Could the 2010s be a decade without a dynasty?

[Hoofbite]

they drafted well because they had incredible picks because they had many losing seasons...they won't have luxury of high picks anymore.

Not sure this is the case.

 

[RonSpringsdaman20]

somebody will emerge… decade got 6 years to go..
my money is on the niners… as much as it pains me to say so….

 

[birdwells1]

A dynasty to me is at some point, repeating as champs. Giants are not a dynasty. Ever. And really, their Super Bowls all came in different decades. 80s, 90s, 2000s, 2010s.

A lot of people used to think Green Bay could possibly put together a nice run after they won the 2010 Super Bowl and then went 15-1 the next season and looked to be headed back for another until Giants dominated them. You just never know in this league now. With the salary cap and how the contracts are, it's hard to keep a solid core together for a long time. Seattle and SF are going to be losing a lot of players in the next few seasons. Just can't afford to keep them. So we will see if they continue to draft well. Because Wilson and Kaep need a solid team around them. They are not leading a team by themselves.

I do think New England in the 2000s will be the last dynasty we will see.

My simple definition of a dynasty: Dominate the competition, have other "monster" teams that you beat on the way to or in the championship or both. Example of the first would be Alabama or Jordan's Bulls, examples of the second 80s Lakers, Celtics, and 90s Cowboys an example of both would be the 70s Steelers.

As much as I respect the Patriots organization, they don't fit intoany of those categories. I think the definition of dynasty has been watered down over the years.

 

[burmafrd]

its gotten harder and harder to keep a team together for more than a couple of years. The Pats have done about as good a job as possible staying in the playoffs year after year. But a lot of that is due to B & B. Yet they have not won a SB in almost 10 years. And the NFL has made it clear they want no real dynasty's; no super teams.

QBs - the elite ones- cost so much anymore that building a team around them is virtually impossible and if you do maintaining it is impossible.

barring a absolute freak of nature and incredible luck there will be no dynasties in the NFL ever again. At least not until they start playing flag football.

 

[Blackspider214]

My simple definition of a dynasty: Dominate the competition, have other "monster" teams that you beat on the way to or in the championship or both. Example of the first would be Alabama or Jordan's Bulls, examples of the second 80s Lakers, Celtics, and 90s Cowboys an example of both would be the 70s Steelers.

As much as I respect the Patriots organization, they don't fit intoany of those categories. I think the definition of dynasty has been watered down over the years.

3 Super Bowls in 4 years. Won their division 10 of 11 years. 2 other Super Bowl appearances. Countless AFC championship game appearances.

Dynasty has nothing to do with margin of victory. Who cares about that. Winning is the name of the game.

 

[Redball Express]

A dynasty to me is at some point, repeating as champs. Giants are not a dynasty. Ever. And really, their Super Bowls all came in different decades. 80s, 90s, 2000s, 2010s.

A lot of people used to think Green Bay could possibly put together a nice run after they won the 2010 Super Bowl and then went 15-1 the next season and looked to be headed back for another until Giants dominated them. You just never know in this league now. With the salary cap and how the contracts are, it's hard to keep a solid core together for a long time. Seattle and SF are going to be losing a lot of players in the next few seasons. Just can't afford to keep them. So we will see if they continue to draft well. Because Wilson and Kaep need a solid team around them. They are not leading a team by themselves.

I do think New England in the 2000s will be the last dynasty we will see.

I look at dynasties..

a bit differently.

It's about excellence over a period of time..

Not necessarily back to backs.

Pittsburg has also got a couple of SBs like the Jints did in the 2000's..

Certainly dynasty talk, but not back to back.

Anyway..

Thanks for the reply.

 

[birdwells1]

3 Super Bowls in 4 years. Won their division 10 of 11 years. 2 other Super Bowl appearances. Countless AFC championship game appearances.

Dynasty has nothing to do with margin of victory. Who cares about that. Winning is the name of the game.

Again, that was my definition of a dynasty. They beat the Rams in ot in a game could went either way, they beat the Panthers with a fg in the last minutes and the beat the Eagles by a fg. Any of those games could've went either way, imo a dynasty leaves no doubt unless it's against another monster team (90s 49ers). None of the teams they beat by a fg were world beaters but maybe the Rams, in fact I think they failed to cover the spread in the other two.

When I think about dynasties the 70s Steelers, the 90s Cowboys, the Lakers and Celtics of the 80s, the Jordan lead Bulls and the Yankees of the late 90s come to mind because they left no doubt.

 

[Cowboy Brian]

Patriots, again. Don't expect Brady to retire for a while. They're my SB pick this year, one more appearance after this and they've got 3 appearances in the 2010's.

 

[burmafrd]

Patriots, again. Don't expect Brady to retire for a while. They're my SB pick this year, one more appearance after this and they've got 3 appearances in the 2010's.

the bills had 4 appearances in a row but that did not get them a lot of respect

 

[Corso]

They can open up $12M by cutting Rice and Zach Miller. Sidney Rice is doing nothing right now with 15 receptions on the season and Zach Miller is on the way out the door. Not that I follow Seattle that closely but I do believe the team is very high on Luke Wilson moving forward.

