PDA

View Full Version : NFL Dynasties


Cerberus
01-14-2013, 11:41 AM
Had a post on another board about dynasties, and thought I'd bring it over here as a question.

Starting from the first Super Bowl year, who do you consider to be the top four (4) NFL dynasties?

Feel free to add your own if you think I missed one; though I don't think but six of the teams shown presented really even qualify IMHO. Please pick ONLY FOUR TEAMS. You can list your four in order in a post and say why you ranked them if you want.

infantrycak
01-14-2013, 12:08 PM
To me it is pretty clear - Cowboys, Niners, Steelers, Patriots.

Cerberus
01-14-2013, 12:13 PM
To me it is pretty clear - Cowboys, Niners, Steelers, Patriots.

Everyone's opinion will be clear to them; especially depending one which era they grew-up in. So, the real question then becomes, do you base it on consecutive years of dominance, number of Super Bowl appearances and/or victories, winning under only one coach and one QB, etc.?

infantrycak
01-14-2013, 12:25 PM
Everyone's opinion will be clear to them. The question then becomes, do you base it on consecutive years of dominance, number of Super Bowl appearances or victories, doing it under only one coach and QB, etc.?

Well each of the teams above dominate in the categories you mention other than one coach/QB.

Cerberus
01-14-2013, 12:29 PM
Well each of the teams above dominate in the categories you mention other than one coach/QB.

But they all aren't the top 4 in each of those categories now are they?

Arranged by length of dominance:

Cowboys = 1966-1985 (20yr span)
Raiders = 1967-1985 (19yr span)
49ers = 1981-1998 (18yr span)
Dolphins = 1970-1985 (16yr span)
Patriots = 2001-2012 (12yr span)
Steelers = 1972-1983 (12yr span)
Packers = 1995-2004 (10yr span)
Bills = 1988-1996 (9yr span)
Redskins = 1983-1991 (9yr span)
NY Giants = 1985-1990 (6yr span)

Arranged by number of SB wins DURING the dynasty years:

49ers = 5
Steelers = 4
Raiders = 3
Patriots = 3
Cowboys = 2
Redskins = 2 (1982 strike year not included)
Dolphins = 2
Giants = 2
Packers = 1
Bills = 0

Thus the reason I asked.

HoustonFrog
01-14-2013, 12:36 PM
To me it is pretty clear - Cowboys, Niners, Steelers, Patriots.

Agreed! Cowboys were even pretty close in the 70s if not for those pesky Steelers. I'd add Packers from Lombardi's day too to make it 5.

So I'd have it

Packers--60s Packers
Steelers--70s..with Boys right behind
49ers--80s
Cowboys--90s
Patriots--21st century

If you think about the Cowboys from 60s-90s they had a streak of 20 straight winning seasons..65-85 and then 6-7 years off before starting up again through 95. So 23 out of 30 years is pretty strong work.

eriadoc
01-14-2013, 12:36 PM
It depends on how you define dynasty. Teams like yours had success over a long period of time, but fewer runs of monster sucess in a short period of time (a la 92-95 Cowboys). The Packers had success over a long period of time, the '80s notwithstanding, but they aren't thought of as a Super Bowl era dynasty, in part because they were a true dynasty under Lombardi. The Giants have a nice run going, but they are very up and down. Is it better to win two Super Bowls in three years and miss the playoffs a few times or have an entire decade of getting deep in the playoffs but have no Super Bowls ('80s Cowboys, for instance)?

A lot depends on definitions. At the end of the day, there are only a few teams with 4+ Super Bowls, so those teams go near the top, IMO.

eriadoc
01-14-2013, 12:39 PM
The way you've put the poll kind of illustrates what I'm talking about. You listed the Landry Cowboys, but not the Jimmy Johnson/Switzer Cowboys. 3 Super Bowls in 4 years, especially in the era of free agency, is a dynasty.

Foxboro Steve
01-14-2013, 12:45 PM
Agreed! Cowboys were even pretty close in the 70s if not for those pesky Steelers. I'd add Packers from Lombardi's day too to make it 5.

So I'd have it

Packers--60s Packers
Steelers--70s..with Boys right behind
49ers--80s
Cowboys--90s
Patriots--21st century

If you think about the Cowboys from 60s-90s they had a streak of 25 straight winning seasons..65-85 and then 6-7 years off before starting up again through 95. So 23 out of 30 years is pretty strong work.

