Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25
  1. #11
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,602
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Bears a Dynasty?

    "C" wrote:
    "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?
    Two world series wins in four years?
    I would say no.
    Zeus wrote:
    When are you going to realize that picking out the 20 bad throws this year and ignoring the 300 good ones does not make your point?

    =Z=

  2. #12
    cajunvike's Avatar
    cajunvike is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    32,063

    Re: Bears a Dynasty?

    "Freakout" wrote:
    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.
    Fuck the Putzies!
    They were the Tuck Rule and an idiot kicker from the Panthers away from being a one-hit wonder!
    BANNED OR DEAD...I'LL TAKE EITHER ONE

  3. #13
    C Mac D's Avatar
    C Mac D is offline Posting to P'own
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    13,499

    Re: Bears a Dynasty?

    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "C" wrote:
    "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?
    Two world series wins in four years?
    I would say no.
    No kidding?
    Disclaimer: I'm an idiot.

  4. #14
    Prophet's Avatar
    Prophet is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    17,388

    Re: Bears a Dynasty?

    Nice thread title, it makes me want to cut the archilles tendon of the author.
    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  5. #15
    NDVikingFan66's Avatar
    NDVikingFan66 is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    2,831

    Re: Bears a Dynasty?

    Dynasty....lay off the crack pipe

    Dynasty teams go into any game and before the opening kickoff, the opposition is doubting the ability to win the game.
    Dynasties have solid players at all the skill positions.
    Dynasties advance into the playoffs every year.

    Tell me where Chicago fits in my definition.


  6. #16
    vikingivan is offline Star Spokesman
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,993

    Re: Bears a Dynasty?

    This is a joke right.
    They have won the division two years in a row.
    Big deal.
    Before last season they had not won a
    playoff game since 1995.

  7. #17
    AngloVike's Avatar
    AngloVike is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Sandhurst, UK
    Posts
    6,782
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Bears a Dynasty?

    "NDVikingFan66" wrote:
    Dynasty....lay off the crack pipe

    Dynasty teams go into any game and before the opening kickoff, the opposition is doubting the ability to win the game.
    Dynasties have solid players at all the skill positions.
    Dynasties advance into the playoffs every year.

    Tell me where Chicago fits in my definition.
    now c'mon, with their top notch QB Rex " the butterfly" Grossman leading them, then you know that teams will be fearing them for as long as Michael Vick is the Falcons dog-walker this year.
    Time spent annoying a Packer fan is never time wasted...


  8. #18
    tastywaves's Avatar
    tastywaves is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    3,869

    Re: Bears a Dynasty?

    Hey Mikey, you want to crown their asses go ahead.
    We know who they are, right Denny?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLoJdUqEf1c

    Who doesn't take the 3rd game in pre-season seriously?

  9. #19
    COJOMAY is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    7,005

    Re: Bears a Dynasty?

    Dynasty????
    You have probably the worst starting QB in the NFL in my estimation. An aging veteran in often injurted Griese and nt a real good offensive line. Defensively they are probably the best in the NFL. They haven't got any GREAT receivers either. Just a couple of good ones but no better than any of the Vikings I don't think. So how can we say Dynasty for the Bears. It looks to me like the Vikes are the up and coming dynasty in a year or two.
    Kentucky Vikes Fan

    When you require nothing, you get nothing; when you expect nothing, you will find nothing; when you embrace nothing, all you will have is nothing.

  10. #20
    jmcdon00's Avatar
    jmcdon00 is offline Jersey Retired Snake Champion, Moto Trial Fest 2: Mountain Pack Champion, LL City Truck 2 Champion, Arithmetic sequence Champion, Troops Tower Defense Champion
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8,279

    Re: Bears a Dynasty?

    "COJOMAY" wrote:
    Dynasty????
    You have probably the worst starting QB in the NFL in my estimation. An aging veteran in often injurted Griese and nt a real good offensive line. Defensively they are probably the best in the NFL. They haven't got any GREAT receivers either. Just a couple of good ones but no better than any of the Vikings I don't think. So how can we say Dynasty for the Bears. It looks to me like the Vikes are the up and coming dynasty in a year or two.
    I don't think Wrecks is the worst QB. I don't think the back up QB is much of an issue. The bears do have a very solid offensive line. There defense is not the best, good but not the best(and they aren't getting any younger). There recievers are much better than the vikings, Berrian and Muhammed are both arguably better than any reciever the vikes have.
    Every thing else I agree with though.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Have we seen the end of the New England dynasty?
    By Zeus in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 07-22-2009, 07:03 PM
  2. Dynasty League Keeper
    By GALLY in forum Fantasy Football Talk
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-02-2009, 12:55 PM
  3. The Bling Dynasty
    By Vikes_King in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-13-2008, 11:45 PM
  4. Speaking of a dynasty...
    By baumy300 in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-17-2008, 06:49 PM
  5. What Ever Happened To This Dynasty?
    By sleepagent in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-20-2007, 11:22 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •