What Was The Weakest/Most Fragile "Dynasty" In Sports History?

[Shadow King]

The only ones I can recall are belichick going for it on 4th early in Super Bowl 42 when in field goal range and the missed throw between Brady and welker late in Super Bowl 46 where you can blame either one of them for it. Any other errors they made don’t seem particularly stupid on their end.

Everyone makes some degree of errors but I can’t recall them ever doing anything as dumb as taking their sweet time while down 10 late in the 4th, throwing into the middle of the field at the 1 yard line when they have the best back in the league and enough time to run the ball twice, refusing to run the ball while up 20+ in the 4th quarter, or the comedy of errors John Harbaugh and his staff committed in 2011 and 2014.

Pretty sure a foundational piece of the hoodie’s philosophy was always “execute the basics and don’t be the team that beats themselves” on top of this.


Even if they won every year I’d hesitate since it was only 4 years. My stance is you gotta be around for 6-8 years at least.

Nah 4 consecutive rings hasn't been done in modern sports. That's a dynasty regardless of blowing it up after Year 4 or not.

Dynasties win back to back
their quest for a repeat don't get derailed by the likes of Derek Fisher or Desagna Diop

look it's easy when you are hungry
but when 29 or 31 franchises want your spot at the mountain top and you fend them off?
That's the mark of a true dynasty

3 in 5///4 in 9 is a dynasty...

 

[Piff Huxtable]

Nah 4 consecutive rings hasn't been done in modern sports. That's a dynasty regardless of blowing it up after Year 4 or not.

3 in 5///4 in 9 is a dynasty...

No it just isn't
sorry

 

[Mantis Toboggan M.D.]

Nah 4 consecutive rings hasn't been done in modern sports. That's a dynasty regardless of blowing it up after Year 4 or not.

3 in 5///4 in 9 is a dynasty...

It’s been done. The 1980-83 islanders won the Stanley Cup and then went to the finals again in 1984.

 

[Shadow King]

No it just isn't
sorry

It is. Sorry.

It’s been done. The 1980-83 islanders won the Stanley Cup and then went to the finals again in 1984.

Then I stand corrected overall. But definitely not in the Big 3 leagues.

 

[Flex Luger]

3 peat Lakers had 1 legit non ref title. 2001
B2B Lakers with bean were corny and barely got by some weak injured teams

 

[Joe Sixpack]

The Denver Nuggets

It's over already

 

[FunkDoc1112]

First of all, true dynasties defend their title three times in a row or better so outside of the Kobe/Shaq Lakers all of the other teams named are at best imperfect dynasties and at worst not dynasties at all.

Threepeating doesn't make a dynasty, it's how much you win within a certain amount of years. Like if you win 3 titles in 4-5 years...that's a dynasty to me. For the majority of an era, you were champion.

 

[ReggieFlare]

This question is somewhat contradictory…it’s hard to be a “dynasty” and weak/fragile at the same time

 

[Piff Huxtable]

It is. Sorry.

can't be a dynasty if your heart of a champion is John Q's son status

 

[2Quik4UHoes]

Threepeating doesn't make a dynasty, it's how much you win within a certain amount of years. Like if you win 3 titles in 4-5 years...that's a dynasty to me. For the majority of an era, you were champion.

I think there’s levels to it. Three in a row is a true dynasty, 3 out of 4/5 is an imperfect dynasty. Because a team was able to challenge and overcome your reign it can’t be considered a dynasty. If no team was able to break the streak that’s the epitome of a dynasty.

The Showtime Lakers were a dynasty but not a perfect one. Whereas the Bulls and 00s Lakeshow had uninterrupted runs of dominance.

 

[MBwithadream]

There are only 4 dynasties in the 21st century:
- Pats
- threepeat Lakers
- 2010s Warriors
- Chiefs

Spurs 3 championships in 5 years.

03,05,07

 

[Piff Huxtable]

Spurs 3 championships in 5 years.

03,05,07

Dynasties rule the league and win in successive years

 

[bl2k8]

There are only 4 dynasties in the 21st century:
- Pats
- threepeat Lakers
- 2010s Warriors
- Chiefs

The only correct answer in this thread. Mufukkas talking about the nuggets, bucks and shyt

 

[Shadow King]

I think there’s levels to it. Three in a row is a true dynasty, 3 out of 4/5 is an imperfect dynasty. Because a team was able to challenge and overcome your reign it can’t be considered a dynasty. If no team was able to break the streak that’s the epitome of a dynasty.

The Showtime Lakers were a dynasty but not a perfect one. Whereas the Bulls and 00s Lakeshow had uninterrupted runs of dominance.

You're making up a rule to uphold an era you grew up on...

 

[2Quik4UHoes]

You're making up a rule to uphold an era you grew up on...

Nah, I just respect the teams that actually keep their championship streak going. I’m not saying it’s not a dynasty if they go 3 outta 4 but that ain’t the same as 3 straight. That’s a different kinda dynasty to me.

Winning three in a row is an ultra rare feat. That’s why that holds weight for me vs teams that go 3/4 or 3/5 which is a bit more common among the all time dominant teams.

Put it this way, the Celtics winning 8 (I think) straight titles has more weight to me than the Spurs winning 5 over the span of a decade and a half even though they sustained their winning for longer. Both are dynasties but one of em was much more difficult to achieve.