Blackhawks "dynasty" superior to the Wings?

[tigersofjustice]

http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/1...fs-where-do-chicago-blackhawks-rank-dynasties

At least according to Burnside.

Does this guy ever not poo poo the wings at every turn?

A stretch? Laughable. Those teams were so much better than these recent Chicago teams.

 

[sggatecl]

If you factor in that the Blackhawks have done it with a salary cap, it's more impressive in that sense. But in to actually claim that player for player, that the Blackhawks "dynasty" trumps the Wings is fucking hilarious.

What's even more hilarious? Putting them ahead of the 60's Habs. Fuck this guy and the blinders he borrowed from the horse he rode in on.

 

[zyxt9]

Its just to get ratings. You have to claim the current hit team is the best ever. Its BS and everyone knows it.

 

[tomdalton22]

It doesn't make too much sense to have either team on a list of "dynasties". 3 championships in 6 years is a stretch IMO

 

[TheVictors]

I'm downtown Chicago right now and had people yelling and cheering outside the hotel as early as 6am on way to parade route/soldier field.

 

[SpartyNash]

I am very critical of throwing out the term "dynasty." To me, a dynasty requires back to back titles in most instances. I do not consider the Blackhawks or SF Giants to be dynasties, because not only did they not win two in a row but they didn't even appear in back to back championship series. Hell, the Giants haven't even made the playoffs in consecutive years. The Spurs are a low end dynasty, 5 titles in 15 years and a couple of Finals appearances with making playoffs every year is a mini dynasty in my opinion. The Wings are also a low end dynasty from 1995-2009, I would put them higher than the Spurs.

A three peat is a true 100% indisputable dynasty in my mind.

 

[dubbsco]

Have to 100 percent disagree with the back-to-back stuff. With the way sports are structured today, it's next to impossible for a team in any sport to win titles back to back. If you hold that standard, no teams will ever be dynasties. This isn't the 50s anymore, you can't buy a title.

What's more of a dynasty? A team that wins 5/10 years, but won their titles on-off-on-off, or a team that won 3/10 years, but in two of them won back-to-back?

The Spurs from 2003-2007 were a dynasty.
Blackhawks right now are a dynasty. Made so even more impressive with the fact that the NHL Playoffs are so incredibly based on puck luck.

 

[tinselwolverine]

The Spurs are a low end dynasty, 5 titles in 15 years and a couple of Finals appearances with making playoffs every year is a mini dynasty in my opinion. The Wings are also a low end dynasty from 1995-2009, I would put them higher than the Spurs.

A three peat is a true 100% indisputable dynasty in my mind.

If making the playoffs gets to count toward being a dynasty if a team has back to back titles and championship finals appearances, then a person has to count the Jeter era Yankees and the Brady era Patriots.

 

[everyoneneedsasmil]

I don't think the Blackhawks or Wings should be considered dynasties. A dynasty is sustained, consistent dominance over the rest of the league. That may not always be championships, but it should count both the regular season and playoffs. Neither team was truly dominant in that way. Both were very good, and won multiple championships over a concerted period of time, but neither were starting the season with an "Everybody vs the Wings/Hawks" mentality more than once or twice.

 

[dubbsco]

Well you have to change the context of how you think about a dynasty in today's game. If you use that "must win consecutive titles over a span of time", then you'll never have a dynasty.

 

[everyoneneedsasmil]

Well you have to change the context of how you think about a dynasty in today's game. If you use that "must win consecutive titles over a span of time", then you'll never have a dynasty.

Why is not having a dynasty a bad thing? Yes, most dynasty teams absolutely benefited from playing in leagues with less parity, but that's exactly the point. A dynasty is a period of time where parity breaks down; where one team proves dominance over the rest, well outside of mere luck. There shouldn't be a dynasty in every 5-10 year period of each sport. That's what makes them special, that's why they are even worth debating. The Blackhawks may be the best team of the last 6 years, just as the Wings were at the turn of the century. I just don't think either were truly dominant enough to be called dynasties.

 

[tomdalton22]

If you really think about it every sport is a little different when it comes to dynasties.

 

[dubbsco]

You have to evolve the term. I grew up hearing about dynasties. They were periods when teams would absolutely beast the league. Celtics come to mind, Canadiens, etc... But, you just can't compare the ages anymore. I'm actually more impressed with what the Blackhawks are doing in today's NHL compared to some of those past teams.

 

[LGRW_9]

Burnside is a Stage 5 douchebag.

One thing is interesting, however, as you compare the trends of these two teams in recent years: The Blackhawks surge and the Wings decline coincided with the Wings saying goodbye to Hossa and tying up salary cap in Franzen.

 

[sggatecl]

Burnside is a Stage 5 douchebag.

One thing is interesting, however, as you compare the trends of these two teams in recent years: The Blackhawks surge and the Wings decline coincided with the Wings saying goodbye to Hossa and tying up salary cap in Franzen.

Not a coincidence at all.

 

[biggunsbob]

I remember a few weeks back some hack had all the dynasty's up but conveniently left off the Wings of the early 1950's .. They were a dynasty for sure...