Topic #5, Group #2: Greatest Dynasty

[klunderbunker]

If you haven't checked, there are new group allignments. Make sure you are in the right group before posting.

This thread is to be used by those in Group #2 (see the stickied thread for rosters if you're unsure of where you are). Any other posts in here will be flagged for spam and deleted. You have four days from the time this is posted to post (as in the time this is posted on Sunday, which is approximately when the new topic will go up. Note that I mean 96 hours after MY initial post, not the lead off debater.) your arguments, rebuttals and anything else you want. Best overall debater in that time period receives 10 points, second receives 9, third receives 8, all others receive 7.

Hitting Lead-Off in this debate is LSN80. He has 24 hours to reply and if he doesn't then it's open season.

Again: 4 days, best overall poster gets first place points.

Topic: What team has had the greatest dynasty in sports? This can be pro or college.

Scores will be posted as soon as the three judges give their scores.

Go.

 

[LSN80]

Opening Statement​

Webster defines a dynasty as " A family or group that maintains power for several generations, or a long length of time." So often in sports, we hear the term being thrown around about who the next "dynasty will be, and whether there are current dynasties already in place. With salary cap restrictions and free agency, it's much more difficult to build a dynasty then it has been in the past. The New England Patriots looked like a shoe-in to be the next real dynasty, but back to back exits in divisional playoff games has ended any hope of that.

That being said, I believe there are several key factors that go into being a true dynasty. A great coach is truly a centerpiece of a great dynasty. Plenty of great teams without a good coach that's "lost their team" have fallen flat on their face. Leadership is also an important characteristic as well. True dynasties have players step up and hit big shots or make good pitches when it counts. Consitency and longevity are truly hallmarks of a dyansty as well. And talent, of course, is a key factor as well. On their way to winning 8 national championship in ten years and 88 games in a row ,the UCLA's men's basketball team from 1964-1975 embodied all these things. They are hands down the greatest dynasty of all time.

Coaching:​

The Bruins squad was lead by the late John Wooden, perhaps the greatest coach of all time. Wooden was a leader and a motivator both on and off the court, setting the example for how his players should behave. In guiding the Bruins to 10 National Championships in 12 years, including 7 in a row, the "Wizard of Westwood" won 6 National Coach of the year awards during this time span. How revered is Wooden in basketball lore? The equivalent to the Heisman in Basketball is known as the "John R Wooden" award. Wooden was elected into the inaugral class of the college basketball Hall of Fame, and was named in 2009 by the Sporting News as the Greatest Coach of all Time. He also retired a winner, winning the National Championship in 1975 in his last game.

Leadership and Talent:​

A dynasty is much harder to maintain in the college ranks, simply because of turnover. However, this team managed to consistently recruit and keep big time players in their program during this time. Basketball Hall of Famer played for the 1965 championship team and scored a then record 45 points in the championship game against Michigan. Fellow Hall of Famer Bill Walton made an astonishing 21 of 22 field goals in the championship game in 1973 on his way to 44 points. The greatest of them all, Lew Alcindor(Kareem Abdul Jabaar) still holds UCLA records of this day of 26.4 points per game, most points in a single game of 61, and most field goals in a game with 26.

Consistency:​

In the cases of Goodrich, Walton, and Alcindor, all three only played for the Bruins for 3 seasons apiece. Despite this, the Bruins managed to win 8 national championships in 10 seasons. Everyone is quite familar with their 88 game winning streak from 71-74, which remains the longest in NCAA men's basketball to this day. Many forget the 47 game winning streak they had prior to it in 1969-1971. They also advanced to an unprecedented 11 Final Fours in those 12 years, and their overall record was 233-7.

Conclusion:​

This team truly defined what it means to be a dynasty. They had perhaps the greatest coach in not only the history of college basketball but in all pro sports in John Wooden. Wooden's consistency in teaching his players the right way both on and off the court cannot be overstated as it was a large contributing factor to the team's success. The team during this 12 year span set records such as the 88 game winning streak in men's college basketball that will likely never be broken. They lost only 7 games during this stretch, which is less then one per year. That's the epitome of consistency. Their big time players such as Goodrich, Walton, and Alcindor played biggest and best when it mattered most, which is another part of being a great dynasty. Because of these, the 1964-1975 UCLA Men's basketball team is easily the greatest dynasty of all time.

 

[hatehabsforever]

How does one even begin to define what comprises a true sports dynasty? Do we examine the professional ranks, or do we expand our view to include amateur sports as well, whether it be college, high school, whatever? Are we arrogant enough to include sports on this side of the pond only, or do we cross the Atlantic to include football, cricket, etc., Do we consider teams only, or do we delve into such things as the Olympics, where a given country could be considered to be a dynasty in the way it has represented it's country at the Olympic Games (or even the World Cup even though it has been firmly established that the World Cup has less importance than the Olympic Games ).

For the purpose of my discussion, I restricted my consideration to the professional sports teams, and I narrowed my focus to the big four on this continent: NBA, NFL, MLB, and NHL.

Honestly, my knee jerk reaction to the question was the Edmonton Oilers. Winning five Stanley Cups over a seven year period was impressive. Icing a team blocked solid with Hall of Famers, they won the Cup in '84 and '85. In all likelihood, they would have won it in '86 if Steve Smith hadn't scored into hos own net in the semis. '87 and '88 brought two more Cups, with one more to come in '90, after Pocklington essentially sold the Great One. However, once I thought about it, I figured I'd never sell the wrestlezone faithful on a NHL dynasty. Plus, how to distinguish them from the NY Islanders or the Montreal Canadiens, and trust me when I say this, I'm not giving the nod to the Canadiens, after all, I hate them, forever.

My heart wanted to say the Patriots of the past decade. However, with a 14-2 record this season being spoiled by an early playoff exit, at the hands of the Jets no less, and with their 16-0 flirtation with perfection spoiled by a fluky loss in the Superbowl, I could not in all good conscience pick them.

To me, a true sports dynasty has to win championships. It's not enough to just be there;you have to win. So don't try to convince me that the Buffalo Bills or Atlanta Braves had dynasties. Zero and one title, respectively, do not a dynasty make.

You have to win championships, and you have to string a bunch together. You have to have an uninterrupted streak of significance, and you have to do it over a period of at least approaching a decade or more. You have to do it with dominance, with attitude, with the kind of performance whereby everyone is gunning for you because you are clearly the best, yet despite this target, no one else can get it done. You have to be the clear favorite to win, and you have to be able to follow through, and if you don't, it has to be a truly shocking upset.

With these parameters in mind, the choice for me is the clear. It has to be the Boston Celtics of 1957-1969. A thirteen season spurt involving 12 appearances in the Finals, 11 titles, eight of which were consecutive spanning 1959-1966. A team featuring the legendary coaching prowess of Red Auerbach, and featuring such players as John Havlichek, Bill Russell, and Bob Cousy. In my opinion, 8 consecutive championships at the professional level cannot be discounted. With the parity seen amongst professional sports today, and with such factors as free agency and greed at play, I cannot imagine ever seeing a streak of this magnitude being equalled ever again.

I have been a lifelong fan of the Boston Celtics. When I think of this dominant franchise,I tend to think of Bird, McHale, Parrish, Ainge, and Johnson. These guys comprised a pretty dominant force for a while. The Celtics of the last several years have been no slouches either. But these two incarnations of the Celtics pale in comparison to the team from Beantwon from '57-'69.

Think of it this way. My second choice would have been the Chicago Bulls of the 1990's. With a three-peat in '91-'93, a two year hiatus while Jordan retired, followed by another three-peat from '96-'98, they were a pretty awesome team as well. Had Jordan not decided to retire prematurely, in his prime, in '94 and '95, chances are they may have won these two seasons as well. If everything else remained unchanged, that would have been 8 consecutive as well. But this is all hypothetical, all speculative, all conjecture. The Celtics did it. No what if's involved, they lived it, they accomplished it. Even if the Bulls had strung it from '91-'98, they still would have needed to pad these stats with 3 more titles, 4 more Finals appearances, 5 more years.

With all due respect to the Yankees, or the Steelers, or the Canadiens, or the Cowboys, etc., the choice is clear. The greatest dynasty, achieving a feat which will in all likelihood never be replicated, is the Boston Celtics of 1957-1969 .

 

[LSN80]

First, I needed to clarify a few things from my earlier post.

1. Gail Goodrich is the Hall of Famer who played for UCLA from 1963-1965 and set the record(at the time) for most points in a game with 45 in the 1965 National Championship Game against Michigan.

2. During their dynasty years, the Bruins won 10 NCAA Tournaments in 12 years. They appeared in 11 Final Fours in 12 years from the time span of 1964-1975.

How does one even begin to define what comprises a true sports dynasty? Do we examine the professional ranks, or do we expand our view to include amateur sports as well, whether it be college, high school, whatever? Are we arrogant enough to include sports on this side of the pond only, or do we cross the Atlantic to include football, cricket, etc., For the purpose of my discussion, I restricted my consideration to the professional sports teams, and I narrowed my focus to the big four on this continent: NBA, NFL, MLB, and NHL.
Do we consider teams only, or do we delve into such things as the Olympics, where a given country could be considered to be a dynasty in the way it has represented it's country at the Olympic Games (or even the World Cup even though it has been firmly established that the World Cup has less importance than the Olympic Games )

I think we have to look at the college ranks, because the players that later play at the professional ranks mostly get their start within the college ranks. Eight of the players from the UCLA basketball dynasty went on to become first round draft picks, with six becoming future Hall of Famers.

As for considering the Olympics, its impossible to do so. The event is held too inconsistently for a true dynasty to emerge. It's where we get things such as "Dream Teams", but not dynasties.

Honestly, my knee jerk reaction to the question was the Edmonton Oilers. Winning five Stanley Cups over a seven year period was impressive. Icing a team blocked solid with Hall of Famers, they won the Cup in '84 and '85. In all likelihood, they would have won it in '86 if Steve Smith hadn't scored into hos own net in the semis. '87 and '88 brought two more Cups, with one more to come in '90, after Pocklington essentially sold the Great One. However, once I thought about it, I figured I'd never sell the wrestlezone faithful on a NHL dynasty. Plus, how to distinguish them from the NY Islanders or the Montreal Canadiens, and trust me when I say this, I'm not giving the nod to the Canadiens, after all, I hate them, forever.

Of any of these teams, I'd have to go with the New York Islanders. They're the only team to win four Stanley Cups in a row, which will likely never be duplicated again. Hockey is likely the most difficult sport to repeat in, so to do so four times in a row makes it stand alone, among hockey teams.

My heart wanted to say the Patriots of the past decade. However, with a 14-2 record this season being spoiled by an early playoff exit, at the hands of the Jets no less, and with their 16-0 flirtation with perfection spoiled by a fluky loss in the Superbowl, I could not in all good conscience pick them.

Its hard to conisder the Patriots in the discussion after missing the postseason altogether in 2008, and exiting in the divisional round in both 2009 and 2010, each year at home no less.

