Dynasty

[irish]

I dont really see the skins as a dynasty. They had some good teams 3 different times but the titles were so spread out (4 years between each) that compared to the other teams that wont their titles in a short span, in my eyes they just dont count as a dynasty. Also the skins won during a strike season which even though the NFL does not asterik it, almost everyone else does.

Bottom line: The skins had 3 great teams but they were not a dynasty.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by irish

I dont really see the skins as a dynasty. They had some good teams 3 different times but the titles were so spread out (4 years between each) that compared to the other teams that wont their titles in a short span, in my eyes they just dont count as a dynasty. Also the skins won during a strike season which even though the NFL does not asterik it, almost everyone else does.

Bottom line: The skins had 3 great teams but they were not a dynasty.

It was two strike seasons, 1982 and 1987. I don't know if time span should be a factor. Isn't it more impressive to stay dominant over a larger period of time? But anyway, I would have to basically agree with you. When I think dynasty I think of one team that was the clear dominant team. In the 1980s it was all about the Redskins AND the 49ers.

I'm not going to get all curmudgeonly here and rip the Skins accomplishments during Gibbs 1.0 because going to 5 NFC Championship games, winning 4 and 3 Super Bowls in 10 years is a remarkable feat but does that make them a dynasty?