The Buffalo Bills (1 Viewer)

[Thorpe]

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.

They choked against the Giants, but the other 3 losses were against some of the best teams in NFL history.

 

[AmpLee]

For me a dynasty is 3 championships in say 5-6 years....Bills aren't a dynasty....Cowboys were, Pats were

 

[comfortably numb]

In my mind DYNASTY is gonna have to win it all a few times at least...

Bills in my mind were not a dynasty, neither were the Atlanta Braves

The went to the World Series

4 out of 5 years, and at least they won one.

1991

1992

1995

1996

(1994 strike year)

 

[Steel Mike Tomczak]

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 even though the Ming ruled China for 300 years, they really can't be considered a dynasty because they didn't rule the rest of the world?

........

 

[Christo]

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 even though the Ming ruled China for 300 years, they really can't be considered a dynasty because they didn't rule the rest of the world?

........

OK, for those slow on the uptake. The Ming (Bills) were a Han (Kelly)-led dynasty based in Beijing (Buffalo). They had great success consolidating their power in northern and southern China (AFC) but were never able to exert much control outside of China (NFL) during their reign. As a matter of fact, they had so much trouble with the Mongols (NFC East), they built the Great Wall of China (Thurman Thomas's helmet, wide right, etc.). Eventually they were replaced by other families (Miami, New England, New York) as the rulers of China (AFC).

 

[Steel Mike Tomczak]

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 even though the Ming ruled China for 300 years, they really can't be considered a dynasty because they didn't rule the rest of the world?

........

OK, for those slow on the uptake. The Ming (Bills) were a Han (Kelly)-led dynasty based in Beijing (Buffalo). They had great success consolidating their power in northern and southern China (AFC) but were never able to exert much control outside of China (NFL) during their reign. As a matter of fact, they had so much trouble with the Mongols (NFC East), they built the Great Wall of China (Thurman Thomas's helmet, wide right, etc.). Eventually they were replaced by other families (Miami, New England, New York) as the rulers of China (AFC).

.... Someone has too much idle time...and I mean idle time.

 

[phthalatemagic]

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 even though the Ming ruled China for 300 years, they really can't be considered a dynasty because they didn't rule the rest of the world?

........

OK, for those slow on the uptake. The Ming (Bills) were a Han (Kelly)-led dynasty based in Beijing (Buffalo). They had great success consolidating their power in northern and southern China (AFC) but were never able to exert much control outside of China (NFL) during their reign. As a matter of fact, they had so much trouble with the Mongols (NFC East), they built the Great Wall of China (Thurman Thomas's helmet, wide right, etc.). Eventually they were replaced by other families (Miami, New England, New York) as the rulers of China (AFC).

I like the explanation, but you lost me when you equated the Great Wall with Thurman Thomas' helmet

 

[Bri]

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.

I can roll with this. I never thought of it that way. The Pats have a pretty significant roster turnover each year under BB and I think they would be or would be close if there wasn't gaps between Supes yet the Cowboys of early 90s don't do it for me. To me those Cowboy teams are/were "just" great but not a dynasty. This is probably why, could never put my finger on it. Interesting point.As for this thread, do you "have to" consider the Broncos a dynasty if you consider the Bills one? seems like a fair comparison

 

[Bri]

OK, for those slow on the uptake.

 

[Bob Henry]

Great team, but no dynasty. No championship = no dynasty.

Cowboys, 49ers and Steelers have all had dynasties.. Patriots can make a case, too.

Bills were an excellent team, but not quite a dynasty.. blame Norwood, that was always the popular thing to do.

 

[switz]

Yes they were a dynasty... top of their conference 4 years in a row... one of the best teams in the NFL for like 6 or 7 years in a rowThey are more a dynasty than other teams that have won two or three SBs in a span of 5 or 6 years...

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.

So the Soviet Union wasn't a World Power because they didn't win the Cold War?

 

[redman]

Yes they were a dynasty... top of their conference 4 years in a row... one of the best teams in the NFL for like 6 or 7 years in a rowThey are more a dynasty than other teams that have won two or three SBs in a span of 5 or 6 years...

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.

So the Soviet Union wasn't a World Power because they didn't win the Cold War?

Wow, that's quite the leap to get to that analogy!

 

[switz]

Yes they were a dynasty... top of their conference 4 years in a row... one of the best teams in the NFL for like 6 or 7 years in a rowThey are more a dynasty than other teams that have won two or three SBs in a span of 5 or 6 years...

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.

So the Soviet Union wasn't a World Power because they didn't win the Cold War?

Wow, that's quite the leap to get to that analogy!

Pretty straightforward... for quite some time, the two greatest powers were USSR and USA (well, Anglo American) their battles was the Cold War, the USSR lost. Obviously. So they weren't a dynasty, even thought they held world power for 50 years? The Bills were a dynasty even though they didn't win the SB. They were the second best team in the NFL 4 years in a row, and were a top team for longer.

 

[Steel Mike Tomczak]

I get that football is likened to war alot, but you guys are going overboard with this world power/NFL comparing. The world isn't based upon a 16 game schedule. All your logics are laughable when making any comparison to America/European countries and NFL teams. If you want to talk dynasty, try to compare NFL teams to NFL teams, not world countries. Thanks.