Philadelphia Eagles: Dynasty In The Making?

[Kiwibrown]

36 minutes ago, MathMan said:

the 49ers had more star power

Is that all? The west coast offended impact has nothing to do with it?

[SteelKing728]

5 hours ago, Ketchup said:

Nothing in this era comes even remotely close to the Patriots dynasty. 

Of course, but you said the Packers or the Seahawks were the first comparisons, and that's not true. The closest thing to the Patriots dynasty were the Giants!

[Nabbs4u]

There hasn't been a Dynasty since the end of 2004 season.

If you want to say there hasn't been as consistent a run over a 13 year span in the NFL as the current NE Patriots have at it/debate. They're not a Dynasty though winning only 2 SB in that span.

Now if they win it again this year making it 3SB in 5 years then and only then should Dynasty talk apply again.

[Packerraymond]

Their best bet is to hook Carson up with a supermodel pulling in an 8 figure salary and convince him to be a middle of the pack paid QB.

Once he's paid like a top dog, the Eagles will suffer the same fate as the Packers, Seahawks and Falcons all have in the NFC. Suddenly there isn't room for that key vet off the bench pulling in 3-4m a year and that guy is a 5th round pick. Then it becomes all about developing what you do bring in and finding bargains where you can.

I think dynasties in today's NFL will be limited to rookie QBs. If one comes in the league as fast and puts up Wentz or Watson type numbers you have the ability to be elite for 4-5 years. Once you pay the guy it's about him carrying you and finding some luck along the way. Say what you want about Brady, he's had some substantial luck go for him in his last 2 SBs wins, hell he's had it go against him against the Giants too.

[Jakuvious]

15 hours ago, Kiwibrown said:

no one talks of the 80's-90's skins as a football dynasty, I know it was over a decade or close too it, but 3 superbowls in 10 years is pretty legit. 

I think there's a few issues with considering the Redskins a dynasty in that era. The simple one is time. 3 over 10 is good, but you're looking at 33% of their years resulting in superbowl wins in that time. Compared to the 70s Steelers 4 in 6 years, at 67%, the Pats 3 in 5 years, at 60%, the 49ers 4 in 9 years, at 44% or 3 in 6 years at 50%, etc. It's a lower rate of superbowl victories than most teams universally called dynasties. The gaps were fairly large, too. Every other dynasty went back to back at least once. The Skins had a 4 year gap and a 3 year gap. Their dominance also wasn't constant over that period. 3 years missing the playoffs out of that 10 (so they missed the post-season as often as they won the superbowl) and 5 years not winning their division (meaning they lost it as often as they won it.) It doesn't help that the 49ers dynasty basically occurred within those gaps, too.  Additionally, aside from Joe Gibbs, that 1982 team and that 1991 team were just different teams. The entire roster had turned over between those two superbowls, with very few exceptions. You went through 4 QBs in that time. Jeff Bostic and Art Monk were the only guys who started each of those years, and Art Monk wasn't really a notable player yet in '82. So while the Redskins won both those superbowls, it wasn't really the same contiguous team. It was an almost completely remade roster.

Also, this may or may not matter, not saying it does, but their first superbowl came during the strike season, so at the time that may have decreased visibility to that too.

[Pugger]

On 6/24/2018 at 7:17 PM, Heinz D. said:

Not really, as to how he phrased it. It could have been that he meant, "We really have no way of knowing at this point. Let's see how things play out." Just didn't come off that way.

And I'd say the Seahawks had some prolonged playoff success, just not SB wins, wouldn't you? 

So did GB.  We had 8 straight years making the playoffs and even making the NFCC game a couple of times but came up short.  If only winning the SB counts then only one team in this league over the past dozen or so years have had any prolonged success.

[Ketchup]

9 hours ago, SteelKing728 said:

Of course, but you said the Packers or the Seahawks were the first comparisons, and that's not true. The closest thing to the Patriots dynasty were the Giants!

I wasn’t comparing them to the Patriots, I was comparing them to the Eagles. 

[Heinz D.]

31 minutes ago, Pugger said:

So did GB.  We had 8 straight years making the playoffs and even making the NFCC game a couple of times but came up short.  If only winning the SB counts then only one team in this league over the past dozen or so years have had any prolonged success.

Most of us probably can remember our football history from the last decade or so. But thanks for the lesson, anyway.