:goodpost: ^this^

Probably not popular around here, but a case can be made for the Steelers continued dominance as the gold standard. From Noll to Cowher to Tomlin, the franchise has bumps in the road with extended periods of good/great.

HoustonFrog
01-14-2013, 12:51 PM
:goodpost: ^this^

Probably not popular around here, but a case can be made for the Steelers continued dominance as the gold standard. From Noll to Cowher to Tomlin, the franchise has bumps in the road with extended periods of good/great.

True on Steelers...and I amended my post, I accidentally put 25 straight years when it as 20 for Cowboys.

Cerberus
01-14-2013, 12:54 PM
:goodpost: ^this^

Probably not popular around here, but a case can be made for the Steelers continued dominance as the gold standard. From Noll to Cowher to Tomlin, the franchise has bumps in the road with extended periods of good/great.

That is why the Steelers bumped the Dolphins on my list. To me, the SB wins pushed them past the Dolphins. The Niners made my list because of the length of dominance as well as how many SBs they won. The Cowboys and Raiders round out my list due to the longevity of their runs, plus the SB wins they racked up.

As for what eriadoc noted about Johnson & Switzer, I can see your point which is why I made the post. I guess to me, one of the main things that makes a team a dynasty is dominance year-after-year; but that's just me. The Patriots are still building on their dynasty, so I suspect they'll eventually make my top 4, but we'll have to wait on that.

True on Steelers...and I amended my post, I accidentally put 25 straight years when it as 20 for Cowboys.

I'll have to look into that as well. The Cowboys had 20 straight winning seasons, the Raiders and Niners both had 16 straight, but the Raiders had 20 out of 21 years (QB injury caused them to go 7-9 in year 17 of their streak), and the Steelers had 9 years straight. Like I said, I'll have to check the others.

Update:

Cowboys = 20 straight winning seasons
Raiders = 16
Niners = 16
Patriots = 12
Steelers = 9
Dolphins = 6

infantrycak
01-14-2013, 01:03 PM
:goodpost: ^this^

Probably not popular around here, but a case can be made for the Steelers continued dominance as the gold standard. From Noll to Cowher to Tomlin, the franchise has bumps in the road with extended periods of good/great.

I think a case can be made both the Cowboys and Steelers have had two dynasty eras - moreso the Cowboys.

Cerberus
01-14-2013, 01:09 PM
I think a case can be made both the Cowboys and Steelers have had two dynasty eras - moreso the Cowboys.

That is probably true, and it also takes away from them as having one of the top 4 dynasties, since adding two dynasties together doesn't make 1 great dynasty. Regardless, the Cowboys have to be on everyone's list whether they like it or not.

Of course, recent history will tend to trump old history, which is also why I posed the question. As people's memories fade, or because they are young and weren't around, the newer dynasties seem to get the nod. It is the same thing that happens when talking about greatest players. Someone like Jim Brown or Dick Butkus may not rate as high to a youngster as Walter Payton and Ray Lewis.

Double Barrel
01-14-2013, 02:14 PM
To me it is pretty clear - Cowboys, Niners, Steelers, Patriots.

QFT. Same picks for me, as well.

utahmark
01-14-2013, 02:42 PM
A better question is, Who is the 5th dynasty after Pitt, SF, NE, Dallas. Although for me the 90's and not the 70's is the team I think of for Dallas. Maybe I'm not as old as I think.

powda
01-14-2013, 02:56 PM
Had a post on another board about dynasties, and thought I'd bring it over here as a question.

Starting from the first Super Bowl year, who do you consider to be the top four (4) NFL dynasties?

Feel free to add your own if you think I missed one; though I don't think but six of the teams shown presented really even qualify IMHO. Please pick ONLY FOUR TEAMS. You can list your four in order in a post and say why you ranked them if you want.

Shouldn't the broncos be on this list as well?

It's unfortunate the bills didn't get at least one championship because they'd be a no brainer. Instead they're orphaned into the forgotten abyss. The reality was they beat the dog snot out of people consistently for half a decade...till February.

