Re: ESPN: Can the Giants Become a Dynasty?

Ah, the old first Monday morning in February "Can the **insert Super Bowl winner** become a dynasty?" article.

I'm going for maybe, but probably not.

Re: ESPN: Can the Giants Become a Dynasty?

Jesus H. Christ, can we not have this exact article written every freakin' year?
"Can the Saints Become a Dynasty?"
"Can the Packers Become a Dynasty?"
Can we at least wait for a champion to repeat before we use the word "dynasty"?

There's been one successful title defense in the last fifteen years, right?

Can't we at least walk this backwards to "Can the Giants repeat?"

Re: ESPN: Can the Giants Become a Dynasty?

In monarchy terms a dynasty is defined as an UNINTERRUPTED reign - I like that definition for football too. When I first started watching football the dynasties were the Dolphins and Steelers of the 70s; the Redskins had just failed to create one in 83/84 and there was talk in the late 80s that no team would ever manage one again - enter the 49ers.

As for the question ... taking it literally anything CAN happen so yes they CAN. Realistically - no way - they're an average that got hot at the right time. I'm sure most people are aware that fans were calling for the head of Coughlin in December - it's hardly the most awe-inspiring track record.

I'd give the Patriots better odds to be back in the Super Bowl next year than the Giants.

Re: ESPN: Can the Giants Become a Dynasty?

I feel like there should be more to a dynasty team than winning titles. If you're a dynasty, teams better fear playing you year after year, and you certainly aren't a 9-7 or 10-6 borderline playoff team missing the playoffs in between winning the Super Bowl. If you're a dynasty, people are going to modify their rosters after getting burned by you. I don't think anyone is going to overreact to stop the Giants in the offseason this year like the Eagles did going after 3 "elite" corners and the Falcons did by trading up to try to grab a difference maker in an attempt to slow the Packers. If you're a true dynasty, your losses need to be a result of you not playing your best football that day (which happens at a maximum of three times a year, otherwise you're just inconsistent), and not the other teams just being better than you. I just don't think the Giants are that good, I think they were lucky to play the Packers on a day where their offense just wasn't their usual self, obviously the 49er special teams handed the game away, and then the Patriots just didn't look that good. They won the Super Bowl, but please, get all this dynasty talk away. FBO is better than this trash.

Re: ESPN: Can the Giants Become a Dynasty?

It might be better to think of a dynasty as being a team that consistently wins its division and/or makes the playoffs year after year. Think of divisions as countries. Thus the Colts, Pats, Cowboys of yore, the consistent winning teams.

Of course, in today's NFL, it just means you have a top 5 QB.

Re: ESPN: Can the Giants Become a Dynasty?

The days of dynasties in the NFL are long gone. Scouting is too advanced, talent is dispersed much better throughout the entire league, coaches don't get the opportunity to stick around for long.

Re: ESPN: Can the Giants Become a Dynasty?

All I can say is, if they're to be considered as a dynasty then dynasties sure run cheap these days.

Re: ESPN: Can the Giants Become a Dynasty?

I heard they just signed Joan Collins, so maybe...

Re: ESPN: Can the Giants Become a Dynasty?

Let's see after Free Agency and how the team looks after the Draft. Reese has to re-work some contracts that can then become more Cap friendly. There are also several key players who's contracts expire and will be on the market. McKensie, Manningham, Thomas, Jacobs and Ross all have to be looked at. They have to pay Cruz. Jacobs and Osi will have contract issues.

The Defense has come together and has trended well the last 6 games. If they get Thomas and Goff back Healthy, if Osi stays put and Austin comes on, then the Defense will be very good.

They also need to keep Gilbride and Fewell for purposes of continuity.

"The difference between a successful person and others is not a lack of strength, not a lack of knowledge, but rather a lack of will."
-Vincent T. Lombardi

Re: ESPN: Can the Giants Become a Dynasty?

If they'd been more dominant in the regular season, then I would say so. To me, they've never felt like that all-conquering force that the Patriots were, or the Cowboys in the 90s. They've just been an above average team that got hot at the right time, both times they own the SB recently.

Now, two Superbowls in that short a period of time is genuinely impressive, but I think those are Guts rather than Stomps, to borrow a phrase from some FO research.

What I mean by that is that if a Stomp (ie beating up on weaker teams) is more indicative of quality than a Gut (last minute Elway Heroics again and again) when looking at one game, I think it makes sense to think of the league title and indeed performance throughout a season, in that way. I think the Giants SB runs were Guts. Sorry if that's misusing that idea, but hopefully people get the point I'm trying to make.

I also think that to be a dynasty, you have to have a sustained period of time where each game you look at, you think 'those poor opponents really don't have a chance' and you're genuinely surprised if the other team wins the game. That's never been the case with the Giants in this current era. They've been very good, but not dominant. Now, if they have something like two 12-win seasons and another title in two years' time, that'll be different.

I think the team with the best shot at that kind of dominance will be the Packers, if they can draft well on Defense in the next year or two.