View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently December 21st, 2014, 10:03 pm



Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 
 Red Wings are a dynasty 

Are the Redwings a dynasty?
Yes 90%  90%  [ 9 ]
No 10%  10%  [ 1 ]
Total votes : 10

 Red Wings are a dynasty 
Author Message
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12250
Post Red Wings are a dynasty
Freep.com wrote:
Jamie Samuelsen blogs for freep.com. His opinions do not necessarily reflect those of the Detroit Free Press or its writers. You can hear Jamie 6-8 a.m. weekdays on WDFN-AM (1130). You can reach him at jamsam22@aol.com and read more of his opinions at freep.com/jamie.


Would you consider the Red Wings a dynasty?
We discussed this topic on the radio last week. It’s always a gimme on sports radio. Whenever a team wins multiple titles, you must discuss whether or not it constitutes a dynasty. It’s like a by-law. So in advance of the topic, I actually did about thirty seconds of prep work to look up the definition of the word.

Dynasty - a powerful group that maintains its position for a considerable time.

Well, the Wings may not be the Mings or even the Carringtons ('80s TV reference that about six readers will get), but if you go by the definition, they are a dynasty.

A lot of callers disagreed. They claimed that to be a sports dynasty, you have to win multiple championships in consecutive years. Like the '90s Bulls or the '80s Islanders and Oilers. But I disagree. In fact, I’d argue that it’s the opposite.

To me, a dynasty is a franchise that maintains excellence even as the players change. The Bulls were great because of one guy – Jordan. The Oilers were great because they had Gretzky and surrounded him with Hall of Famers like Kurri, Messier and Coffey. Those guys stayed together and won a ton. Those are great teams, not dynasties.

The Red Wings have been the best or one of the best teams in hockey for more than a decade. Each and every year they are a favorite to win. They are a consistent challenger for the top spot in the league. And they’ve won four Cups. Yet during that run they have changed general managers, coaches, goaltenders, captains and leading scorers. They have maintained excellence while changing the roster almost entirely. That’s more dynastic than striking gold for three or four years with a superstar player or tandem.

The one flaw in my argument is Nicklas Lidstrom. He is the one constant and what a constant he is. Maybe this whole argument proves that when you talk about the greatest athletes in their sports, that he should be in there. The Bulls never won without Jordan. The Pats haven’t won without Brady. The Spurs haven’t won without Duncan. And the Wings haven’t won without Lidstrom. But I differentiate just a bit by arguing that a basketball player or a quarterback can have a far greater impact on a game that one skater can in hockey. Not to diminish Lidstrom, but to me the Wings Cups are more of a reflection of the job the front office has done to constantly put out a championship contender. Would the Wings have won four Cups without Nick? No way. Would they have been a contender? I say yes. You can’t say that about the Bulls sans Jordan or the Pats sans Brady.

It’s a great debate and I certainly see where the other side is coming from. But I guess my question would be this. If the Wings are not a dynasty, what team is? And if the Wings are not yet a dynasty, what do they have to do to earn that distinction? Because if they haven’t gotten there yet in your eyes, I have a feeling they might very, very soon.

http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article? ... 3/SPORTS05


Personally I consider them a dynasty. 17 years in a row in the post season, 4 Stanley Cups, more hardware in that time frame than most teams have in their history. Thoughts?

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


June 12th, 2008, 10:16 am
Profile
Fired Head Coach (0-16 record)
User avatar

Joined: October 30th, 2004, 12:30 pm
Posts: 2205
Location: Austin, TX
Post 
How are they not?

_________________
Image

NEVER GIVE UP!


June 12th, 2008, 12:04 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9549
Location: Dallas
Post 
Name me another pro sports team (in the big 4 anyway) that have made the playoffs the last 17 straight years. Oh, you can't. Name me those that have won 4 championships in the last 11 years. A very small list indeed.

I don't buy the different teams thought either - take a look at the Spurs that had two totally different teams sans Duncan. What if the Lakers come back, Kobe is the only holdover from their prior championship teams. The Wings have a few players who have been on all four championship teams.

Quote:
The Red Wings have been the best or one of the best teams in hockey for more than a decade.


He makes it sound like this may even be up for debate - it is not. Ask any hockey fan of any team out there and they will tell you the Red Wings have been the best (not one of the best) teams in hockey the past decade.

Now as the question for dynasty - it all comes down to definition. I voted yes, however, I do think it helps if you win in consecutive years and win 50% or more of the championships over a given range (ie. 3 titles in 5 or 6 years).

But I really don't care, the Wings will be remembered as the best hockey team over the past 10-15 years and they know have one more trophy to back them up.

GO WINGS!

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


June 12th, 2008, 12:33 pm
Profile WWW
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post 
I voted no. They're definitely the best team in hockey over the past 17 years or so, but I don't consider them to be a dynasty. As Pablo said, it depends on your definition. To me, a dynasty is a team that has won atleast three championships in a five year period. The Red Wings haven't done that, but they could over the next few seasons.

_________________
Image


June 19th, 2008, 11:33 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 4 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.