Hawkblogger "Seahawks Knocking on the Door of Dynasty"

There's a couple of good reads on his site.

"What is remarkable is that Seattle has now recorded a +140 or greater point differential in four straight seasons."

http://www.hawkblogger.com/2016/01/seah ... .html#more

Hawkblogger needs a major update to his site. Great material though.

OKAAAY! I disagree, because the bottom line is multiple Lombardi Trophies. Had the Hawks won XLIX, we can start talking about being 'on the door' of that D word. Two silver footballs is where that discussion begins. Hawk blogger's bias is causing him to jump the gun, IMO.

^^ Which he acknowledges in the first sentence of the article.

To be honest if we win the bowl this year, Dynasty talk wouldn't be out of place. That would mean we went to 3 straight bowl games, winning 2 of them. As long as we then manage to win another in the next three years or so, while remaining a premier team in the years we don't win then we can be called a dynasty.

A bit too many ifs in my opinion though.

Overseasfan":3i3ktp1f said:

To be honest if we win the bowl this year, Dynasty talk wouldn't be out of place. That would mean we went to 3 straight bowl games, winning 2 of them. As long as we then manage to win another in the next three years or so, while remaining a premier team in the years we don't win then we can be called a dynasty.

A bit too many ifs in my opinion though.

Click to expand...

It's definitely discussion-worthy at 2x SB wins + maintaining dominance. At 1x, a dynasty is merely one of many possible futures.

HawKnPeppa":1jyzt4ok said:

Overseasfan":1jyzt4ok said:

To be honest if we win the bowl this year, Dynasty talk wouldn't be out of place. That would mean we went to 3 straight bowl games, winning 2 of them. As long as we then manage to win another in the next three years or so, while remaining a premier team in the years we don't win then we can be called a dynasty.

A bit too many ifs in my opinion though.

Click to expand...

It's definitely discussion-worthy at 2x SB wins + maintaining dominance. At 1x, a dynasty is merely one of many possible futures.

Click to expand...

Yep, I'd say let's wait untill the season is over to start talking about a dynasty.

I think talk like this is definitely premature. A dynasty is something labelled after the fact. Enjoy it now. Accolades can come later. I don't recall any dynasty being referred to as such during the actual time.

MD5eahawks":1s6bj67t said:

I think talk like this is definitely premature. A dynasty is something labelled after the fact. Enjoy it now. Accolades can come later. I don't recall any dynasty being referred to as such during the actual time.

Click to expand...

Yeah, he tries to get around this with the trailing indicator talk of Lombardi trophies, but I think the point he's missing is that the label "dynasty" is ITSELF a trailing indicator of sustained performance.

He's admittedly asking a different question -- how do you predict dynasties before they're labeled as such - and I think point differential is probably the best way to predict that, but again, a "dynasty" is itself a trailing indicator. It's why the Bills from 1990-93 were never even in the conversation about being a dynasty, and instead, are a factoid about ineptitude and sadness.

A simpler way to put this is that if you want to look for indicators for dynasties you need to look at the indicators that actually classify teams as dynasties, which are playoff appearances and SB wins. The Hawks look good on those, but not yet (at least) as good as the Packers or Patriots, and the Ravens also looked as good on those until this year, as did the Giants for the four years from 2005-2008 until they suddenly didn't anymore.

I really enjoy Hawkblogger's "The Morning After" articles and I think his podcasts are the best Seahawks-related podcasts on the net.

Eh I think we need 2 more Lombardi's before this is factual. Winning the "DVOA Championship" isn't the start of a dynasty. Our defense has had a tremendous run over the last 4 years but thats also not the start of a dynasty.

The bottom line always will be championships. We should be sitting on back-to-back titles right now, but.. we all know how that movie ended a year ago.

Premature. We don't consider the Rams as a dynasty having gone 1-1. Nor do we consider the Steelers a dynasty in the 2000s having gone 2-1 in SBs.

Need 3. I think that's what separates dynasties from just good clubs. Getting there isn't enough.