The Redskins of the 1980's: Dynasty?

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by SFREDSKIN

Losing to the Raiders screwed the Redskins from being team of the 80's.

New England lost to the Giants, yet N.E. is still considered a dynasty.

[#56fanatic]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

New England lost to the Giants, yet N.E. is still considered a dynasty.

That is one year... they are a dynasty because they have been superbowl contenders every year, won 3 of 4, and have basically been a 11 to 12 win team every single year for about 10 years.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

That is one year... they are a dynasty because they have been superbowl contenders every year, won 3 of 4, and have basically been a 11 to 12 win team every single year for about 10 years.

OK, so other than the 'skins not having 11 or 12 wins every season, they were also Super Bowl contenders nearly every year as well from 81 - 92, with the exception of a year or two.

Even though the Patriots were 11-5 a couple of years ago, they didn't make the playoffs that year, therefore were not Super Bowl contenders.

[SFREDSKIN]

I believe they go by the # of wins during the decade. 49ers had 4 SB wins in the 80's, Skins 2 and Giants 1. NE 3 wins, that's what they look at.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by SFREDSKIN

I believe they go by the # of wins during the decade. 49ers had 4 SB wins in the 80's, Skins 2 and Giants 1. NE 3 wins, that's what they look at.

Honestly, I agree with you. But, I just wonder if a team won the Super Bowl in the last two years of a decade, and won it again in say, year two and four of the next decade - I wonder if they would be considered a dynasty? Especially if it's the same coaching staff, virtually the same players in the skilled positions, etc...?

In the end, I think it's just whatever the media crowns them to be. I don't think they really have a certain set of rules or some chart to go by in determining a dynasty. For me, I tend to support the idea that it's numerous aspects: Multiple Super Bowl wins in a short amount of time (at least 3 SB wins in10 years), being consistent Super Bowl / playoff contenders for at least 80% of that 10 year stretch, virtually the same coaching staff or same group of players. I think strictly going by timeline decades is a cop out, personally. I'm sure some disagree and that's OK, but I'd much rather look at the accomplishments of a coaching staff rather than to divide it into separate regimes based on decades alone.

[SFREDSKIN]

In the 70's it was the same thing, the Steelers won 4, Dolphins 2 and Raiders 1 in 1976. Going into the 80's the Raiders won in 1980 and 1983, yet they aren't mentioned as team of the 80's or 70's.