Jedimaster21
Footballguy
Four straight Superbowl appearances and one of the best teams ever IMO. That feat will most likely never be done again. Would you consider them a dynasty despite not winning the big one?
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
The Buffalo Bills (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Jedimaster21
- Start date
trollmonger
Footballguy
Not a dynasty but I'll agree with one of the best teams ever.
phthalatemagic
Footballguy
What is a dynasty?
Bull Dozier
Footballguy
They were a dynasty in terms of the AFC, but not in terms of the NFL.
TheGreatest
Footballguy
dy·nas·ty (dī'nə-stē) Pronunciation Key n. pl. dy·nas·ties A succession of rulers from the same family or line. A family or group that maintains power for several generations: a political dynasty controlling the state. Based on that definition. Yes they were a dynasty. :X Honestly though, just because they did not win the big one doesn't mean they were not a dynasty. They were the best in the AFC 4 years in a row and one of the best teams in the enitre NFL for that stretch as well.
Jedimaster21
Footballguy
A dynasty would be a team that holds a significant place in NFL history, and had a lot of success over a long period of time.
Dynasty- A powerful group or family that maintains its position over a long period of time.
Dynasty- A powerful group or family that maintains its position over a long period of time.
massraider
Footballguy
I don't consider the Fran Tarkenton Vikings a dynasty, and I don't consider the Bills one either.
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
If they are a dynasty, then so were the 2001-2004 Eagles teams. IMO I think you actually have to be the best at least once to be a dynasty.
The second sentence should be used in context with the first. A succession of "rulers." Those "rulers" maintaining power for several generations. The Bills never "ruled." They were never the kings.
Frenchy Fuqua
Footballguy
Hell no, in those days the AFC was like the NFC now. The top 3-4 teams in the league were in the NFC back then. The Bills were King #### on turd island.
TheGreatest
Footballguy
They did rule (and were Kings) of the AFC. This is a lose/lose conversation since everyone has their own definition of a dynatsy. 4 straight SB appearances means they were a great team. I don't believe you have to win the big one in order to be considered a dynasty. The Colts have won the SB now. Are they now a dynasty? Would you consider GB a dynasty? They won the SB and got to another. I don't think either of those teams dominated like the Bills did. the difference between Philly and Buffalo is Buffalo actually won their conference 4 years in a row. Philly only won conference once.
TheGreatest
Footballguy
The Cowboys were a dynasty. 3 SB's in 4 years. They were pretty dominating. There can be more than one dynasty in an era.
Gottabesweet
Footballguy
Yes
Often overlooked in these discussions is the fact that Buffalo almost always won their regular season games against the NFC AND the NFC East. If the NFC was better then Buffalo how can that be? What, the regular season doesn't mean anything?
That they floundered in the SB was more a product of the Brain then the skill. They were better then any team in the NFL during those years. Unless someone wants to tell me the Giants were better? I was at 2 of those SBs, and can tell without equivocation that Buffalo was taking it to Dallas in the last one...until the 3rd qtr fumble. The team was so snake bit they forgot that they could own Dallas that day.
They were a dynasty, and will be more highly regarded in 20 years then the teams that beat them because people will wonder how it was possible for any team to go to 4 straight Super Bowls.
That they floundered in the SB was more a product of the Brain then the skill. They were better then any team in the NFL during those years. Unless someone wants to tell me the Giants were better? I was at 2 of those SBs, and can tell without equivocation that Buffalo was taking it to Dallas in the last one...until the 3rd qtr fumble. The team was so snake bit they forgot that they could own Dallas that day.
They were a dynasty, and will be more highly regarded in 20 years then the teams that beat them because people will wonder how it was possible for any team to go to 4 straight Super Bowls.
Houston turmOiler
Footballguy
Hell no. The AFC sucked back then. The only team with the talent in the AFC to rival the Bills were even BIGGER chokers--my beloved Houston turmOilers.
Ughhhh, the memories....
Ughhhh, the memories....
