NFL Dynasties

[Cerberus]

Originally Posted by HoustonFrog

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Cerberus

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]

Originally Posted by The Pencil Neck

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]

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.

[thunderkyss]

Originally Posted by infantrycak

To me it is pretty clear - Cowboys, Niners, Steelers, Patriots.

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

[Double Barrel]

Originally Posted by Cerberus

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]

Originally Posted by Double Barrel

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/foo..._reception_ap/) and the Rob Lytle Fumble (http://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/19/sp...rong-call.html).

[Texcore]

In no particular order, easily the Cowboys, Steelers, Niners and Patriots. Period. No Questions.

There is no debate beyond these teams.

[HJam72]

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]

Originally Posted by HJam72

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]

Originally Posted by HJam72

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: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$).

Originally Posted by Cerberus

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]

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]

Originally Posted by toronto

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]

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...nasty-is-over/

[Double Barrel]

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]

Originally Posted by Foxboro Steve

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

oh, I fixed your post, too.

Okay the DEFINITIVE LIST:

9ers x5 with no losses

Steelers x6 with 2 losses

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

Giants x4

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

Just messing with ya Steve...

[Mr teX]

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]

Originally Posted by Dread-Head

Cowboys 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]

Originally Posted by Dread-Head

Steelers 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

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.