Dynasty??

While I do hope this prediction comes true I am not sure he included everything in the article. For one that figure about teams repeating does not make a distinction between free agency and pre cap years. That is a huge factor when it comes to keeping teams and talent together nowadays. http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/seat ... es-really/.

stonewallj799":1x47f2vv said:

While I do hope this prediction comes true I am not sure he included everything in the article. For one that figure about teams repeating does not make a distinction between free agency and pre cap years. That is a huge factor when it comes to keeping teams and talent together nowadays. http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/seat ... es-really/.

Click to expand...

Pretty interesting article. Figured someone would have commented by now.

Trenchbroom":1x8oblw9 said:

stonewallj799":1x8oblw9 said:

While I do hope this prediction comes true I am not sure he included everything in the article. For one that figure about teams repeating does not make a distinction between free agency and pre cap years. That is a huge factor when it comes to keeping teams and talent together nowadays. http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/seat ... es-really/.

Click to expand...

Pretty interesting article. Figured someone would have commented by now.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it is... and you'll read the same numbers no matter what colored glasses you get accused of wearing. (So, who will be the first to bring up the 1 out of 12 youngest champions that didn't repeat within 10 years?) We're what, 21 years into the era of free agency now? Yeah, that makes it a bit of a challenge. But, this regime is locking up the young core players and created an environment that attracts needed key veterans who wouldn't mind a good shot at a ring.

I would rather we bust our asses and worry about Dynasty later, history decides a Dynasty not a bunch of Mediots looking to get hits.

chris98251":2msbexnf said:

I would rather we bust our asses and worry about Dynasty later, history decides a Dynasty not a bunch of Mediots looking to get hits.

Click to expand...

perfect answer. Just play ball.

Ill give it a click. Lord knows I give the mediots who are building their clicks by trashing the hawks my time, why not a guy who is in our corner.

I think with the salary cap, the definition of dynasty must change to be that a group of Core players staying together can manage to win 2-3 SBs and multiple playoff runs in a 8-10 year period. I think the only dynasty that has come out of the salary cap era are the Patriots. The Giants had they had more playoffs run and/or much less lows, but it is hard to ignore their 2 SB wins in I think 6 years?

Edit: Talked with a friend. I'm changing my definition of dynasty

Span 5-6 years
Minimum requirement 3 SB wins.

Only team to do it recently Patriots. Team that came close Steelers. Anything less would mean great team and franchise, just not "dynasty". That seems fair.

DYNASTY ?????


WHY NOT US?

Time, and time only,will tell.

ZagHawk":14hzmn0a said:

I think with the salary cap, the definition of dynasty must change to be that a group of Core players staying together can manage to win 2-3 SBs and multiple playoff runs in a 8-10 year period. I think the only dynasty that has come out of the salary cap era are the Patriots. The Giants had they had more playoffs run and/or much less lows, but it is hard to ignore their 2 SB wins in I think 6 years?

Edit: Talked with a friend. I'm changing my definition of dynasty

Span 5-6 years
Minimum requirement 3 SB wins.

Only team to do it recently Patriots. Team that came close Steelers. Anything less would mean great team and franchise, just not "dynasty". That seems fair.

Click to expand...

Disagree. I'd say if you had 2 wins and 3 further superbowl appearances over a 5 year period you'd definitely be considered in the bracket.
3 wins in say a 10 year period might not be in your definition either, but again, if we made it to the NFCCG in 7 or 8 of those seasons you'd be looking at one of the most consistently successful periods in NFL history.
That's basically what the Raiders did in the 70s, with 8 appearances and 3 wins over an 11 year period (1st and last superbowl were 8 years apart). There's no debating that they were a dynasty alongside the Steelers at the time

themunn":1eqt3b65 said:

ZagHawk":1eqt3b65 said:

I think with the salary cap, the definition of dynasty must change to be that a group of Core players staying together can manage to win 2-3 SBs and multiple playoff runs in a 8-10 year period. I think the only dynasty that has come out of the salary cap era are the Patriots. The Giants had they had more playoffs run and/or much less lows, but it is hard to ignore their 2 SB wins in I think 6 years?

Edit: Talked with a friend. I'm changing my definition of dynasty

Span 5-6 years
Minimum requirement 3 SB wins.

Only team to do it recently Patriots. Team that came close Steelers. Anything less would mean great team and franchise, just not "dynasty". That seems fair.

Click to expand...