You have to win championships, and you have to string a bunch together. You have to have an uninterrupted streak of significance, and you have to do it over a period of at least approaching a decade or more. You have to do it with dominance, with attitude, with the kind of performance whereby everyone is gunning for you because you are clearly the best, yet despite this target, no one else can get it done. You have to be the clear favorite to win, and you have to be able to follow through, and if you don't, it has to be a truly shocking upset.

This we agree upon.

With these parameters in mind, the choice for me is the clear. It has to be the Boston Celtics of 1957-1969. A thirteen season spurt involving 12 appearances in the Finals, 11 titles, eight of which were consecutive spanning 1959-1966. A team featuring the legendary coaching prowess of Red Auerbach, and featuring such players as John Havlichek, Bill Russell, and Bob Cousy. In my opinion, 8 consecutive championships at the professional level cannot be discounted. With the parity seen amongst professional sports today, and with such factors as free agency and greed at play, I cannot imagine ever seeing a streak of this magnitude being equalled ever again.

This would be my second choice honestly, but what truly sets the Bruins ahead of the Celtics is the 88 game winning streak. Consider this: That's over a FULL NBA season, undefeated. In all, UCLA had four straight seasons during this run where they went 30-0 during the collegiate season. Their only losses came in the NCAA tournament, where they went to 11 Final Fours in 12 years. Since freshman couldn't play, there were some students at UCLA who never lost a regular season game. Ever. While Boston played with the same players every single year, UCLA maintained their dominance with different players. The sign of a true dynasty is being able to maintain what it's doing while going through changes.


As for the coaches, Wooden was truly in a class of his own. He was able to mold players to fit his system and maintain the dominance of it irregardless of changes. A 2009 poll of 118 Hall of Famers by the Sporting News declared Wooden the greatest coach of all time. Auerbach, as great as he was, finished 6th.

Spoiler

Source: The Sporting News
PUBLISHED Wednesday, Jul 29, 2009 at 3:53 pm EDT
Jeff D'Alessio SN Icon Sporting News

Headlining the new issue of Sporting News Magazine: our list of sports 50 greatest coaches of all time, as selected by a panel of 118 Hall of Famers, championship coaches and other experts.

Headlining the new issue of Sporting News Magazine: our list of sports? 50 greatest coaches of all time, as selected by a panel of 118 Hall of Famers, championship coaches and other experts.

John Wooden, who at UCLA won a record 10 Division I men's basketball championships in 12 years, was a runaway winner. SN?s 1970 Sportsman of the Year picked up 57 first-place votes from the panel, which includes seven World Series-winning managers, four Super Bowl champion coaches and the winningest coaches in the NBA, NHL and college basketball.

When I think of Coach Wooden, the first word that comes to mind is execution, said Gail Goodrich, who wrote an appreciation of his former coach in SN. We never worried about the opponent, only about how we were going to play.

Green Bay Packers great Vince Lombardi came in second place in SN?s rankings, picking up 20 first-place votes. Wrote Bart Starr, Lombardi's Hall of Fame quarterback: (He said), Gentlemen, we are going to relentlessly chase perfection, knowing full well we will not catch it because nothing is perfect. But we are going to relentlessly chase it because in the process we will catch excellence. He paused for a moment, got up even closer to those of us sitting up front, looked us in the eye and added, I am not remotely interested in being just good.

SN turned to former players of the top 20 coaches on the list, asking each to relive a moment that best defined their greatness. Among those joining Goodrich and Starr as guest authors: Hall of Famers Dwight Stephenson, Paul Warfield, Tommy Heinsohn, Luc Robitaille, Mike McCormack, Gale Sayers, Lynn Swann, Isiah Thomas and Roger Staubach.

Sporting News Top 50 greatest coaches
1. John Wooden, college basketball
2. Vince Lombardi, NFL
3. Bear Bryant, college football
4. Phil Jackson, NBA
5. Don Shula, NFL
6. Red Auerbach, NBA
7. Scotty Bowman, NHL
8. Dean Smith, college basketball
9. Casey Stengel, MLB
10. Knute Rockne, college football
11. Pat Summitt, women?s college basketball

12. Paul Brown, NFL
13. Joe Paterno, college football
14. George Halas, NFL
15. Chuck Noll, NFL
16. Bob Knight, college basketball
17. Joe Gibbs, NFL
18. Tom Landry, NFL
19. Mike Krzyzewski, college basketball
20. Bill Belichick, NFL
21. Adolph Rupp, college basketball

22. Joe McCarthy, MLB
23. Eddie Robinson, college football
24. Bobby Bowden, college football
25. John McGraw, MLB
26. Bill Walsh, NFL
27. Woody Hayes, college football
28. Connie Mack, MLB
29. Bud Wilkinson, college football
30. Pat Riley, NBA
31. Pete Newell, college basketball
32. Joe Torre, MLB
33. Bill Parcells, NFL
34. Tom Osborne, college football
35. Walter Alston, MLB
36. Bo Schembechler, college football
37. Toe Blake, NHL
38. Sparky Anderson, MLB
39. Al Arbour, NHL
40. Amos Alonzo Stagg, college football
41. Tony La Russa, MLB
42. Geno Auriemma, women?s college basketball
43. Dick Irvin, NHL
44. Ara Parseghian, college football
45. Chuck Daly, NBA
46. Bobby Cox, MLB
47. Hank Iba, college basketball
48. Tommy Lasorda, MLB
49. Gregg Popovich, NBA
50. Herb Brooks, NHL

Wooden was the glue that held this team together. He truly set the Bruins dynasty of 1964-1975 apart from that of the Boston Celtics.

