The Redskins of the 1980's: Dynasty?

[skinsguy]

The topic of dynasties was brought up in another discussion forum of mine, and the usual teams were brought up: Dallas, San Fransisco, New England, Pittsburgh, etc...

Being a Redskins fan, of course, I had to ask, why isn't the Redskins of the 1980's not considered a dynasty? Four Super Bowl appearances in 10 years, three super bowl titles, five NFC conference appearances, four NFC conference titles, At least four NFC East titles that I know of (I'm sure someone can give me the correct data on that factoid), and of course, Joe Gibbs winning the Super Bowl with three different quarterbacks.

The consensus was that two of Washington's three Super Bowl titles were in strike years, so they essentially "didn't count". Certainly I think this is a completely stupid thought, because, if the reasoning is that the strike year shortened the season, then what about all those other years in the NFL (pre Super Bowl years and after the merger) in which there were no 16 game seasons? Do none of those Championship titles count either?

I've just always found this a bit interesting. Even among Redskins fans, we haven't really, at least not much, verbalized our case that the Redskins between 81-92 was a franchised to be considered a dynasty. We have spoken about that time period being the glory years, but never felt comfortable using the term, dynasty.

So, I guess my question is, do you consider that era in Redskins history as being an era of a Redskins dynasty? If so, what is your counter argument when fans of other teams bring up the thoughts of the strike years? If you don't look at the Redskins of that decade as being a dynasty, then what is your definition of a dynasty? I suppose for myself, I go by my own definition. I tend to set the time period of about 10 years, and the team has to win at least three Championships within those 10 years, and have no more than two losing seasons.

Anyways, the 1991 Redskins thread inspired me in addition to that thread on another forum.