Dynasties that weren't, you can guess who is on this list

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from freediro. Show freediro's posts

    Dynasties that weren't, you can guess who is on this list

    at #6 Peyton Manning Indianapolis Colts (1999-present)

    There is still time for Manning to add another NFL title or two to his resume but his 9-9 postseason record pales when compared to Bart Starr (9-1), Tom Brady (14-4), Terry Bradshaw (14-5), Joe Montana (16-7) and Troy Aikman (11-4).

    What do you guys say, is it fair to already throw them in this type of conversation?
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: Dynasties that weren't, you can guess who is on this list

    I think the whole premise of "Dynasties That Weren't" is misguided. Whatever you think of Peyton Manning as a football player, this is a guy who has always suffered from unrealistic expectations. Because of his football lineage, he's always been observed under a different microscope -- for good or bad -- than most of his peers. Tennessee was able to build a team good enough to win a national title around Manning, but did not actually win that title until Tee Martin (Don't worry . . .   nobody remembers him) took over a year after manning left. Lots of guys don't win National Championships, but Peyton Manning is a "choker."

    In the NFL, Manning took his lumps early and came into his own alongside a couple guys named Brady and Belichick. Again for him, close enough wasn't good enough, and when the whole is less than the sum of the parts, the onus falls on Manning to be the difference . . .  which he has not been able to be. Even when unconscionable officiating and blind good fortune conspired to hand his Colts a Lombardi Trophy, people are quick to note that it was the defense and the running game -- not Manning --which carried Indy to its championship; or to simply say "Rex Grossman" and chuckle quietly.

    Whatever the case, a dynasty is not a thing that is supposed to happen. The very structure of the league augures against it. So to say that such-and-such a dynasty -- whomever might have been responsible for it -- "should" have happened is patently ludicrous.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Davedsone. Show Davedsone's posts

    Re: Dynasties that weren't, you can guess who is on this list

    see, I wouldn't have gone there.  I thought you were referring to  ricky proehl before SB 36, saying "tonight a dynasty is born".  He was right, in a bad way.  Nice that he had to lose to us TWICE despite many performances, because he tempted the football gods with this utterly foolish pronouncement.  
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from kansaspatriot. Show kansaspatriot's posts

    Re: Dynasties that weren't, you can guess who is on this list

    In Response to Dynasties that weren't, you can guess who is on this list:
    [QUOTE]at #6  Peyton Manning Indianapolis Colts (1999-present)?
    Posted by freediro[/QUOTE]

    this team does not have or did have a dynasty, 1 superbowl win does not equate to a dynasty.

    the modern dynasties

    1. Green Bay 60's
    2. Steelers 70's
    3. 49ers - 80's
    4. Cowboys - 90's
    5. Patriots - 00's
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Evil2010. Show Evil2010's posts

    Re: Dynasties that weren't, you can guess who is on this list

    In Response to Re: Dynasties that weren't, you can guess who is on this list:
    [QUOTE]I think the whole premise of "Dynasties That Weren't" is misguided. Whatever you think of Peyton Manning as a football player, this is a guy who has always suffered from unrealistic expectations. Because of his football lineage, he's always been observed under a different microscope -- for good or bad -- than most of his peers. Tennessee was able to build a team good enough to win a national title around Manning, but did not actually win that title until Tee Martin (Don't worry . . .   nobody remembers him) took over a year after manning left. Lots of guys don't win National Championships, but Peyton Manning is a "choker." In the NFL, Manning took his lumps early and came into his own alongside a couple guys named Brady and Belichick. Again for him, close enough wasn't good enough, and when the whole is less than the sum of the parts, the onus falls on Manning to be the difference . . .  which he has not been able to be. Even when unconscionable officiating and blind good fortune conspired to hand his Colts a Lombardi Trophy, people are quick to note that it was the defense and the running game -- not Manning --which carried Indy to its championship; or to simply say "Rex Grossman" and chuckle quietly. Whatever the case, a dynasty is not a thing that is supposed to happen. The very structure of the league augures against it. So to say that such-and-such a dynasty -- whomever might have been responsible for it -- "should" have happened is patently ludicrous.
    Posted by p-mike[/QUOTE]