 

[hatehabsforever]

I think we have to look at the college ranks, because the players that later play at the professional ranks mostly get their start within the college ranks. Eight of the players from the UCLA basketball dynasty went on to become first round draft picks, with six becoming future Hall of Famers.

I don't agree that we should look at the college ranks. The fact that the players who play in college will ultimately play in the big leagues is totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I don't really care about the fact that so many UCLA guys became first round draft choices or Hall of Famers. Kudos to them for doing so, but again, irrelevant to the discussion. Their accomplishments in the college ranks don't add up to their college teams being dynasties. Winning streaks in college are less relevant because of the disparity in the quality of talent they face while amassing their records. Sure, the Bruins won a lot of games in a row, but how many of these wins were against lackluster opposition, as opposed to the pro ranks, whereby even though some franchises are less successful than others, they are still professional basketball players on pro teams. You simply cannot compare a winning streak for the Bruins to one as amassed by the Celtics.

As for considering the Olympics, its impossible to do so. The event is held too inconsistently for a true dynasty to emerge. It's where we get things such as "Dream Teams", but not dynasties.

I disagree about your assessment of the impossibility of an Olympic dynasty. If, for example, the US had put together their original Dream Team and won Olympic gold, then came back four years later with a Dream Team 2, etc., etc., you could certainly reach a point whereby American basketball at the Olympic level could be viewed as a dynasty (hypothetically speaking). It's academic anyway, as I excluded such considerations from my discussion anyway.

Of any of these teams, I'd have to go with the New York Islanders. They're the only team to win four Stanley Cups in a row, which will likely never be duplicated again. Hockey is likely the most difficult sport to repeat in, so to do so four times in a row makes it stand alone, among hockey teams.

Hard to argue against the Islanders. Mind you, they aren't the only team to win four Stanley Cups in a row. The habs (who I hate) won five. But if Steve Smith remembered which net he was supposed to shoot at, and if the Oilers had not shipped Gretzky out, who knows how many cups they may have won. But the very fact that an argument can be made for the Isles, the Habs, the Oilers, or even the Red Wings, makes it particularly difficult to single either of them out. If neither of them is a clear cut dynasty even among the NHL only, it would be difficult to suggest either of them as the greatest dynasty ever amongst all sports.

Its hard to conisder the Patriots in the discussion after missing the postseason altogether in 2008, and exiting in the divisional round in both 2009 and 2010, each year at home no less.

Sadly, I have to agree with you here. Had the Patriots won the Superbowl to complete their perfect season, and had they won this year, they'd be worthy of serious consideration, but with the blemishes on their record, they are out of the running.

This would be my second choice honestly, but what truly sets the Bruins ahead of the Celtics is the 88 game winning streak. Consider this: That's over a FULL NBA season, undefeated. In all, UCLA had four straight seasons during this run where they went 30-0 during the collegiate season. Their only losses came in the NCAA tournament, where they went to 11 Final Fours in 12 years. Since freshman couldn't play, there were some students at UCLA who never lost a regular season game. Ever. While Boston played with the same players every single year, UCLA maintained their dominance with different players. The sign of a true dynasty is being able to maintain what it's doing while going through changes.

The 88 game wining streak would be more impressive if it weren't in the amateur ranks. As I said earlier, a considerable number of these victories would have come against less than stellar opposition. You are correct that it is impressive to be able to sustain dominance in spite of ongoing changes, but the pro ranks are susceptible to this too, especially in the age of salary caps and free agency. Look at the number of changes to the roster of the Patriots, for example, over the last decade. While they haven't been a true dynasty as we already established, they have been consistently pretty damn good, despite numerous comings and goings over the decade.

Wooden was the glue that held this team together. He truly set the Bruins dynasty of 1964-1975 apart from that of the Boston Celtics.

With all due respect to Wooden (or Auerbach for that matter), the coach is not terribly relevant in assessing the dynasty situation. Sure the coach I important, but you can certainly produce a dynasty regardless of the coaching situation. With all due respect to Phil Jackson, for example, the Bulls were so dominant during their run in the '90's that I probably could have coached them to considerable success. Coaching strategy? Give the ball to Jordan and get out of the way. Even if you were to convince me that Wooden>Auerbach, which I certainly don't concede, it would definitely not convince me that Bruins>Celtics.

 

[LSN80]

I don't agree that we should look at the college ranks. The fact that the players who play in college will ultimately play in the big leagues is totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I don't really care about the fact that so many UCLA guys became first round draft choices or Hall of Famers. Kudos to them for doing so, but again, irrelevant to the discussion. .

I thoroughly disagree. Its not irrelevant to the discussion because the deabte topic was what dynasty was more impressive, be it pro OR college. This is based solely on opinion, and nothing more. One of the biggest things I noted about what makes an impressive team a dynasty is talent. You note later in the this post that with the Bulls, you would just give the ball to Jordan and let him go. How is that different if a college team did that? As I noted earlier, there were several players such as Gail Goodrich who, on the biggest stage of them all in the NCAA tournament final in 1965, put up the most points ever at that point in a college game with 45 against Michigan. Talent is one of the big keys that leads to dynasty's, and UCLA had plenty of talent during their tweleve year run, as I already explained.

Their accomplishments in the college ranks don't add up to their college teams being dynasties. Winning streaks in college are less relevant because of the disparity in the quality of talent they face while amassing their records. Sure, the Bruins won a lot of games in a row, but how many of these wins were against lackluster opposition, as opposed to the pro ranks, whereby even though some franchises are less successful than others, they are still professional basketball players on pro teams. You simply cannot compare a winning streak for the Bruins to one as amassed by the Celtics.

