Originally Posted by Double Barrel
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.