Dread-Head
01-14-2013, 03:04 PM
There were some cats who played for the 9ers and were on the roster for ALL FIVE Superbowls. Sorry Belecheat and the Pats can't compare to that.

HoustonFrog
01-14-2013, 03:08 PM
A better question is, Who is the 5th dynasty after Pitt, SF, NE, Dallas. Although for me the 90's and not the 70's is the team I think of for Dallas. Maybe I'm not as old as I think.

I think if you make it championships and not just SBs then you have to have Packers of 60s. They won championships in 61, 62 and 65 and then the first 2 SBs in 66 and 67. That is as close to these others as w'eve talked about. I wouldn't include anyone else.If its just SBs...then the 4 we have talked about.

Foxboro Steve
01-14-2013, 03:51 PM
There were some cats who played for the 9ers and were on the roster for ALL FIVE Superbowls. Sorry THE GREAT BELICHICK and the Pats can't compare to that.

Nope. Charles Haley has five, 2 with 49ers, 3 with Dallas.

oh, I fixed your post, too.

Speedy
01-14-2013, 04:25 PM
Yeah, the Cowboys, Niners, Steelers and Pats are definitely the top 4 in the SB era.

Cowboys - 5 SB in 9 seasons winning 2, in the playoffs a million years in a row.
Niners - 5 SB in 14 seasons winning all 5.
Steelers - 4 SB in 6 seasons winning all 4.
And if the Pats win Sunday, it will be their 6th SB in 12 seasons, with 3 wins so far.

No question on those 4.

Who's next? Well, you've got the Dolphins going to 3 straight SB, winning 2, the 90's Cowboys going to 3 in 4 years, winning 3, the 2000's Steelers going to 3 SB in 6 years, winning 2, and then you've got the Bills, 4 straight, no wins, the Vikings 4 in 8 seasons, no wins, the Broncos 3 in 4 years, no wins. Those last 3 teams won a lot of football games, still great teams, they just didn't win that ONE game, the SB.

I'd probably go the 90's Cowboys as the 5th (in the SB era).

Cerberus
01-14-2013, 04:33 PM
I think if you make it championships and not just SBs then you have to have Packers of 60s. They won championships in 61, 62 and 65 and then the first 2 SBs in 66 and 67. That is as close to these others as w'eve talked about. I wouldn't include anyone else.If its just SBs...then the 4 we have talked about.

But I stated it was from year one of the SB until today. Otherwise we'd be including talk of the old Bears and such. As it is, it appears many here have forgotten how dominant the Raiders were back in the 60's, 70's and 80's; the team of the decades, as they were known. Then again, I attribute that to their heyday being a long time ago, and the bad times that have befallen them lately.

To me, the no-brainer is:

1st = Cowboys, because of the 20 year winning streak, 5 SB appearances during that time, and 2 Super Bowl victories.

2nd = 49ers, because of the 16 year winning streak, 5 SB appearances during that time, and 5 Super Bowl victories.

3rd = Raiders, because of the 16 year winning streak, 4 SB appearances during that time, and 3 Super Bowl victories.

4th = Steelers, because of their 4 SB appearances and 4 wins during their dynasty years, even though their 12 year winning streak is less than the Dolphins and tied with the Patriots.

The Pencil Neck
01-14-2013, 04:37 PM
I think we disagree on the definition of "dynasty". You've got a lot of teams on there I wouldn't even consider dynasties.

For me, it's the same coaching staff with essentially the same personnel winning multiple SBs.

If you don't win a SB, it's not a dynasty. Bills are out.

If you make major changes in personnel and coaching staffs, it's not a dynasty. That disconnects Noll from Cowher from Tomlin. And it makes the Raiders, Parcells era Giants, and Redskins NOT be dynasties.

I would include the 90's Cowboys as a dynasty because, even though the coaches changed, the team remained essentially Jimmy Johnson's team.

HoustonFrog
01-14-2013, 04:50 PM
But I stated it was from year one of the SB until today. Otherwise we'd be including talk of the old Bears and such. As it is, it appears many here have forgotten how dominant the Raiders were back in the 60's, 70's and 80's; the team of the decades, as they were known. Then again, I attribute that to their heyday being a long time ago, and the bad times that have befallen them lately.

To me, the no-brainer is:

1st = Cowboys, because of the 20 year winning streak, 5 SB appearances during that time, and 2 Super Bowl victories.