It does when the glue that holds the team together is the coach. Wooden lead the team to 7 titles in a row during the streak, and 10 titles in 12 years. When Wooden retired in 1975, the Bruins didnt win another NCAA Tournament until 1995. That's 20 years later. UCLA's dynasty also occurred during a time when only the top team in every conference made it to the NCAA Tournament, so they were hardly playing inferior opponents. If anything, they had it more difficult then the Celtics did, because the Celtics complied their streak during a time period where there was no free agency in the NBA until 1976. So Ill agree with you that there's no possible way that the Bruins streak can be compared to the Celtics, as the Celtics never ran off 88 straight wins(let alone 47) while being comprised of virtually the same team. The Bruins streak is more impressive because they did it with interchangeable parts.

Hard to argue against the Islanders. Mind you, they aren't the only team to win four Stanley Cups in a row. The habs (who I hate) won five. But if Steve Smith remembered which net he was supposed to shoot at, and if the Oilers had not shipped Gretzky out, who knows how many cups they may have won. But the very fact that an argument can be made for the Isles, the Habs, the Oilers, or even the Red Wings, makes it particularly difficult to single either of them out. If neither of them is a clear cut dynasty even among the NHL only, it would be difficult to suggest either of them as the greatest dynasty ever amongst all sports.

I agree with your assessment here. When you want to establish what the most impressive dynasty is, there needs to be a clear cut one in your sport on the level of which you are playing it. And I could make an argument for the Isles, Red Wings(who i hate as you do the Habs), Oilers, and of course Montreal. I think we've both established the most impressive dynasties in college and professional basketball alike.

The 88 game wining streak would be more impressive if it weren't in the amateur ranks. As I said earlier, a considerable number of these victories would have come against less than stellar opposition. You are correct that it is impressive to be able to sustain dominance in spite of ongoing changes, but the pro ranks are susceptible to this too, especially in the age of salary caps and free agency. Look at the number of changes to the roster of the Patriots, for example, over the last decade. While they haven't been a true dynasty as we already established, they have been consistently pretty damn good, despite numerous comings and goings over the decade.

Being that this debate allows either pro or college teams to be taken into consideration, I have to disagree with your assessment here. As I already pointed out, the UCLA men played at a time where only the top team in each conference made it into the NCAA tournament. Because of this, their wins were hardly established against inferior opponents. What truly makes them the greatest dynasty is not just the 88 wins, either. Its the 4 consecutive regular seasons of 30-0 basketball. It's the 7 consecutive National Championships, and the 10 in 12 years. Its the impact of coach John Wooden AND its the 88 wins in a row.

Looking at the comparison between your Patriots and the Bruins should only further my point. Both teams played with ongoing changes over the years. The Patriots once had Randy Moss, Wes Welker, Dante Stallworth and Joey Galloway for Brady to throw to. The Bruins went from Goodrich to Walton to Alcindor(Kareem). The difference is, the Patriots have been unable to sustain that success to a level that would make them a dynasty because of their last 4 seasons, while the Bruins maintained that dominance and continued to pile up championships despite departures and new faces. Even the great Tom Brady couldnt do that when the talent around him lessened.

With all due respect to Wooden (or Auerbach for that matter), the coach is not terribly relevant in assessing the dynasty situation. Sure the coach I important, but you can certainly produce a dynasty regardless of the coaching situation. With all due respect to Phil Jackson, for example, the Bulls were so dominant during their run in the '90's that I probably could have coached them to considerable success. Coaching strategy? Give the ball to Jordan and get out of the way. Even if you were to convince me that Wooden>Auerbach, which I certainly don't concede, it would definitely not convince me that Bruins>Celtics.

The coach is incredibly relevant when assessing the dynasty situation. As i pointed out already, when Wooden retired, he did so having won 10 championships in 12 years. The team promptly went on to not win another championship in 20 years. At best, your underestimating the coaching impact.

With no dis-respect intended toward you, I believe you're understating the value of the coach. Before Phil Jackson took over as coach, Jordan had competed in 6 NBA seasons. Despite setting a playoff record for most points in a game that stands til today in 1985-86, the Bulls were unable to win. That same strategy you said you would use if you were coach was virtually the strategy the Bulls used, and it got them nowhere. Do you recall the Jordan Rules? They were a defensive strategy employed by the Detroit Pistons and later adopted by other teams in order to stop Jordan. I wasn';t until Jackson came in and installed the Triange Offense that the Bulls began to win titles. All six of Jordan's titles came with Jackson as coach. Stan Albeck, Doug Collins, and Tim Floyd didn't win with Jordan. Im not saying the coach is the only reason a team becomes a dynasty, but they're a huge factor in it. As Ive pointed out with Wooden, there was little success before or after him, so his role in cementing the Bruins as the top dynasty in the history of sports is a huge one.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Of course everyone knows dynasties like the Bulls, Celtics, and Bruins. They're talked about constantly whenever the dicussion of the greatest dynasty comes up. There's one dynasty out there that had a period of excellence that rarely gets talked about even in their own sport and that is 1949-1964 New York Yankees.

Led by Casey Stengal, the Yankees won 14 AL pennants and 9 World Series titles in 16 years. They had Hall of Famers in Mickey Mantle, Whitey Ford, and Yogi Berra. What I think makes this dynasty even greater is the competition they faced. The Yankees were competing against the Brooklyn Dodgers, Milwaukee Braves, Cleveland Indians, and St. Louis Dodgers and dominated the sport of baseball. The only two times they didn't reach the pennant was in 1959 when they had a barely above .500 record (They went to the World Series from 1960-1964) and in 1954 when they had 103 wins but came in second to Cleveland's 111.

