Thread: Bears a Dynasty?

"C" wrote:

"NodakPaul" wrote:

"C" wrote:

"NodakPaul" wrote:

"Zeus" wrote:

[quote author=SnoBumMN link=topic=36975.msg622412#msg622412 date=1187794588]

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?
[/quote]

No kidding.
For the record I also don't consider the Vikings of the 70's to be a dynasty.
As much as I love the Vikings and the Twins, I think the term dynasty needs to be reserved for very special teams or crappy prime time soap operas.

"Prophet" wrote:

Nice thread title, it makes me want to cut the archilles tendon of the author.

Who Me?

Blame it on Freeman!

You have to win a superbowl to be a dynasty and it aint happening this year

We need to let this thread die!
It makes me sick every time I read "bears" and "dynasty" in the same sentence.

yeah kill it Die thread. I say this the bears are not a dynasty
one of the tough
in the NFC but they have Grossman and he alone will lose them 12 games and be sent from chicago and wind up being a fluffer for a sex ed video. This thread makes me feel like I step in dog dung.