    If Peyton suffers from unrealistic expectations it's got to be triple for his co oreo licker brother who has about half his talent. But don't you think the constant worship by the press and Peyton's willingness to cash in on that worship by pitching products left and right adds to the whole thing? It doesn't raise the expectations but it definately increases the amount of people who are happy to see him fall short because they're sick of hearing his name and seeing his face?
     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: Dynasties that weren't, you can guess who is on this list

    In Response to Re: Dynasties that weren't, you can guess who is on this list:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Dynasties that weren't, you can guess who is on this list : If Peyton suffers from unrealistic expectations it's got to be triple for his co oreo licker brother who has about half his talent. But don't you think the constant worship by the press and Peyton's willingness to cash in on that worship by pitching products left and right adds to the whole thing? It doesn't raise the expectations but it definately increases the amount of people who are happy to see him fall short because they're sick of hearing his name and seeing his face?
    Posted by Evil2010[/QUOTE]

    Sure. This is absolutely true. He's over-exposed himself on Madison Avenue to an alarming degree -- which is his own fault -- and he's been showered with dubious praise from a fawning media -- which isn't. I don't know the guy, but I would be willing to bet that at least part of what we have all come to jeeringly refer to as "Manning Face" stems from knowing full well -- in his heart of hearts -- that's he's just not as good as people are demanding he should be.


     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from SShoreLurker. Show SShoreLurker's posts

    Re: Dynasties that weren't, you can guess who is on this list

    dy·nas·ty (dn-st)
    n. pl. dy·nas·ties
    1. A succession of rulers from the same family or line.
    • 2. A family or group that maintains power for several generations:
       

      The most over used word in sports!!!!!!


      NYYankees  from 1921-1964  was a dynasty
      Boston Celtics from 1957-1988 was a dynasty
      Dallas Cowboys from 1966-1985 was a dynasty**
      San Francisco 49ers from 1981-1998 was dynasty
      Montreal Canadians from 1944-1979 was a dynasty
      Brooklyn/ LA Dodgers from 1947-1966 was a dynasty
      Minne/LA Lakers from 1959-1991 was a dynasty
      Boston Bruins from 1970-1992 was a dynasty#

      **This one is debatable. However, 2 trophies, 5 SB app, 12 conference championships and 19 of 20 playoff appearances should qualify as consistent. Their reign started with the backside of the Lombardi Era and ended with The Fridge being the Man in Chicago. Unique, team in my opinion.

      #- If I say the Cowboys long consistent run near the top is worthy, than the Bruins are hockey's equivalent.  2 Cups, 7 Finals, 10 conference appearances, and all 23 years in the playoffs.

      NOT Dynasties- these teams did not sustain past a decade

      Atlanta Braves 1991-2005 (might have been had they won more than 1 title)
      Pittsburgh Steelers 1972-1979
      Green Bay Packers 1960-1967
      Chicago Bulls 1989-1998
      NYIslanders 1975-1984
      Edmonton Oilers 1983-1992

      Current but not known yet
      4 rings: San Antonio Spurs, 1999-present (would need another 2-3 rings in the next 5-8 years)

      5 rings
      : LA Lakers, 1997-present (could be soon with a couple more titles 5 years)

      3 rings
      : New England Patriots, 2001- present (needs another 2-3 rings in the next 8 years)

      4 rings
      : Detroit Red Wings, 1995- present (needs another 2 rings or so in the next 5 years)

      5 rings
      : NY Yankees, 1995- present (needs another 2 rings in the next 5 years, very close though)

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from jcour382. Show jcour382's posts

    Re: Dynasties that weren't, you can guess who is on this list

    as tom curran likes to say gomer is a "great" passer.... tom brady is a great quarterback...

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from MarylandFan. Show MarylandFan's posts

    Re: Dynasties that weren't, you can guess who is on this list

    The Celts of the 50's-60's are the gold standard of a dynasty. 11 rings in 13 seasons something that probably will never be accomplished again in any professional sport. The Colts should never be mentioned when discussing dynasties.
     

Share