Disagree. I'd say if you had 2 wins and 3 further superbowl appearances over a 5 year period you'd definitely be considered in the bracket.
3 wins in say a 10 year period might not be in your definition either, but again, if we made it to the NFCCG in 7 or 8 of those seasons you'd be looking at one of the most consistently successful periods in NFL history.
That's basically what the Raiders did in the 70s, with 8 appearances and 3 wins over an 11 year period (1st and last superbowl were 8 years apart). There's no debating that they were a dynasty alongside the Steelers at the time

Click to expand...

Sorry, but dynasty is a minimum of 3 SB's in a 5-7 year period tops.

No team that won even 2 consecutive SB's was considered a dynasty, and there are only 5 widely recognized SB dynasty teams ever;

1960's Packers
1970's Steelers
1980's Niners
1990's Cowboys
2000's Patriots

No one calls the Broncos a "Dynasty," and they won two years in row.

Nah... not gonna happen...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

JaiSeaSea":2kb00etl said:

chris98251":2kb00etl said:

I would rather we bust our asses and worry about Dynasty later, history decides a Dynasty not a bunch of Mediots looking to get hits.

Click to expand...

perfect answer. Just play ball.

Click to expand...

Did anyone say go sandbag it and just talk? Did anyone say we're worried about achieving a dynasty? Not at all. Of course History decides a dynasty. No one would argue that point. But, this is exactly that... a look at history that does tend to repeat itself. In this case... roughly 95% of the time.

Maybe just take it for what it intends to be. unno: It's a statistical perspective speaking to the youthful age of a Super Bowl Champion and what that very well could mean SINCE that team is certainly going to do that very thing and go out and bust their asses. No reason to believe otherwise. Not a guarantee, but an indicator that they're in a great position. Yes, they still have to go out and put in the work, compete and play to win the games.

Essentially, if the core group can be kept together, there's a better than decent shot to get another championship within a decade. So, I would say there's nothing wrong with a look at that same history that decides dynasty's to see what it has to say. And, it says there's good reason to not dismiss them - like what can be regularly heard by any random talking head on the morning show's giving their "opinion" why they think the Hawks wont repeat ("because it's too tough.") Of course it's a tough road, but they're in good company. That's all.

Having said all that. Love your intensity. I'm with you there. Go Hawks.

chris98251":rj4xtag5 said:

I would rather we bust our asses and worry about Dynasty later, history decides a Dynasty not a bunch of Mediots looking to get hits.

Click to expand...

I agree. Dynasty talk should come after the fact.

Those that want to talk dynasty after the fact can leave the forum now.

Seriously.

Now to the rest of us, yes, that's an excellent article that pointed out some very pertinent data regarding dynasties and whether or not Seattle is poised to become one. They are in perfect position to be this decades dynasty. The next few years should be really exciting.

Sgt. Largent":2ywvdacl said:

themunn":2ywvdacl said:

ZagHawk":2ywvdacl said:

I think with the salary cap, the definition of dynasty must change to be that a group of Core players staying together can manage to win 2-3 SBs and multiple playoff runs in a 8-10 year period. I think the only dynasty that has come out of the salary cap era are the Patriots. The Giants had they had more playoffs run and/or much less lows, but it is hard to ignore their 2 SB wins in I think 6 years?

Edit: Talked with a friend. I'm changing my definition of dynasty

Span 5-6 years
Minimum requirement 3 SB wins.

Only team to do it recently Patriots. Team that came close Steelers. Anything less would mean great team and franchise, just not "dynasty". That seems fair.

Click to expand...

Disagree. I'd say if you had 2 wins and 3 further superbowl appearances over a 5 year period you'd definitely be considered in the bracket.
3 wins in say a 10 year period might not be in your definition either, but again, if we made it to the NFCCG in 7 or 8 of those seasons you'd be looking at one of the most consistently successful periods in NFL history.
That's basically what the Raiders did in the 70s, with 8 appearances and 3 wins over an 11 year period (1st and last superbowl were 8 years apart). There's no debating that they were a dynasty alongside the Steelers at the time

Click to expand...

Sorry, but dynasty is a minimum of 3 SB's in a 5-7 year period tops.

No team that won even 2 consecutive SB's was considered a dynasty, and there are only 5 widely recognized SB dynasty teams ever;

1960's Packers
1970's Steelers
1980's Niners
1990's Cowboys
2000's Patriots

No one calls the Broncos a "Dynasty," and they won two years in row.

Click to expand...

The Pat's won 2 consecutive and are on your dynasty list.

