Thread: NFL Dynasties
View Single Post
Old 01-14-2013   #6
eriadoc
Texan-American
 
eriadoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 18,476
Rep Power: 265163 eriadoc is a quality contributor and well respectederiadoc is a quality contributor and well respectederiadoc is a quality contributor and well respectederiadoc is a quality contributor and well respectederiadoc is a quality contributor and well respectederiadoc is a quality contributor and well respectederiadoc is a quality contributor and well respectederiadoc is a quality contributor and well respectederiadoc is a quality contributor and well respectederiadoc is a quality contributor and well respectederiadoc is a quality contributor and well respected
Send a message via ICQ to eriadoc Send a message via Yahoo to eriadoc
Default Re: NFL Dynasties

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.
__________________
Anyone but Schaub.
eriadoc is offline   Reply With Quote