.

              2. And...so some here have mentioned keeping talent together once Mahomes gets paid. .....so it's a little premature to go full on about this until the next CBA is signed, but some important things to consider that would lead one to think the dynasty is at hand....The following guys are under contract through 2020:

              Mahomes
              Clark
              Hill
              Mathiue
              Fisher
              Schwartz
              Kelce
              Butker
              Okafor
              Sorenson
              Kpass
              Ward
              Hardman
              Thornhill
              Nahdi
              D. Williams
              (and others)

              ......and of the following are under contract through 2021
              Mahomes
              Clark
              Hill
              Mathieu
              Fisher
              Schwartz
              Kelce
              Okafor
              Butker
              Hardman
              Thornhill
              Nhadi

              .....That's MOST of the team in 2020, and the core is still fully intact in 2021. ....that doesn't even account for the Mahomes contract....these dudes are already SIGNED up.

              we have space, and we have the core guys on lock down.....

              This also doesn't include Chris Jones.....either we sign that guy this offseason to an extension, or we franchise and trade.

              We are in great shape. The dynasty is at hand.

              there simply is no other team in the AFC for sure, and probalby not in the entire leauge, better set up for sustained success over the next 2-3 years. Period.
              We will see man, KC only has 27 players under contract in 2021. That's a lot of space to fill.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by 2KBack View Post

                That means that this is Reid's 2nd Dynasty then huh? Oh an then there was the Schottenheimer KC dynasty, they averaged 10 wins per season and made the playoffs 7 out of 9 seasons.

                Also when will this Pittsburgh Dynasty end so some other team will get a chance? They've averaged 10.25 wins per season since 2000 with 2 different HC and 4 different QB's.

                It's an ocean of Dynastys!
                Well, I would say to you that the Reid won only one championship and Schottenheimer won none. That is right.

                The AFC Champion and the NFC Champion are CHAMPIONSHIPS. Reid only won one of those so no that would not be considered a dynasty. Although them winning over 10 wins a season for over 10 seasons could be for some. Personally I would consider that, just because I know how difficult it is to have a 10 win season, let alone having them for a prolonged period of time. Most fans really have NO perspective.

                The Bills won 4 straight AFC Championships. That is a dynasty. Period.

                The Braves won 14 straight division titles and won the pennant 6 times?

                You people don't consider that a dynasty?

                Really are ignorant fans out there.

                Comment


                • #53
                  I have stricter rules for dynasties. The only dynasties in my lifetime are the Pats*, 90s Cowboys, 80s 49ers, and 70s Steelers.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    We can settle for calling it an AFC West dynasty for now. Mahomes is just getting started, after all.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Arkie View Post
                      I have stricter rules for dynasties. The only dynasties in my lifetime are the Pats*, 90s Cowboys, 80s 49ers, and 70s Steelers.
                      Those are TEAMS OF THE DECADE which is different than a dynasty. The 70s Cowboys, Raiders, Vikings, and Dolphins could have been considered dynasties. Just not TEAMS OF THE DECADE, which was always the way we put it.

                      The Pats have been the team of the 2000-2010 AND 2010-2020 decade. Yes, technically the decade starts at O1 and ends on 00.

                      Anyway, those teams were considered teams of the decade. Btw, since the Yankees won more WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS in the 90s than the Braves, they are the team of the 90s.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Broncoblood32 View Post

                        Those are TEAMS OF THE DECADE which is different than a dynasty. The 70s Cowboys, Raiders, Vikings, and Dolphins could have been considered dynasties. Just not TEAMS OF THE DECADE, which was always the way we put it.

                        The Pats have been the team of the 2000-2010 AND 2010-2020 decade. Yes, technically the decade starts at O1 and ends on 00.

                        Anyway, those teams were considered teams of the decade. Btw, since the Yankees won more WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS in the 90s than the Braves, they are the team of the 90s.
                        They were the teams of their decades, but also really the only real dynasties in those decades. The definition of dynasty requires an era of dominance. Subjugation. Not a back and forth between two or three really good franchises.

                        A Dynasty is when you have years of mostly one dominant team, and then the rest of the league struggling to catch up.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          I remember the great Eagles Dynasty of the early-mid 2000s.

                          Unless the Chiefs are systematically cheating, there won't be any "decade of dominance"... that goes for any NFL team.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by 2KBack View Post

                            That means that this is Reid's 2nd Dynasty then huh? Oh an then there was the Schottenheimer KC dynasty, they averaged 10 wins per season and made the playoffs 7 out of 9 seasons.

                            Also when will this Pittsburgh Dynasty end so some other team will get a chance? They've averaged 10.25 wins per season since 2000 with 2 different HC and 4 different QB's.

                            It's an ocean of Dynastys!
                            His definition is stupid. By that token there would be multiple “dynasties” existing at any given time. There can only be one. A team that is head and shoulders above the rest. Preferably that means multiple (as in, at least two or three) consecutive titles. Or you have to be like the Spurs and Patriots were, basically winning the title every other year for a long period of time.

                            The Manning-led Broncos were great, but I wouldn’t even call us a dynasty with only one title. An argument could be made for Elway and TD’s 1997-1998 Broncos since they went back-to-back, but it’s not a given IMO. No titles for the Chefs in 50 years = no dynasty. Wake me up when they go back-to-back, or preferably, three-peat.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Wow!
                              another thread dedicated to the chiefs.
                              This obsession is sickening.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Broncoblood32 View Post

                                Although them winning over 10 wins a season for over 10 seasons could be for some. Personally I would consider that, just because I know how difficult it is to have a 10 win season, let alone having them for a prolonged period of time. Most fans really have NO perspective.
                                You can win 10 games and miss the playoffs... You really think winning a bunch of 10 game seasons is qualifications for a dynasty?! No perspective indeed...

                                The Bills won 4 straight AFC Championships. That is a dynasty. Period.
                                It was a good run for sure, but almost winning is ultimately just losing. No Lombardi, no dynasty.

                                The Braves won 14 straight division titles and won the pennant 6 times?

                                You people don't consider that a dynasty?
                                When you have the Yankees winning 4 World Series in the same time frame? Which team is more dominant, the team with 4 championships or the team with 1? Division titles and pennants are nice stadium decorations but they don't mean much if you don't win the whole thing. The point of professional sports is to win championships. If the season doesn't end with holding up the championship trophy, then it was a failure. Failures don't get dynasties.

                                Really are ignorant fans out there.
                                I'll award you a dynasty for irony.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X