They ditch both of those guys, carry over $3M and they're sitting at $18M underneath the 2014 cap. Also, they ditch both of those guys this year it makes their total cap figure for 2015 just about $70M. Basically they'll have like $54M in cap space going into 2015 if they do nothing but cut Miller and Rice this coming offseason AND use every single free cap dollar they have this year. Any surplus will carry over. Hell, they'd have $38M even if they kept those guys on the bench to do nothing.

Chris Clemons is 32 years old and coming off a down year. Even if he makes it through another season, he's not commanding a large contract at 33. They could cut him after this season and move to being $23M under the cap for 2014. Lynch is a non-issue starting the year at 30 in 2016.

Seattle is primed for a strong stretch right now. Their cap is in great shape. They could have what amounts to about $77M in cap space between 2014 and 2015 by cutting a couple of unproductive offensive guys and Chris Clemons.

Not to mention they don't have to even worry about replacing any of the guys you listed until another 2 drafts and 2 free agent periods have come and gone.

Very good counter-point.
And true enough.

 

[Corso]

the bills had 4 appearances in a row but that did not get them a lot of respect

I was just thinking the same thing!
I just moved my mother to Las Cruces- Mesilla specifically.

I love that little town! It has almost everything anyone could want with a small-town, yet college atmosphere.
It's less than 40 minutes away from me and it seems like worlds away.
It has a great mix of young and old and everybody smiles there- as opposed to El Paso where the people seem scared and unhappy.
Not that I blame them...
My girl and I have hiked near White Sands numerous times. Beautiful mountains over there. Craggy- like the ones you'd envision in Eastern Europe.
El Paso's mountains- although nice (I live in the western extreme of the city way up into the mountains, about as high as the neighborhoods go), are soft and honestly- unimpressive in every way.

I might move there myself in the next few months. I've been looking at a few places in Mesilla that have peaked my interest.

You ever want to catch a game together- for some friendly, semi-knowledgeable banter at a local bar.
Hit me up. I'd be happy to make the trip.
I haven't hung out with a decent Cowboy fan in years.

 

[Corso]

3 Super Bowls in 4 years. Won their division 10 of 11 years. 2 other Super Bowl appearances. Countless AFC championship game appearances.

Dynasty has nothing to do with margin of victory. Who cares about that. Winning is the name of the game.

They're like the San Antonio Spurs of the NFL.

 

[Blackspider214]

They're like the San Antonio Spurs of the NFL.

Except SA never won back to back ever, though.

 

[Corso]

Except SA never won back to back ever, though.

True...
You got me there.

 

[mrmojo]

There were a lot of great teams in the 70s, 80s and 90s. So being a dynasty during those eras meant you were the best of the best. Just getting through the NFC East for the Cowboys in the 90s was difficult. Now, not so many great teams. Look at that Bills team that lost 4, they were loaded and still couldn't win a SB. I still believe that 1993 Cowboys team was the last "great" team in terms of talent, depth and coaching.

 

[Red Dragon]

Except SA never won back to back ever, though.

Winning back to back championships is overrated.

A team that wins 9 championships in 20 years (but none of them back to back) is better than a team that wins 2 titles in a row but then fails to win any more championships over the next 18 years.



I'm obviously not saying that the Spurs have won 9 championships. I'm just saying, winning back-to-back is overrated.

 

[Blackspider214]

Winning back to back championships is overrated.

A team that wins 9 championships in 20 years (but none of them back to back) is better than a team that wins 2 titles in a row but then fails to win any more championships over the next 18 years.



I'm obviously not saying that the Spurs have won 9 championships. I'm just saying, winning back-to-back is overrated.

Every team that has been considered a dynasty has at one point won back to back.

 

[Red Dragon]

Every team that has been considered a dynasty has at one point won back to back.

Some people call the Spurs a dynasty. Some people don't.

It's entirely subjective and up to one's own opinion.

 

[dcstands4]

Cowboys?

^^^^THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

There were a lot of great teams in the 70s, 80s and 90s. So being a dynasty during those eras meant you were the best of the best. Just getting through the NFC East for the Cowboys in the 90s was difficult. Now, not so many great teams. Look at that Bills team that lost 4, they were loaded and still couldn't win a SB. I still believe that 1993 Cowboys team was the last "great" team in terms of talent, depth and coaching.

Yes. This.

Cowboys had to battle to win the east. They were the last great team but they had to still win the games. They did.

Cowboys often times had to play the best/toughest teams to get there. Ie 49ers, packers, giants etc.

The patriots while they had a really good run benefited from certain things. One of which was a crap division. They could count on padding win total with 5-6 easy games.

Patriots were indeed the best winning team of 00's. Not the same as cowboys of 90's.