Being in back to back Super Bowls would count for more, I think. And most folks weighing in think that SB victories are the main factor in determining dynasties, so yeah, you're right, the majority does feel that only one team from recent memory is part of a dynasty (or close, depending on their point of view). 

[Non-Issue]

Sure. Why not?

Doesn't mean I think for a second that they will actually become a dynasty. Dynasties are built by the front office (the talent evaluators and the bean counters) and also require a lot of luck. There have been plenty of teams that had the look of a "dynasty in the making" that, through free agency, poor drafts, or injuries, never managed to make it happen.

Time will tell.

[RandyMossIsBoss]

I don't think this Eagles team has that same dynasty potential "aura" that surrounded the Packers and Seahawks after their respective SB wins. Feels a lot more like the 09 Saints, magical season, but lacking an identifiable core of great young players.

[KellChippy]

8 hours ago, RandyMossIsBoss said:

I don't think this Eagles team has that same dynasty potential "aura" that surrounded the Packers and Seahawks after their respective SB wins. Feels a lot more like the 09 Saints, magical season, but lacking an identifiable core of great young players.

It definitely did have that magical  season feel. I would argue the Seahawks were the only team of those mentioned to feel like a dynasty in the making, and five years later their players don’t respect Pete Carroll. 

We are set up very well on paper, but a dynasty is so rare. I would assume the worst about any team until 2 championships. 

 

[Kiwibrown]

16 hours ago, Jakuvious said:

I think there's a few issues with considering the Redskins a dynasty in that era. The simple one is time. 3 over 10 is good, but you're looking at 33% of their years resulting in superbowl wins in that time. Compared to the 70s Steelers 4 in 6 years, at 67%, the Pats 3 in 5 years, at 60%, the 49ers 4 in 9 years, at 44% or 3 in 6 years at 50%, etc. It's a lower rate of superbowl victories than most teams universally called dynasties. The gaps were fairly large, too. Every other dynasty went back to back at least once. The Skins had a 4 year gap and a 3 year gap. Their dominance also wasn't constant over that period. 3 years missing the playoffs out of that 10 (so they missed the post-season as often as they won the superbowl) and 5 years not winning their division (meaning they lost it as often as they won it.) It doesn't help that the 49ers dynasty basically occurred within those gaps, too.  Additionally, aside from Joe Gibbs, that 1982 team and that 1991 team were just different teams. The entire roster had turned over between those two superbowls, with very few exceptions. You went through 4 QBs in that time. Jeff Bostic and Art Monk were the only guys who started each of those years, and Art Monk wasn't really a notable player yet in '82. So while the Redskins won both those superbowls, it wasn't really the same contiguous team. It was an almost completely remade roster.

Also, this may or may not matter, not saying it does, but their first superbowl came during the strike season, so at the time that may have decreased visibility to that too.

They are all very good reasons. 

The pats I think of as two teams the team that won the Super Bowls in the 2000’a and the 2010’s. More like two dynasty’s rather than 1. The teams only really meet through bill and Tom.

[Danger]

18 hours ago, RandyMossIsBoss said:

I don't think this Eagles team has that same dynasty potential "aura" that surrounded the Packers and Seahawks after their respective SB wins. Feels a lot more like the 09 Saints, magical season, but lacking an identifiable core of great young players.

Honestly I didn't feel "Dynasty" from either of those teams, but what they had in their favor was that the NFC wasn't nearly as good as it is now. This Eagles team has a much more difficult road to becoming a dynasty than either of those two. I don't think the Eagles are a dynasty.

[EaglesPeteC]

I don't care about a Dynasty. I'm still living my best life knowing all those "No Rings" jokes are dead. 

[childofpudding]

On 6/26/2018 at 5:05 AM, Nabbs4u said:

There hasn't been a Dynasty since the end of 2004 season.

If you want to say there hasn't been as consistent a run over a 13 year span in the NFL as the current NE Patriots have at it/debate. They're not a Dynasty though winning only 2 SB in that span.

Now if they win it again this year making it 3SB in 5 years then and only then should Dynasty talk apply again.

Yep. The first 3 SBs were a dynasty, but the 10-year gap between SB wins erases that. As for their recent run, I think you could argue that winning 2 of 3 while also making 3 of 4 could qualify as a dynasty, but it's borderline and I could understand someone disagreeing.