The Chicago Blackhawks. A modern Dynasty?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

The commissioner of the league you mean.


It's a dynasty. Deal with it

The term might not have a concrete definition, but I doubt that other dynasties had to have the commissioner come out and declare it. At the very least, a dynasty should be so inherently obvious to the fans and other teams, that there doesn't need to be an official declaration. The fact Bettman said it last night just cheapens the idea even more.

[Regular_John]

I think if they get another cup within the next 2... possibly 3 seasons then they can be considered a dynasty.

3 cups in 6 years is nothing to cough at, but 4 in 8?... that would seal the deal for me.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by jaydorn

I think if they get another cup within the next 2... possibly 3 seasons then they can be considered a dynasty.

3 cups in 6 years is nothing to cough at, but 4 in 8?... that would seal the deal for me.

4 in 7 plus 6 finals appearances = dynasty

4 in 8 = a dominant team.

In my opinion anyway.

[JohnnyTitan]

I would like to say that 4 in 6 with at least one back-to-back is most certainly a Dynasty.

With 4 #1 overall picks in the past six years, the Edmonton Oilers totally own a "Dynasty of Suck".

[troutman]

Originally Posted by polak

They have lost as much as they won in those 6 years.

You are not a dynasty if you win 50% of the time...

You are talking about Cups. Won 3, lost 3. Impressive in a 30 team league with a salary cap.

They were within one goal of winning it last year.

In the last 6 years, I would assume they are near the top in winning percentage and playoff games played.

[jammies]

They will only be a dynasty if 20 years from now their children win another Cup.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

A dynasty imo would be a team that wins consecutive titles, like 3 or 4. The Hawks are a great team, probably the team of the decade, but not a dynasty.

[The Swedish Flame]

It's not a dynasty.

Now, the Flames winning three straight starting with 2016/2017 is going to be a dynasty.

[codynw]

The minimum requirement is 3 cups in 4 years. Getting 3 in 6 isn't enough. It's very impressive, but not a dynasty.

[OILFAN #81]

Originally Posted by codynw

The minimum requirement is 3 cups in 4 years. Getting 3 in 6 isn't enough. It's very impressive, but not a dynasty.

So for you, they would have to win the cup next year to be a dynasty. I think that's fair.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by OILFAN #81

So for you, they would have to win the cup next year to be a dynasty. I think that's fair.

Yeah, that's it for me too. Imo, having no consecutive cups and being bounced in the first round of the 2011 and 2012 playoffs as the 6th and 8th seed during their supposed dynasty is pretty weak.

Win it next year or the year after and definitely you have a dynasty.

[codynw]

Originally Posted by OILFAN #81

So for you, they would have to win the cup next year to be a dynasty. I think that's fair.

Yea they could still become one, potentially.

2010, 2013, 2015, 2016

I'd call that a dynasty.

[Poe969]

you have to put the pic of what a dynasty is from the Edmonton is no good thread. They're a dynasty too!

[codynw]

[kmart]

I think we need to loosen our standards of dynasty. 3 cups in 6 years is an impressive feat, especially in the salary cap era. They haven't won back to back cups, but the last team that won back to back cups were the Red Wings over 15 years ago.

This is a new era where the NHL prioritizes parity in the league. The fact that the Blackhawks have won 3 cups in 6 years is an impressive feat that we haven't witnessed in sometime add that to the focus on parity, the Blackhawks have accomplished something great. They are a dynasty.

[Hanna Sniper]

I wouldn't call them a dynasty, the Islanders were that last one. I always remember it being 4 cups in 4 years but somewhere it's been diluted.

If people want to call them a dynasty, i understand the need to do so.

At the end of the day it's been and looks to be a dominant team for a long time, and that remains true regardless what label you choose or not choose to pin on it

[vicarious]

Originally Posted by codynw

LOL @ the Oiler Dynasty of Suck

[JohnnySkittles]

Originally Posted by Hanna Sniper

I wouldn't call them a dynasty, the Islanders were that last one. I always remember it being 4 cups in 4 years but somewhere it's been diluted.

If people want to call them a dynasty, i understand the need to do so.

At the end of the day it's been and looks to be a dominant team for a long time, and that remains true regardless what label you choose or not choose to pin on it

That would be the Oilers.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by JohnnyTitan

I would like to say that 4 in 6 with at least one back-to-back is most certainly a Dynasty.

With 4 #1 overall picks in the past six years, the Edmonton Oilers totally own a "Dynasty of Suck".

Dysastiny?

[thymebalm]

Jonathan Toews and the Chicago Blackhawks have unlocked Dynasty Mode.

Im shocked people won't give them their due.

I have a ton of respect for the best hockey team around in the last 30 years.