EverydayImRusselin":49zd1mku said:

Sgt. Largent":49zd1mku said:

themunn":49zd1mku said:

ZagHawk":49zd1mku said:

I think with the salary cap, the definition of dynasty must change to be that a group of Core players staying together can manage to win 2-3 SBs and multiple playoff runs in a 8-10 year period. I think the only dynasty that has come out of the salary cap era are the Patriots. The Giants had they had more playoffs run and/or much less lows, but it is hard to ignore their 2 SB wins in I think 6 years?

Edit: Talked with a friend. I'm changing my definition of dynasty

Span 5-6 years
Minimum requirement 3 SB wins.

Only team to do it recently Patriots. Team that came close Steelers. Anything less would mean great team and franchise, just not "dynasty". That seems fair.

Click to expand...

Disagree. I'd say if you had 2 wins and 3 further superbowl appearances over a 5 year period you'd definitely be considered in the bracket.
3 wins in say a 10 year period might not be in your definition either, but again, if we made it to the NFCCG in 7 or 8 of those seasons you'd be looking at one of the most consistently successful periods in NFL history.
That's basically what the Raiders did in the 70s, with 8 appearances and 3 wins over an 11 year period (1st and last superbowl were 8 years apart). There's no debating that they were a dynasty alongside the Steelers at the time

Click to expand...

Sorry, but dynasty is a minimum of 3 SB's in a 5-7 year period tops.

No team that won even 2 consecutive SB's was considered a dynasty, and there are only 5 widely recognized SB dynasty teams ever;

1960's Packers
1970's Steelers
1980's Niners
1990's Cowboys
2000's Patriots

No one calls the Broncos a "Dynasty," and they won two years in row.

Click to expand...

The Pat's won 2 consecutive and are on your dynasty list.

Click to expand...

Admittedly, at first, I was all "Ehh..too early"
But Hell, after we win this next one this season, they will be MY 'Dynasty Franchise'... whether or not we get a 3peat. It's the cap era, I count RW' s 1st season as the START of the 'Dynasty'.. & anyone want to debate it, well.. Go.

I don't do Dynasty talk for a single SB winner. Not for the Hawks, no one.

Pats, Niners, Steelers, Cowboys have all won back to back AND another one within a few years surrounding the back to back. The Niners reign supreme to me because they were just damn good from 81-94. How many years DIDNT they make the playoffs? Spanning 2 coaches, QBs and big chunks of rosters. That was an amazing run.

hgwellz12":1lol0kzm said:

EverydayImRusselin":1lol0kzm said:

Sgt. Largent":1lol0kzm said:

themunn":1lol0kzm said:

(quote="ZagHawk")I think with the salary cap, the definition of dynasty must change to be that a group of Core players staying together can manage to win 2-3 SBs and multiple playoff runs in a 8-10 year period. I think the only dynasty that has come out of the salary cap era are the Patriots. The Giants had they had more playoffs run and/or much less lows, but it is hard to ignore their 2 SB wins in I think 6 years?

Edit: Talked with a friend. I'm changing my definition of dynasty

Span 5-6 years
Minimum requirement 3 SB wins.

Only team to do it recently Patriots. Team that came close Steelers. Anything less would mean great team and franchise, just not "dynasty". That seems fair.

Click to expand...

Disagree. I'd say if you had 2 wins and 3 further superbowl appearances over a 5 year period you'd definitely be considered in the bracket.
3 wins in say a 10 year period might not be in your definition either, but again, if we made it to the NFCCG in 7 or 8 of those seasons you'd be looking at one of the most consistently successful periods in NFL history.
That's basically what the Raiders did in the 70s, with 8 appearances and 3 wins over an 11 year period (1st and last superbowl were 8 years apart). There's no debating that they were a dynasty alongside the Steelers at the time(/quote)


Sorry, but dynasty is a minimum of 3 SB's in a 5-7 year period tops.

No team that won even 2 consecutive SB's was considered a dynasty, and there are only 5 widely recognized SB dynasty teams ever;

1960's Packers
1970's Steelers
1980's Niners
1990's Cowboys
2000's Patriots

No one calls the Broncos a "Dynasty," and they won two years in row.

Click to expand...

The Pat's won 2 consecutive and are on your dynasty list.

Click to expand...

Admittedly, at first, I was all "Ehh..too early"
But Hell, after we win this next one this season, they will be MY 'Dynasty Franchise'... whether or not we get a 3peat. It's the cap era, I count RW' s 1st season as the START of the 'Dynasty'.. & anyone want to debate it, well.. Go.

Click to expand...

I would definitely count Seattle as a dynasty of they do a 3 peat. Specially in the days of the Salary Cap and Free Agency, that is something very very very tough to do.