Thread: Bears a Dynasty?

Have you guys seen the training camp writeups on cbssportsline?
Freeman is calling Dynasty on the Bears...and, talking trash about the rest of the NFC North.

http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/10304480

A horrible division: The NFC North might be the worst in football. The key to building a dynasty is dominating your division, and the North will be a stinky mess for years to come. Just look at it. Green Bay will soon be without Brett Favre, Matt Millen in Detroit is a cautionary tale with the Lions cloaked in failure, and Minnesota is still some years away from challenging Chicago. It's easy pickings for the Bears.

I'm not so sure we're that far away, considering we nearly beat them twice last year.

Here is a link to the Vikings page:

http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/10290352

Bears a Dynasty?

Dynasty, my ass!

I almost choked on my bagel when I read the thread title.

GB is probably going to be better when Favre retires, The Lions are making HUGE improvements on offense, and the Vikings are slowly building to become yearly playoff contenders.

I could accept that the NFCN is a mess right now (in some eyes)...but certainly not for years to come.

"mountainviking" wrote:

Have you guys seen the training camp writeups on cbssportsline?
Freeman is calling Dynasty on the Bears...and, talking trash about the rest of the NFC North.

http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/10304480

A horrible division: The NFC North might be the worst in football. The key to building a dynasty is dominating your division, and the North will be a stinky mess for years to come. Just look at it. Green Bay will soon be without Brett Favre, Matt Millen in Detroit is a cautionary tale with the Lions cloaked in failure, and Minnesota is still some years away from challenging Chicago. It's easy pickings for the Bears.

I'm not so sure we're that far away, considering we nearly beat them twice last year.

Here is a link to the Vikings page:

http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/10290352

Seriously. This is all I have for this article.
: : :

"SnoBumMN" wrote:

Bears a Dynasty?

Dynasty, my ass!

One Super Bowl since 1985 does not a "dynasty" make.


I'm being careful calling out Super Bowl Winners - because I certainly consider the Bills of the 1990s to be "dynasty-esque" in their AFC dominance.

=Z=

"Zeus" wrote:

"SnoBumMN" wrote:

Bears a Dynasty?

Dynasty, my jiggly butt!

One Super Bowl since 1985 does not a "dynasty" make.


I'm being careful calling out Super Bowl Winners - because I certainly consider the Bills of the 1990s to be "dynasty-esque" in their AFC dominance.

=Z=

I tend to reserve the dynasty label for a team that actually wins the superbowl more times than not over a period of time.
The Bills did dominate the AFC, but that isn't enough to achieve dynasty status IMHO.

But I definately agree with you about the bears.
One superbowl appearance since 85?
And a loss at that? No, no dynasty there.

"NodakPaul" wrote:

"Zeus" wrote:

"SnoBumMN" wrote:

Bears a Dynasty?

Dynasty, my jiggly butt!

One Super Bowl since 1985 does not a "dynasty" make.


I'm being careful calling out Super Bowl Winners - because I certainly consider the Bills of the 1990s to be "dynasty-esque" in their AFC dominance.

=Z=

I tend to reserve the dynasty label for a team that actually wins the superbowl more times than not over a period of time.
The Bills did dominate the AFC, but that isn't enough to achieve dynasty status IMHO.

But I definately agree with you about the bears.
One superbowl appearance since 85?
And a loss at that? No, no dynasty there.

Are the Twins a dynasty in Baseball then?

Three division titles in the last ten years. I'm sure their division rivals are quaking in their boots.

I thought I was delusional when it comes to the Vikings.

This guy needs to slow down on the crack just a little!

Dynasty my jiggly butt!

Oh dear lord.
Chicago is not close to being a dynasty.
The only team that you might have a argument for in this decade is New England.

Maybe the TV show "Dynasty"...