As I sit here and read all of these opinion, not all together wrong BTW, I can't help but ask the question.
What did we all expect? I mean, many say the Pats were great champions, and to an extent, I suppose I see the argument but honestly, were they really great? I mean, they never beat anybody by more then 3 points in any of there SBs. They didn't hold anybody to under two TDs. I mean, the accomplishment was great and the fact that they did it in the salary cap era was extrodinary, IMO, but was the team really that great? TB was dominating but one and done. Not great IMO. Baltimore was basically the same thing IMO. St. Louise one and really, came within a yard of never doing that. A truely great offense IMO but not a great team. Denver, with Elway and TD was a great team, IMO. They had a balanced offense and decent defense. Not dominating but decent. GB, again, was a great team even thou they only won one IMO. They had the misfortune of being good when both the Cowboys and the 49rs were superior for a stretch of 4 to 5 years. A different time and they may very well have won more championships. I think they were a great team. Having said that, the Broncos and the Packers were teams that were early into the Cap/FA era. The cap was around but it had not really balanced the league yet. In short, mediocraty had not become known as the "NFL" as it has today.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that the league has strove to create balance. Mediocraty, IMO. Nobody is head and shoulders above the rest. Any given year, 10 teams can make a single move and win a championship. There are no teams that are top to bottom great IMO. All have weakness and all play not to lose. Nobody really dominates on both sides of the ball anymore. It is exactly what the NFL wanted to create. Average.