Pat Patriot
Footballguy
Patriots 2001-200670 winsCowboys 1991-199670 winsSan Fran 1989-199475 winsSan Fran 1993-199871 winsCowboys 1976-198170 winsDespyzer said:
Pat Patriot
Footballguy
Ridiculous. You cannot be considered a dynasty if you NEVER won a championship. Some people (Colin Dowling) argue that the Patriots cant be a dynasty winning 3 of 4 SB's because at 9-7 they didnt make the playoffs in the only non playoff year.
Steel Mike Tomczak
Footballguy
I think you can make an argument for the 1990s Cowboys and 2000s Pats as Modern dynasty candidates.
Buffalo are a DIE NASTY team. They found a way to hang themselves in 4 SBs, and you wish to consider them an all time great....Please.
Buffalo are a DIE NASTY team. They found a way to hang themselves in 4 SBs, and you wish to consider them an all time great....Please.
phthalatemagic
Footballguy
I think there can be more than one dynasty in an era, but we haven't seen it. I think 3 championships in 4 years is a pretty low standard though.TheGreatest said:
phthalatemagic
Footballguy
really? a group that maintains power for several generations? 4 years isn't even "several years"TheGreatest said:dy·nas·ty (dī'nə-stē) Pronunciation Key n. pl. dy·nas·ties A succession of rulers from the same family or line. A family or group that maintains power for several generations: a political dynasty controlling the state. Based on that definition. Yes they were a dynasty.phthalatemagic said:Honestly though, just because they did not win the big one doesn't mean they were not a dynasty. They were the best in the AFC 4 years in a row and one of the best teams in the enitre NFL for that stretch as well.
Despyzer
Lousy Attention Whore
Thanks. That looks like some pretty heady company.
Great info. 1 point here I'd like to make. I think all or at least the mass majority of all of us reading this thread thought of these teams when considering our answers (without any stats to make us think of them). Basically, if you have to think and dig for stats to try and prove a dynasty, then IMO, no they where not a dynasty. A great team, yes. A dominate AFC team, even a dynasty in the AFC, yes. But an NFL dynasty, NO.
Last edited by a moderator:
Neil Beaufort Zod
Footballguy
I don't think anyone here will deny that the Bills of that era were a great team-- consistent, effective, well-coached and plenty of heart. To keep coming back year after year and start the grind again and keep making it to the Super Bowl is amazing. "Great team" almost doesn't sound good enough for what they accomplished.
That being said, they're not a dynasty. Their season always ended with a loss. Someone else was better. Not just once or twice-- every single time. Seattle isn't a dynasty even though they've "ruled" the NFC West. The Bengals aren't a dynasty even they've "ruled" Ohio. Nobody plays to win their conference championship. Kids don't play in the backyard and dream of holding up the Lamar Hunt Trophy.
I think a dynasty means more than one championship in a short amount of time. The recent Patriots, 90s Cowboys and 70s Steelers count. Others, too, of course.
I really believe that the Bills get their proper respect among true NFL fans. Even Dolphins fans, looking back, usually tip their cap to the Bills-- and those teams hated each other.
"you're not a dynasty" doesn't mean "you suck." It just means they weren't in that category. No shame in that.
That being said, they're not a dynasty. Their season always ended with a loss. Someone else was better. Not just once or twice-- every single time. Seattle isn't a dynasty even though they've "ruled" the NFC West. The Bengals aren't a dynasty even they've "ruled" Ohio. Nobody plays to win their conference championship. Kids don't play in the backyard and dream of holding up the Lamar Hunt Trophy.
I think a dynasty means more than one championship in a short amount of time. The recent Patriots, 90s Cowboys and 70s Steelers count. Others, too, of course.
I really believe that the Bills get their proper respect among true NFL fans. Even Dolphins fans, looking back, usually tip their cap to the Bills-- and those teams hated each other.
"you're not a dynasty" doesn't mean "you suck." It just means they weren't in that category. No shame in that.
Domination
Footballguy
Actually I would say great post. I was all primed to try to lay this explanation out there, but I couldn't have said it any better than you did. 
patrickmcgroin
Footballguy
What exactly are you looking for?
Slinger
Footballguy
If it was a regular thing to see teams win 4-straight conference championships then I wouldn't consider it a dynasty. Be that as it may, it's a rare feat. They were a dynasty who choked at the big dance.
The 2001-2004 Eagles were not a dynasty because they were only conference champions once.