2nd = 49ers, because of the 16 year winning streak, 5 SB appearances during that time, and 5 Super Bowl victories.

3rd = Raiders, because of the 16 year winning streak, 4 SB appearances during that time, and 3 Super Bowl victories.

4th = Steelers, because of their 4 SB appearances and 4 wins during their dynasty years, even though their 12 year winning streak is less than the Dolphins and tied with the Patriots.

I know. That is why I put that you'd have to include championships and not SBs and said at end that it would have to be more than SBs. I was just throwing out what people might call a 5th.

Double Barrel
01-14-2013, 04:58 PM
I think we disagree on the definition of "dynasty". You've got a lot of teams on there I wouldn't even consider dynasties.

For me, it's the same coaching staff with essentially the same personnel winning multiple SBs.

If you don't win a SB, it's not a dynasty. Bills are out.

If you make major changes in personnel and coaching staffs, it's not a dynasty. That disconnects Noll from Cowher from Tomlin. And it makes the Raiders, Parcells era Giants, and Redskins NOT be dynasties.

I would include the 90's Cowboys as a dynasty because, even though the coaches changed, the team remained essentially Jimmy Johnson's team.

yep, well said. That's why I would not consider the Joe Gibb's Redskins to be a dynasty. Same HC for three Super Bowl wins, but each with a different QB (which is impressive, but not necessarily dynasty).

Cerberus
01-14-2013, 05:15 PM
yep, well said. That's why I would not consider the Joe Gibb's Redskins to be a dynasty. Same HC for three Super Bowl wins, but each with a different QB (which is impressive, but not necessarily dynasty).

Which, once again, is why I posed the question. Different people will define "Dynasty" differently, which is why I won't argue the point with any of them. If you think SB's are the most important thing, you'll say one thing, but if it is length of back-to-back-to-back... seasons, it would be another. One coach and one QB, then that is something else. And of course, a matter of whether you were alive during the era in question. I asked my son this question, he was born in 1984, and his answers were like the Pats, Colts, Niners and Giants.

To me, a dynasty is a team that has an extended period of winning seasons while also winning a couple of Super Bowls. So, the Cowboys 20 yrs, Niners and Raiders 16 yr streaks are tops, with all three teams winning multiple SBs. It was the 4th team that was hard for me to pick, because I had to trump Miami's winning streaks and SBs with the Steelers 4 SBs during their lesser time period. And of course, some people will look and think more SBs in a shorter period shows more dominance, and thus makes that team more of a dynasty. I won't argue that point either. As I've said, everyone is going to have a different view. I suspect, most people under 50 won't choose the Raiders, and some won't choose the Cowboys though they've gotten more media exposure. That's why I say age plays a part in these types of polls.

thunderkyss
01-14-2013, 05:17 PM
To me it is pretty clear - Cowboys, Niners, Steelers, Patriots.

Agree... somehow I screwed up & checked Packers, I meant Patriots.

Double Barrel
01-15-2013, 11:01 AM
Which, once again, is why I posed the question. Different people will define "Dynasty" differently, which is why I won't argue the point with any of them. If you think SB's are the most important thing, you'll say one thing, but if it is length of back-to-back-to-back... seasons, it would be another. One coach and one QB, then that is something else. And of course, a matter of whether you were alive during the era in question. I asked my son this question, he was born in 1984, and his answers were like the Pats, Colts, Niners and Giants.

To me, a dynasty is a team that has an extended period of winning seasons while also winning a couple of Super Bowls. So, the Cowboys 20 yrs, Niners and Raiders 16 yr streaks are tops, with all three teams winning multiple SBs. It was the 4th team that was hard for me to pick, because I had to trump Miami's winning streaks and SBs with the Steelers 4 SBs during their lesser time period. And of course, some people will look and think more SBs in a shorter period shows more dominance, and thus makes that team more of a dynasty. I won't argue that point either. As I've said, everyone is going to have a different view. I suspect, most people under 50 won't choose the Raiders, and some won't choose the Cowboys though they've gotten more media exposure. That's why I say age plays a part in these types of polls.

I put the 1970's Raiders up there as a dynasty. Madden still has the highest winning percentage of all time, iirc. His teams were always in the mix, and by my dynasty standards, I would include those Raiders teams.

