The Redskins of the 1980's: Dynasty?

The topic of dynasties was brought up in another discussion forum of mine, and the usual teams were brought up: Dallas, San Fransisco, New England, Pittsburgh, etc...

Being a Redskins fan, of course, I had to ask, why isn't the Redskins of the 1980's not considered a dynasty? Four Super Bowl appearances in 10 years, three super bowl titles, five NFC conference appearances, four NFC conference titles, At least four NFC East titles that I know of (I'm sure someone can give me the correct data on that factoid), and of course, Joe Gibbs winning the Super Bowl with three different quarterbacks.

The consensus was that two of Washington's three Super Bowl titles were in strike years, so they essentially "didn't count". Certainly I think this is a completely stupid thought, because, if the reasoning is that the strike year shortened the season, then what about all those other years in the NFL (pre Super Bowl years and after the merger) in which there were no 16 game seasons? Do none of those Championship titles count either?

I've just always found this a bit interesting. Even among Redskins fans, we haven't really, at least not much, verbalized our case that the Redskins between 81-92 was a franchised to be considered a dynasty. We have spoken about that time period being the glory years, but never felt comfortable using the term, dynasty.

So, I guess my question is, do you consider that era in Redskins history as being an era of a Redskins dynasty? If so, what is your counter argument when fans of other teams bring up the thoughts of the strike years? If you don't look at the Redskins of that decade as being a dynasty, then what is your definition of a dynasty? I suppose for myself, I go by my own definition. I tend to set the time period of about 10 years, and the team has to win at least three Championships within those 10 years, and have no more than two losing seasons.

Anyways, the 1991 Redskins thread inspired me in addition to that thread on another forum.

Of course, without the 49ers the Skins would have been the team of the 80s. Year in and year out under Gibbs the Skins were a serious playoff contender.

Losing to the Raiders screwed the Redskins from being team of the 80's.

Losing to the Raiders screwed the Redskins from being team of the 80's.

New England lost to the Giants, yet N.E. is still considered a dynasty.

Losing to the Raiders screwed the Redskins from being team of the 80's.

Yep, thats it and thats that.

OK, so if losing one Super Bowl out of four appearances is enough to say the 1980's Redskins was not a dynasty, then again I ask, why is that the New England Patriots of the 2000's decade considered a dynasty? Not only did they beat their opponents in the Super Bowl by small margins, but they have lost one of their four Super Bowl appearances just like the Redskins. Yet, they are still considered a dynasty. What say you?

Did NE have any comparable competition? The Redskins had the 49ers, NE no one has won 3 SB during the Patriots era.

Did NE have any comparable competition? The Redskins had the 49ers, NE no one has won 3 SB during the Patriots era.

Peyton Manning? I kid, I kid. Good rivalry though.

By the way, I agree that it's a media bias bullshit.

Peyton Manning? I kid, I kid. Good rivalry though.

1 SB win is not enough.