Dynasty or Disappointment?

[Zach Schnitzer]

Agree with the sentiment that dynasty has, and will always be, a nameplate for teams that have consecutive records of winning the Grey Cup.

Win or lose most fans, including me, will always treasure the current run the Bombers are on but they need to put together some Grey Cup wins to be considered a dynasty.

Totally agree. On the one hand, we're incredibly lucky to have this sustained success, and I will admit that I'm spoiled; it's not enough to get to the Cup, I need them to win it to feel satisfied. Maybe it's arbitrary, but in my soul I need them to win three. Even if they win it next year, I just need three, then I'd feel like a satisfied Bombers fan.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

The problem with "dynasty" is that comparisons just get more and more unreasonable. Is this as good as the 78-82 Eskimos? Probably not. Have things changed since then? Absolutely. Would any franchise in the CFL have signed up for the run the Bombers had  since 2019? Absolutely and without question. Every single one.

One thing that's certain is that teams rise and fall. We'll be 3-15 again. That's a guarantee. And that is real disappointment. Win or lose Saturday, hosting the West Final is great and there are 7 other teams that wish they were us right now. Enjoy it and who cares about the legacy.

[blue_gold_84]

If the Bombers win a third championship in five years, I suppose the dynasty discussion could be had.

In the meantime, though, I think we can all agree the success this team has had the last 5-7 years has really solidified the legacy of those within the organization who have contributed to that success.

That's an important legacy, IMO.

[ModAdmin]

If the Bombers win a third championship in five years, I suppose the dynasty discussion could be had.

In the meantime, though, I think we can all agree the success this team has had the last 5-7 years has really solidified the legacy of those within the organization who have contributed to that success.

That's an important legacy, IMO.

100% agree.  That fact can't be denied.

[TecnoGenius]

Even if they win it next year, I just need three, then I'd feel like a satisfied Bombers fan.

I'm saving this one away to re-post once we've won 3 and you change that number to 4...       

[Zach Schnitzer]

I'm saving this one away to re-post once we've won 3 and you change that number to 4...       

😂😂😂

[TecnoGenius]

Chez & Milt say we're a dynasty now, even if we lose the cup.  But we'd be a "Championship Dynasty" if we win.

[GOLDMEMBER]

Dynasty now. But we want a championship dynast to go with the dynasty.

[Blueforlife]

Ah the tides have changed and we can smell the D word

[Sir Blue and Gold]

First team in salary cap era history to go to five straight Grey Cups. That's pretty mindboggling. Don't know if it qualifies as dynasty but it absolutely qualifies for 'omg they are good'.

[Tiger]

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.

Sadly you are correct. 

For example the Buffalo Bills and Vikings that went to 5 Super Bowls are
Not considered dynasties.

I guess the better question is do you consider Montreal a dynasty under AC when they won in 2002, 2009 and 2010?

[blue_gold_84]

First team in salary cap era history to go to five straight Grey Cups. That's pretty mindboggling. Don't know if it qualifies as dynasty but it absolutely qualifies for 'omg they are good'.

It also qualifies for "class/flagship of the league" and "standard by which to measure consistent success" as well.

This organization is a well oiled machine from top to bottom. And it's phenomenal to witness.

[Zach Schnitzer]

For me, you need three championships in 4-6 years to be considered a dynasty. The Montreal example is interesting as it's over an eight year span. Is that still a dynasty? I don't know.

[Tiger]

For me, you need three championships in 4-6 years to be considered a dynasty. The Montreal example is interesting as it's over an eight year span. Is that still a dynasty? I don't know.

Me neither.  That said we are on a great run and I am totally enjoying it regardless of what you call it.  Thank you OShea, Miller and Walters.

[TecnoGenius]

For me, you need three championships in 4-6 years to be considered a dynasty. The Montreal example is interesting as it's over an eight year span. Is that still a dynasty? I don't know.

Ya, I think you'd be allowed a mulligan year every 3-4 where you only get to the WDF or something.  CGY with BLM was getting pretty dynasty-ish on their big run, even though they only won 2.

How about this: you're a dynasty when every other teams' fans are bloody sick of you being in the division finals and cup?

CGY 7 years ago: check
WPG now: check