You just asked for four, so I picked the four that I consider the tops. But easily could put the Raiders as five.

You are right about lifespan. Which is why my perspective starts in the modern Super Bowl era - circa 1970's - simply because I do not have a point of reference for earlier periods. The Packers were definitely a dynasty under Lombardi in the '60's.

Cerberus
01-15-2013, 01:33 PM
I put the 1970's Raiders up there as a dynasty. Madden still has the highest winning percentage of all time, iirc. His teams were always in the mix, and by my dynasty standards, I would include those Raiders teams.

There was a time the Raiders were the winningest team in all professional sports, i.e., football, baseball, basketball, hockey, . . . they were the ultimate dynasty, but that was long ago now and this poll has shown me how most have forgotten or are too young to remember. After all, their reign as a dynasty extended from 1967 - 1985 (19 years).

During the Raiders' 19-year dynasty, their regular season record not counting ties was 205-70 (.745 winning pct.).

During the 13-years of the Pats dynasty under Belichick and Brady (with 1 yr Bledsoe, and 1 yr Cassel), they've gone 151-57 (.726) pct.) in the regular season.

If you pare it down to the last/best 12-years, the Pats have gone 146-46 (.760 winning pct.), but they would have to keep up that pace for the next 7 years to trump the Raider's dynasty numbers, or you could look at the Raiders best 12-year span from 1966-1977, where they were 127-33 (.790 winning pct.). Either way, it shows the Pats have a ways to go yet to top the Raiders in the regular season during their dynasty years. As for SB, they both have 3, but of course the Pats got one of theirs thanks to the Snow-Job game, and the Raiders very well may have lost out on going to 2 more via the Immaculate Reception (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/news/2000/11/30/immaculate_reception_ap/) and the Rob Lytle Fumble (http://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/19/sports/sports-of-the-times-no-replay-on-nfl-s-wrong-call.html).

Texcore
01-15-2013, 05:22 PM
In no particular order, easily the Cowboys, Steelers, Niners and Patriots. Period. No Questions.

There is no debate beyond these teams.

HJam72
01-15-2013, 08:06 PM
I would have to put the 90s Cowboys at the very top of that list (as much as I hate too and can't stop thinking: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$).

Cerberus
01-15-2013, 09:44 PM
I would have to put the 90s Cowboys at the very top of that list (as much as I hate too and can't stop thinking: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$).

There is no right or wrong answer. You can put the 90's Cowboys at the top of your list. This is more an exercise in perception. For example, I think Landry's Cowboys were more of a dynasty than the JJ/Switzer Cowboys of the 90's. That goes back to the age difference again.

infantrycak
01-15-2013, 10:04 PM
I would have to put the 90s Cowboys at the very top of that list (as much as I hate too and can't stop thinking: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$).

There is no right or wrong answer. You can put the 90's Cowboys at the top of your list. This is more an exercise in perception. For example, I think Landry's Cowboys were more of a dynasty than the JJ/Switzer Cowboys of the 90's. That goes back to the age difference again.

I will throw another consideration out there using this as an example - who did you have to go through to get there? The 90's Cowboys went through three teams on this list to get their SB rings - the Niners, the Packers (so along with the Cowboys winners of 5 straight SBs - appearing in 6 straight) and the Bills (4 straight SB appearances). In 1993 they went through all 3 of them.

toronto
01-15-2013, 11:04 PM
For me the 80s Niners will (4 today) remain the best dynasty of alltime in the NFL. Starting to worry about the Pats though. Their excellence has gone on since 2002, it just needs 1 or 2 more SBs and they're there, especially in this era.

Cerberus
01-19-2013, 11:43 AM
For me the 80s Niners will (4 today) remain the best dynasty of alltime in the NFL. Starting to worry about the Pats though. Their excellence has gone on since 2002, it just needs 1 or 2 more SBs and they're there, especially in this era.

So, out with the old and in with the new/most recent. That is kind of what I was getting at, the Johnny-come-lately mentality that minimizes that which came before. Not slamming you, just pointing out human-nature.