Since that dynasty, only the 1972-1974 Athletics and the 1998-2000 Yankees are the only teams to win three consecutive World Series. 1950's and 1960's baseball was some of the best in the history of the sports and the Yankees stood above everyone else and helped set the benchmark for greatness and why the Yankees are baseball's dynasty.

 

[Megatron]

My selection for this question is the Green Bay Packers dynasty that lasted from 1960 to the end of the 1967 season. This team, lead by arguably the greatest football coach ever in Vince Lombardi, went 62-24-4 during those 8 years, an average record of 7.75-3-.5 during that span (during the first 3 years there weren't 14 game regular seasons). What's more important is that they were first in the Western Division 6 of those 8 times, won 5 Championships, including the first two Super Bowls. They lost 1 playoff game during this time, the Championship game versus the Eagles in their first season of this dynasty. Both Paul Hornung and Bart Starr were named the NFL MVPs once during this span. Herb Adderley, Paul Hornung, Willie Davis, Forrest Gregg, Henry Jordan, Ray Nitschke, Jim Ringo, Bart Starr, Jim Taylor, and Willie Wood, who all played at least some time during this era, are now in the Hall of Fame. 10 players in that small time of a span is remarkable. Almost half of the Packers HOFers (21) were playing during this era.

This team, and rightfully so, is thought of as the team of the 60's. A common argument could be that some of the competition was taken away by the AFL during the 60's, but the Packers blew out both AFL teams they played in the Super Bowl anyways. Those AFL teams wouldn't have given the Packers much stress at all, since the NFL was the superior league.

Also, at LJL: While those Yankee teams were great, an argument can be made that some of the best players were excluded, referring to the African Americans. You talk about great competition, but very few teams had many black players during most of that period of time (hell, the Red Sox didn't even have a black in the majors until late 1950's). While the Yankees didn't have many either, if you aren't including some of the betterplayers, can you really consider yourself the best? I don't think so. And even as the best, the Yankees, according to your listing only had 3 HOF's in those 16 years. In half of that time, the Packers tripled that amount (plus one) and had 5 titles of their own. The Packers had dominance, and it was great even if it was in a shorter period of time.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Also, at LJL: While those Yankee teams were great, an argument can be made that some of the best players were excluded, referring to the African Americans. You talk about great competition, but very few teams had many black players during most of that period of time (hell, the Red Sox didn't even have a black in the majors until late 1950's). While the Yankees didn't have many either, if you aren't including some of the betterplayers, can you really consider yourself the best? I don't think so. And even as the best, the Yankees, according to your listing only had 3 HOF's in those 16 years. In half of that time, the Packers tripled that amount (plus one) and had 5 titles of their own. The Packers had dominance, and it was great even if it was in a shorter period of time.

Wasn't Jackie Robinson playing around 1949-1964? I think he was. How about Larry Doby? He played from 1947-1059 right in the middle of the dynasty.

Let me drop some knowledge on you that you obviously didn't look up. The Negro National League folded in 1948 and the Negro American League played its last game in 1958. Branch Rickey signed four African-American players in 1946 and by the early 1950's, black prospects were being signed by Major League Baseball teams. The great Negro League players were either on MLB teams or dead or retired by the 1950's.

And why does it matter that the Yankees had fewer HOF players than the Packers? So we're going to rank dynasties by the number of Hall of Famers playing on a team? Come up with something better than that.

 

[Megatron]

Wasn't Jackie Robinson playing around 1949-1964? I think he was. How about Larry Doby? He played from 1947-1059 right in the middle of the dynasty.

Robinson played in the NL, so they only met when they were in the WS (which did happen quite often). And those are two players.

Let me drop some knowledge on you that you obviously didn't look up. The Negro National League folded in 1948 and the Negro American League played its last game in 1958. Branch Rickey signed four African-American players in 1946 and by the early 1950's, black prospects were being signed by Major League Baseball teams. The great Negro League players were either on MLB teams or dead or retired by the 1950's.

Many of those players were held down as prospects (such as the Red Sox case) because they were black. 2 AL teams didn't have a black player as late as 1955. They were given a shot, but it wasn't much. The talent pool then isn't as deep as you think (without blacks).

And why does it matter that the Yankees had fewer HOF players than the Packers? So we're going to rank dynasties by the number of Hall of Famers playing on a team? Come up with something better than that.

Great dynasties produce great players. The Bulls of the 90s had 2 HOF's and few other solid players, the Cowboys and 49ers both had many great, HOF players during their times. The Packers, as well, produced many great players (plus a coach that the Super Bowl trophy is named after).

Also, there's been just as good of a period of dominance by the Yankees. They won 8 of 9 pennants from 1936 to 1943, including 7 titles. And if we're using the time gap that you used, 1932-1947 (16 seasons) they had 9 titles. So how can a dynasty be considered the greatest if it's own franchise matched it and had two of the greatest players in MLB history on them (Ruth and Gehrig)?

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Robinson played in the NL, so they only met when they were in the WS (which did happen quite often). And those are two players.



Many of those players were held down as prospects (such as the Red Sox case) because they were black. 2 AL teams didn't have a black player as late as 1955. They were given a shot, but it wasn't much. The talent pool then isn't as deep as you think (without blacks).



Great dynasties produce great players. The Bulls of the 90s had 2 HOF's and few other solid players, the Cowboys and 49ers both had many great, HOF players during their times. The Packers, as well, produced many great players (plus a coach that the Super Bowl trophy is named after).