The 2001-2004 Eagles were not a dynasty because they were only conference champions once.
phthalatemagic
Footballguy
8 years of winning at least 50% of the championships in that time
Usually a dynasty refers to being the kings of something. Its generally assumed that being a king inferred "over all". If you want to expand on that meaning and allow for subsets such as "kings of the AFC" then I suppose that makes the Bills a dynasty. But now that you've opened pandora's box, you can really water down the meaning of "dynasty". If a team wins their 4-team division for 4 straight years, now they can lay claim to a dynasty. The Browns can lay claim to a dynasty of controlling last place in the AFC north for much of this decade.
So I say no, the Bills are not a dynasty, because crowning them as such will only serve to help make the term "dynasty" meaningless.
So I say no, the Bills are not a dynasty, because crowning them as such will only serve to help make the term "dynasty" meaningless.
phthalatemagic
Footballguy
phthalatemagic
Footballguy
Pat Patriot
Footballguy
I'm not sure everyone understood my purpose in digging those stats up. I'm saying Buffalo WAS NOT a dynasty. Yes they won 70 in 6 years. Yes as someone said, "that is pretty heady company". The difference is that each of those teams won at least 1 title and other than the Cowboys of the late '70's two or three.
Pat Patriot
Footballguy
And what team would that be? The last 2 teams to be referred to in Dynasty terms were current day Patriots (3 titles in 4 years) and the early '90's Cowboys (also 3 titles in 4 years).
radballs
Footballguy
So, if Norwood makes that field goal in the first one, then the Bills are? Maybe, maybe not.Actually, I don't think a team has to win it all to lay claim to a dynasty necessarily. What the Bills did was amazing in that time frame. But, I would have to say their first shot was their best chance and their kicker didn't come through for them. No way the team gets in the conversation of a dynasty though because of the way in which they were absolutely obliterated in the next three Super Bowls. All they ended up proving was how inferior the AFC was to the NFC despite dominating their own conference. Now, if Norwood makes that kick and they are very competitive in one or two of the other ones, then they might get the nod I suppose.
Titus Pullo
Footballguy
an AFC dynasty, but not an NFL dynasty.
phthalatemagic
Footballguy
If I were referring to a specific team, I'd say so - I was just referring to someone's post above.
So if a team won 3 of 4, then went 6-10, 5-11 and 7-9 the next three years, and then won another SB, they'd be a dynasty?How do you overlook the three years under .500?
how so?the eagles only lost 1 bowl, the bills went to 4 str8 and lost all of them. i guess the eagles were a dynasty in the NFC east.
BigRed
Footballguy
Sweet the "dynasty" debate. wtf is w/the obsession over this concept lately?
Oh well, beats another "should Joe Putupstats be in the HOF" debate.
PS re. BUF, a team that never wins a title cannot be considered one of the best ever or a dynasty IMO.
Best at choking in the big game, now you're talking upper tier.
Oh well, beats another "should Joe Putupstats be in the HOF" debate.
PS re. BUF, a team that never wins a title cannot be considered one of the best ever or a dynasty IMO.
Best at choking in the big game, now you're talking upper tier.
Thorpe
Footballguy
Dynasty to me means you win with different players. If a King rules for 50 years, he is not a dynasty, but if he passes the rule to his son, grandson, etc, then he is.
Lakers of the 80's had Magic, Kareem, and Cooper for the whole run, but MacAddo, Wilkes, and Nixon gave way to Worthy, Scott, and AC Green.
Celtics had Russell for their run in the 60's, but Aurbach retired as coach, and Cousy gave way to Havlicek and some other guys changed too.
49ers went from Montana and Walsh to Young and Siefert.
So the Bills were a very good, very consistent team, but nowhere near a dynasty.
Lakers of the 80's had Magic, Kareem, and Cooper for the whole run, but MacAddo, Wilkes, and Nixon gave way to Worthy, Scott, and AC Green.
Celtics had Russell for their run in the 60's, but Aurbach retired as coach, and Cousy gave way to Havlicek and some other guys changed too.
49ers went from Montana and Walsh to Young and Siefert.
So the Bills were a very good, very consistent team, but nowhere near a dynasty.
Similar threads
