Dynasty or Disappointment?

[ModAdmin]

For me dynasty is championships. Five straight cups would be incredible and a testament to our organization. But we need the Cup win.

Winning the Grey Cup has to be the goal for every team.  Falling short of that does not equate to success or a dynasty even if a team makes the playoffs for 5 straight years.  Success is achieving your goal and any team that doesn't view it from that perspective is letting themselves and their fans down.

[TecnoGenius]

Winning the Grey Cup has to be the goal for every team.  Falling short of that does not equate to success or a dynasty even if a team makes the playoffs for 5 straight years.

As a fan who's been going to many/most GCs for a handful of years now, I'm just thrilled my team is in all those cups.  We get our shot, our "any given Sunday" shot at it.

The fact Cody got lucky on 3rd & 3 and TOR got lucky with a FG block do not diminish our success in my eyes.

All the other W teams, which is really the only teams I'm interested in "sticking it to" are excluded and crying.  That's enough for me.

When we get to this '24 cup and win... hopefully y'all will come 'round and say we're a dynasty too.

[Jesse]

As a fan who's been going to many/most GCs for a handful of years now, I'm just thrilled my team is in all those cups.  We get our shot, our "any given Sunday" shot at it.

The fact Cody got lucky on 3rd & 3 and TOR got lucky with a FG block do not diminish our success in my eyes.

All the other W teams, which is really the only teams I'm interested in "sticking it to" are excluded and crying.  That's enough for me.

When we get to this '24 cup and win... hopefully y'all will come 'round and say we're a dynasty too.

Everyone would. That's the point we're making. Dynasty = wins.

If we lose to Montreal or Toronto, they've had exactly as much success as we've had over the last 5 seasons. Are there then 2 Dynasties operating at the same time? That doesn't even make sense, imo.

[GOLDMEMBER]

Zach would be to much to ask to change the title of this thread?

[TecnoGenius]

Everyone would. That's the point we're making. Dynasty = wins.

If we lose to Montreal or Toronto, they've had exactly as much success as we've had over the last 5 seasons. Are there then 2 Dynasties operating at the same time? That doesn't even make sense, imo.

Except MTL and TOR will have each 1 or 2 appearances in those 5 years.  We'll have had 5.  2 wins in 2 appearances isn't a dynasty.  A dynasty by definition is a thing of lengthy timespans.

Clearly I'm putting a lot more weight on appearances vs wins: especially since to win the West for '19 thru '23 was a crazy good and near-impossible feat because the West was massively dominant for those years.  That's why I don't put as much stock in those two fluke East wins when they didn't have to face much resistance in their division.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

To the original question I would vote neither, I can't see how anyone could call it a dynasty when the Bombers no longer dominate games nor are they necessarily the best team in the league anymore.  They would certainly qualify among the best teams and have the potential to win any game if they play very well.

[TecnoGenius]

To the original question I would vote neither, I can't see how anyone could call it a dynasty when the Bombers no longer dominate games nor are they necessarily the best team in the league anymore.

Did EDM dominate the entire time they were in their dynasty?  Or did they have some off years but still pulled out a cup?

I'm not sure "dominating" is the main factor for a dynasty.  To me winning cups is the most important factor, then appearing in cups, then winning the reg season, then "being dominant".  Like Milt says, it doesn't really matter how you win those games, as long as you win.

[Blueforlife]

I have called it a mini dynasty for a bit now.  This run will go down as one of the best ever for this organization.  Patience paid off.  We have seen amazing success for many years, the let downs in the Grey Cup are minor setbacks imo.

Great thread and title.

[Jesse]

Did EDM dominate the entire time they were in their dynasty?  Or did they have some off years but still pulled out a cup?

I'm not sure "dominating" is the main factor for a dynasty.  To me winning cups is the most important factor, then appearing in cups, then winning the reg season, then "being dominant".  Like Milt says, it doesn't really matter how you win those games, as long as you win.

There's one factor; Grey Cup win.

If you're arguing for any other factor to be included, it means you're not talking about a dynasty, imo. We're just watering down the word.

[DM83]

Could have been.
I consider their ability to dominate.
I agree the two losses in the Cup were flukes by those opponents. But if ya wanna be a dynasty, they had to have foresaw, some of the plays, and prevented them. lol! Kind of impossible! If anyone team could be considered a dynasty, in the last five years, sure why not

Lots of good teams this year, same type of records, lots of inconsistency.  But all it comes down to is who plays best these last two games.  All those teams looked awesome at times, and crap at others. When I played I believed in aggression and momentum and assertiveness.  So I go with that as my basis.

Sask looks awful good
Wpg has been inconsistent all year and that scares me. Sask could stuff the run, and Zach isn't much if a consistent passer.  If he's on, we win if not? Who knows.

Montreal was dominant, but then coasted. Can they get it back?
Toronto, really inconsistent, but Lelly looked great and the creamed Ottawa. Great defence, and defense wins. Championships.

Just no prediction with any confidence

I have. Had a horrible year picking winners.
I will stay true to my philosophy of who's hot and aggressive.
I will go Toronto over Sask in the Cup.

[BlueInCgy]

Threads like this are why teams don't touch the Divisional Championship Trophy....

[blue_gold_84]

Threads like this are why teams don't touch the Divisional Championship Trophy....

Neither has any actual effect on anything, though.

Jinxes are just a fun and silly part of sports.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

Did EDM dominate the entire time they were in their dynasty?  Or did they have some off years but still pulled out a cup?

I'm not sure "dominating" is the main factor for a dynasty.  To me winning cups is the most important factor, then appearing in cups, then winning the reg season, then "being dominant".  Like Milt says, it doesn't really matter how you win those games, as long as you win.

The stretch of success the Bombers have been riding since 2019 looks very much like the Stamps recorded before them, when they won the West title 7 times in 10 years and 3 GC's in 6 visits.  I don't recall anyone calling that excellent run a dynasty and would like all Bomber fans to stop referencing that word.

[blue_gold_84]

The stretch of success the Bombers have been riding since 2019 looks very much like the Stamps recorded before them, when they won the West title 7 times in 10 years and 3 GC's in 6 visits.  I don't recall anyone calling that excellent run a dynasty and would like all Bomber fans to stop referencing that word.

Two major differences being:
1. those Stampeders teams never won back-to-back championships, and
2: they never went to four straight championship games.

[TecnoGenius]

Two major differences being:
1. those Stampeders teams never won back-to-back championships, and
2: they never went to four straight championship games.

I was just going to say that.  They were interrupted sometimes in their West Win streak by other better or lucky teams.  The 2017 EDM team comes to mind.

It's funny, but that CGY loss to OTT in GC kind of hearkens to our GC losses: that Kanneh shoestring tackle on that SY QB running to the edge to lose the game... it's crazy low-probability stuff like that that cost us our 2 losses.  I guess it happens to every "dynasty-esque" team.