Also, there's been just as good of a period of dominance by the Yankees. They won 8 of 9 pennants from 1936 to 1943, including 7 titles. And if we're using the time gap that you used, 1932-1947 (16 seasons) they had 9 titles. So how can a dynasty be considered the greatest if it's own franchise matched it and had two of the greatest players in MLB history on them (Ruth and Gehrig)?

It's not the Yankees fault that black prospects were held back. You said the best players were excluded and I gave you fact that the best were not and most of the great black players were either signed onto teams or were dead/retired.

Either I could have gone with the 1930's and 1940's Yankees or the one I currently with and it would have been better than what you came up with. I went with the one that I felt was better.

EDIT: I forgot about Ernie Banks and Willie Mays

 

[hatehabsforever]

I don't really understand how the issue of the exclusion or inclusion of black athletes plays any role whatsoever in terms of assessment of dynasties. There's no question that preventing black athletes from full participation in professional athletics was a terrible thing. It certainly was a violation of their human and civil rights and was a black mark on the history of pro sports. But that has nothing to do with who comprised a dynasty and who did not. A team would be perfectly capable of having a dynasty with or without black athletes, just like another team would be able to disrupt a dynasty, with or without black athletes. This is not a discussion of the morality of roster selection, but a discussion of dynasties. Hardly the venue to introduce racial considerations, that's a separate discussion for a separate thread.

Simple fact of the matter is, the Green Bay Packers run as discussed by Megatron is impressive, but quite simply is nowhere near being significant enough to be considered the greatest ever, in fact I wouldn't even put it in the top ten. I think Megatron is overemphasizing the significance of the coach, much like my friend LSN80 did earlier. I don't really feel like dissecting the post piece by piece, because it can be argued to be an impressive streak. But it pales in comparison to the Celtics, the Bruins, the Bulls, the Yankees, the Oilers, the Islanders, the Canadiens (who I still hate), the Yankees, the Cowboys, and others. All due respect to Megatron, but I have to wholeheartedly disagree with his selection.

Same can be said for the Yankees as well, LJL. An impressive dynasty for sure, in fact I considered them myself. But when put up against the other alternatives, it just left me less impressed than several of the other dynasties. Maybe this is my inherent bias against the Yankees at play, but I just don't see their streak being as impressive as the other dynasties being thrown around.

 

[newc868]

Is it ok if I submit an entry that's late by one day? I've had issues with posting for this due to exam and essay deadlines and I don't really want a third strike.

Thanks.

 

[Megatron]

Either I could have gone with the 1930's and 1940's Yankees or the one I currently with and it would have been better than what you came up with. I went with the one that I felt was better.

EDIT: I forgot about Ernie Banks and Willie Mays

I'd like a reason why instead of shooting them down for no reason.

Look, in football, your career expectancy is less then 5 years. In baseball, there's many players that play at high levels for over a decade. It's not as dangerous of a sport like football is. It's tougher to create a dynasty in football because of how one hit can end a career. That's why 5 titles in 8 years, 6 first place finishes, and only 1 loss (compared to ten wins) in the postseason is something that won't be duplicated ever and has never been accomplished by anyone else (pre or post NFL/AFL merger). The Yankees streak has been accomplished by themselves twice.

Simple fact of the matter is, the Green Bay Packers run as discussed by Megatron is impressive, but quite simply is nowhere near being significant enough to be considered the greatest ever, in fact I wouldn't even put it in the top ten. I think Megatron is overemphasizing the significance of the coach, much like my friend LSN80 did earlier. I don't really feel like dissecting the post piece by piece, because it can be argued to be an impressive streak. But it pales in comparison to the Celtics, the Bruins, the Bulls, the Yankees, the Oilers, the Islanders, the Canadiens (who I still hate), the Yankees, the Cowboys, and others. All due respect to Megatron, but I have to wholeheartedly disagree with his selection.

How is this selection not significant enough? They're known as the team of the 60's, have won more titles (5) in a single decade then anyone else has. They're the first real team to dominate the postseason the way they did. They had the first real great postseason QB with Starr. And they won the first two Super Bowls, which is now the biggest sporting event that's held annually. I think that's QUITE significant, actually. I'd like an actual reason as to why it doesn't seem like a real dynasty, because it definitely passes the 'eye test' and, when you dig down deeper, looks even more impressive.

And coaching definitely matters. If you have bad coaching, you won't win. Great coaches can get the most out of players and get them to overachieve. Look at a team like the Cowboys from the past year. They have a great deal of talent, but Wade Phillips was so bad he pulled them right out of contention. To say coaching isn't a big deal is ludicris.

EDIT: Also, while the Celtics streak is a top 5 ever, the lack of competition they had in the 50's-60's hurt. Most great players didn't come in until just after their run ended, for other teams, that is. Again, while it could be said (partially) for the Packers with the AFL being active for the most part during their run, they showed in their 2 SB wins that the AFL's best couldn't handle them (both were blowouts).

 

[hatehabsforever]

How is this selection not significant enough? They're known as the team of the 60's, have won more titles (5) in a single decade then anyone else has. They're the first real team to dominate the postseason the way they did. They had the first real great postseason QB with Starr. And they won the first two Super Bowls, which is now the biggest sporting event that's held annually. I think that's QUITE significant, actually. I'd like an actual reason as to why it doesn't seem like a real dynasty, because it definitely passes the 'eye test' and, when you dig down deeper, looks even more impressive.