You know, you got me thinking about something else too. Lets take the Raider's dynasty and pit it against the Patriots dynasty. If they were to play each other today, I'd say the Pats would probably win. However, that is an unfair assessment because of the different eras. If you took Brady and the Pats back to the 70's, the Raiders would have crushed them. So, the issue in part is linked to rule changes. So, in my mind both teams would have to play by the rules of their era in an imaginary game. In other words, Willie Brown and Mike Haynes, or Lester Hayes in the later years, would be able to be physical with the WRs like in the 70s, but the Pats could not. Jack Tatum and George Atkinson could punish players like Wes Welker as they go across the middle. The Raiders would be able to crush Brady after the pass with players like Matuszak and Alzado, but the Pats would have to not hit Stabler or Plunkett after their passes. And with that in mind, I don't doubt the 70's Raiders would thump today's Patriots. JMO

Cerberus
01-22-2013, 11:27 AM
Funny that this just popped up on PFT:

The Pats still get that treatment because, unlike other NFL dynasties, the Pats have yet to slide out of consistent contention. . . .

Not everyone agrees with that, including Patriots linebacker Rob Ninkovich.

“That whole era is over with. It’s gone,” Ninkovich told WEEI on Monday. “So this is a whole new team. It’s a different bunch of guys . . . ”

The era of winning Super Bowls is indeed over. But the Pats continue to be regarded elite team, because they are. They just haven’t won a Super Bowl in eight years.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/01/22/ninkovich-says-the-patriots-dynasty-is-over/

Double Barrel
01-22-2013, 12:00 PM
The only constants from those Super Bowl wins are Belichick and Brady. I read the other day that only three players remain from their 2004 championship. So yeah, "dynasty" is getting loosely thrown around these days.

Dread-Head
01-22-2013, 03:28 PM
Nope. Charles Haley has five, 2 with 49ers, 3 with Dallas.

oh, I fixed your post, too.

Okay the DEFINITIVE LIST:

9ers :trophy: x5 with no losses

Steelers :trophy: x6 with 2 losses

Cowgirls :trophy: x5 with 4 losses and one of THOSE 5 was a GIFT from a Steeler "Quarterback" in name only.

Giants :trophy: x4

Patriots :trophy: x3....with 2 losses after trips to the Caanes film festival.

Just messing with ya Steve...

Mr teX
01-22-2013, 03:50 PM
I only consider dynasties to be teams who went to or won at least 3 SB's in a very short period of time...so my list is as follows

80's niners, 70's steelers, 90's Cowboys and............

90's bills. They lost all 4 but the fact that they were able to get there 4 straight times is remarkable. no team in the SB era, win or lose has been able to do that......that's tough in its own right.

infantrycak
01-22-2013, 04:15 PM
Cowboys :trophy: x5 with 4 losses and one of THOSE 5 was a GIFT from a Steeler "Quarterback" in name only.

They have 3 losses and one of those was stolen by the world's most mysterious reffing blunder of all time in SB V.

Double Barrel
01-22-2013, 05:19 PM
Steelers :trophy: x6 with 3 losses


The Steelers only have two Super Bowl losses.

From the Steelers website:

The Steelers have played in eight Super Bowls, winning six of them, including four in six years. Below is a recap of the six wins

Link (http://www.steelers.com/history/superbowl.html)

p.s. And the Patriots have 4 Super Bowl losses in their history. They lost to the '85 Bears, the '95 Packers, and the two recent ones to the Giants.

Also, the Giants have 1 loss to the Baltimore Ravens in 2001.

Cerberus
01-22-2013, 09:07 PM
The Steelers only have two Super Bowl losses.



p.s. And the Patriots have 4 Super Bowl losses in their history. They lost to the '85 Bears, the '95 Packers, and the two recent ones to the Giants.

Also, the Giants have 1 loss to the Baltimore Ravens in 2001.

All that information is irrelevant anyway, and the "dynasty period" doesn't include all-time. For example, one could argue the Cowboys and Steelers have had two different dynasties.

Double Barrel
01-23-2013, 09:51 AM
All that information is irrelevant anyway, and the "dynasty period" doesn't include all-time. For example, one could argue the Cowboys and Steelers have had two different dynasties.

I agree with your point in context with the thread's intent, but I was just correcting DH's numbers as they were all-time for each franchise.

Dread-Head
01-23-2013, 11:31 AM
Thanks for the corrections gents...