And coaching definitely matters. If you have bad coaching, you won't win. Great coaches can get the most out of players and get them to overachieve. Look at a team like the Cowboys from the past year. They have a great deal of talent, but Wade Phillips was so bad he pulled them right out of contention. To say coaching isn't a big deal is ludicris.

I think I am giving sufficient credit to the Green Bay Packers and the dynasty to which you refer. I just think they fall well short of what it would take to be considered the greatest dynasty ever.

Sure, they won 5 titles in a single decade. That's impressive. The Celtics won 8 titles in a row. Granted not all in the same decade, but that's irrelevant. 8 in a row still trumps 5 in one decade, even if the 8 spans the end of one decade and the start of the next. And it is incorrect to criticize the Celtics because of their supposed lack of opposition. All Boston could do is play top notch ball against whoever their opponents turned out to be. Plus I don't think you give due respect to whom they played against anyway.

The Chicago Bulls won 6 in the same decade back in the 1990's. Would you find fault with the calibre of their talent as well? The Edmonton Oilers won 5 out of 7 from 1984-1990. The NYIslanders won 4 in a row from 1980-1983. The Montreal Canadiens won 5 in a row in the 1970's. LSN80 cites awesome numbers posted by the UCLA Bruins, as LJL does for the Yankees. Pittsburgh Steelers. Lakers. Spurs. Plenty of teams have compiled dynasties quite comparable to what the Packers did, so I have difficulty considering them the greatest ever. Good, yes, but hardly the best ever.

And of course coaching is significant, I'm not suggesting it doesn't mean anything, I'm simply saying that great teams, superb dynasties can do so regardless of the coach, and excellent coaches can often not produce dynasties. Lombardi was great, they didn't name the trophy after him for nothing. But it takes more than a legendary coach to take statistics which have been replicated often, as I mentioned above, and translate this into claims of the best ever.

 

[LSN80]

I don't really understand how the issue of the exclusion or inclusion of black athletes plays any role whatsoever in terms of assessment of dynasties. There's no question that preventing black athletes from full participation in professional athletics was a terrible thing. It certainly was a violation of their human and civil rights and was a black mark on the history of pro sports. But that has nothing to do with who comprised a dynasty and who did not. A team would be perfectly capable of having a dynasty with or without black athletes, just like another team would be able to disrupt a dynasty, with or without black athletes. This is not a discussion of the morality of roster selection, but a discussion of dynasties. Hardly the venue to introduce racial considerations, that's a separate discussion for a separate thread..

While I disagree with Megatron's selection as well, I disgaree here more. You stated in arguing AGAINST my choice, the UCLA Bruins, because they weren't competing in the pro's, against the "best of the best." The same was true in the time frame Megatron was discussing, as most black players weren't included. As a result, the competition wasn't "elite". Hard to be a dynasty without the elite competition that goes with it.

Simple fact of the matter is, the Green Bay Packers run as discussed by Megatron is impressive, but quite simply is nowhere near being significant enough to be considered the greatest ever, in fact I wouldn't even put it in the top ten. I think Megatron is overemphasizing the significance of the coach, much like my friend LSN80 did earlier.

I want to state this one more time. 10 titles in 12 years with Wooden, no titles for the next 20. Jordan won no titles his first 6 NBA seasons, and won 6 of 6 in HIS next six seasons with Phil Jackson as coach. Either this is one hell of a coincidence, or the coach really does mean alot.

Originally posted by Boy George Constanza

Led by Casey Stengal, the Yankees won 14 AL pennants and 9 World Series titles in 16 years. They had Hall of Famers in Mickey Mantle, Whitey Ford, and Yogi Berra. What I think makes this dynasty even greater is the competition they faced. The Yankees were competing against the Brooklyn Dodgers, Milwaukee Braves, Cleveland Indians, and St. Louis Dodgers and dominated the sport of baseball. The only two times they didn't reach the pennant was in 1959 when they had a barely above .500 record (They went to the World Series from 1960-1964) and in 1954 when they had 103 wins but came in second to Cleveland's 111.

Since that dynasty, only the 1972-1974 Athletics and the 1998-2000 Yankees are the only teams to win three consecutive World Series. 1950's and 1960's baseball was some of the best in the history of the sports and the Yankees stood above everyone else and helped set the benchmark for greatness and why the Yankees are baseball's dynasty.

Best dynasty in baseball. Possibly. Best dynasty in sports history? Hardly. What you don't mention is that while they may have been to 14 World Series during that time, they also lost 5. A 9-5 record in the World Series is very good, but it's not great, so it's hard to consider them amongst the great dynasties.

Originally posted by Megatron:

My selection for this question is the Green Bay Packers dynasty that lasted from 1960 to the end of the 1967 season. This team, lead by arguably the greatest football coach ever in Vince Lombardi, went 62-24-4 during those 8 years, an average record of 7.75-3-.5 during that span (during the first 3 years there weren't 14 game regular seasons). What's more important is that they were first in the Western Division 6 of those 8 times, won 5 Championships, including the first two Super Bowls. They lost 1 playoff game during this time, the Championship game versus the Eagles in their first season of this dynasty.

This team, and rightfully so, is thought of as the team of the 60's. A common argument could be that some of the competition was taken away by the AFL during the 60's, but the Packers blew out both AFL teams they played in the Super Bowl anyways. Those AFL teams wouldn't have given the Packers much stress at all, since the NFL was the superior league.

But we don't know this for a certainty, because they didn't play them during this time. Again, if you're not playing all of the competition, it's quite hard to be considered the greatest. Even if they were the superior league, they never proved it. It's not their fault, but it certainly means they're not the greatest dynasty.