Patriots = first dynasty to dominate 2 decades

[Red Dragon]

1960s = Packers
1970s = Steelers
1980s = Niners
1990s = Cowboys
2000s = Patriots
2010s = Patriots

 

[nightrain]

Doubt I will see anything like that again in my lifetime. Amazing business model for football operations.

 

[atlantacowboy]

This is the most impressive dyanasty of all b/c it has come in a salary capped era with free agency that did not exist prior to 1996. All of these things conspire to spread the talent in the NFL and keep too much from accumulating on one team............ala the 70's Steelers and Cowboys. Noll never had to choose Mean Joe Greene or Jack Lambert.

 

[LACowboysFan1]

1960s = Packers
1970s = Steelers
1980s = Niners
1990s = Cowboys
2000s = Patriots
2010s = Patriots

The 1990's Cowboys were not a dynasty, imho, they were really good from only about 1991 to 1996, to me a dynasty has to go at least 10 years. By putting your list by decades starting with 0's, you can't include the Cowboys from 1966-1980.

If you only are figuring dynasties after the league merge, that's different, you didn't say so though. And I'd still not include the 1990's Cowboys, like I said, not long enough of a span of being very good.

But I would also add the Cowboys to the Steelers for the 1970's, from 1970 thru 1979 the Cowboys were in the Super Bowl 5 times, twice in the NFC championship game and twice in the divisional round, to me even though they only had 2 SB wins, to be in the hunt that many times is still a dynasty...

 

[atlantacowboy]

The 1990's Cowboys were not a dynasty, imho, they were really good from only about 1991 to 1996, to me a dynasty has to go at least 10 years. By putting your list by decades starting with 0's, you can't include the Cowboys from 1966-1980.

If you only are figuring dynasties after the league merge, that's different, you didn't say so though. And I'd still not include the 1990's Cowboys, like I said, not long enough of a span of being very good...

Well, the cap and free agency interrupted. But, Dallas won the most super bowls in the 90's. so you give the decade to them.

 

[Aerolithe_Lion]

The 1990's Cowboys were not a dynasty, imho, they were really good from only about 1991 to 1996, to me a dynasty has to go at least 10 years. By putting your list by decades starting with 0's, you can't include the Cowboys from 1966-1980.

If you only are figuring dynasties after the league merge, that's different, you didn't say so though. And I'd still not include the 1990's Cowboys, like I said, not long enough of a span of being very good.

But I would also add the Cowboys to the Steelers for the 1970's, from 1970 thru 1979 the Cowboys were in the Super Bowl 5 times, twice in the NFC championship game and twice in the divisional round, to me even though they only had 2 SB wins, to be in the hunt that many times is still a dynasty...

See, I would argue the opposite. Dynasty means ruling party. While the 90’s were only a 5 year stretch of dominance, you were undisputedly the best team in football during that time.

Conversely, by the very definition of the word, since the 1970’s Steelers existed, Dallas in that decade can’t be considered a dynasty because Pitt has more rings AND repeatedly beat you in the playoffs. Second place can not be labeled dynasty.

 

[LACowboysFan1]

Well, the cap and free agency interrupted. But, Dallas won the most super bowls in the 90's. so you give the decade to them.

They did win more SBs than anybody, but again regardless of the reason, I can't call them a dynasty, they were 7-9 and out of the playoffs in 1990, 6-10 in 1997, and 8-8 in 1999. Just too many poor years for me.

But I'm not the sole decider of what's a dynasty, your list is as good as mine if that's how you view it, just giving my take on it.

 

[LACowboysFan1]

See, I would argue the opposite. Dynasty means ruling party. While the 90’s were only a 5 year stretch of dominance, you were undisputedly the best team in football during that time.

Conversely, by the very definition of the word, since the 1970’s Steelers existed, Dallas in that decade can’t be considered a dynasty because Pitt has more rings AND repeatedly beat you in the playoffs. Second place can not be labeled dynasty.

There isn't an absolute single definition of a dynasty, if that's what you think, no problem, I just don't have the same definition.

Miriam Webster, under a subset of the definition of dynasty labeled Sports Dynasties says "Nowadays, this sense of dynasty is often applied to a sports franchise which has a prolonged run of successful seasons. "

Of course now you get into definitions of successful seasons, some say that's only if you win the championship, others say it's wining more than you lose in a season, making the playoffs, etc.

Just no hard and fast rule of what's a dynasty...

 

[Aerolithe_Lion]

There isn't an absolute single definition of a dynasty, if that's what you think, no problem, I just don't have the same definition.

Miriam Webster, under a subset of the definition of dynasty labeled Sports Dynasties says "Nowadays, this sense of dynasty is often applied to a sports franchise which has a prolonged run of successful seasons. "

Of course now you get into definitions of successful seasons, some say that's only if you win the championship, others say it's wining more than you lose in a season, making the playoffs, etc.

Just no hard and fast rule of what's a dynasty...

Yes there is:

dy·nas·ty
/ˈdīnəstē/
noun

a line of hereditary rulers of a country.



If they didn’t want it to mean ultimate ruling family, they wouldn’t use the word dynasty to begin with. It’s like using the word Champion to define the 5th place team. It’s not what champion means no matter the colloquialism you’re attempting.

 

[John813]

GOAT QB, GOAT HC and GOAT Owner.

 

[LACowboysFan1]

Yes there is:

dy·nas·ty
/ˈdīnəstē/
noun
a line of hereditary rulers of a country.



If they didn’t want it to mean ultimate ruling family, they wouldn’t use the word dynasty to begin with. It’s like using the word Champion to define the 5th place team. It’s not what champion means no matter the colloquialism you’re attempting.

That's not the only definition of dynasty. Per Dictionary.com:

dynasty
[dahy-nuh-stee; British also din-uh-stee]
noun, plural dy·nas·ties.
a sequence of rulers from the same family, stock, or group:the Ming dynasty.
the rule of such a sequence.
a series of members of a family who are distinguished for their success, wealth, etc.

From Vocabulary.com:

Definitions of dynasty
1
a sequence of powerful leaders in the same family

The original definition of a word can change with interpretation over time, and we're talking about sports teams, not royalty, so the word already isn't strictly applied.

Neither of us is changing our mind, so let's just agree to disagree...

 

[LACowboysFan1]

GOAT QB, GOAT HC and GOAT Owner.

Would agree on no. 1, but just because the owner doesn't meddle doesn't make him the greatest owner, imo. And as far as Belichick, that depends on your definition of greatest coach. I don't know of any innovation that Belichick has brought to the game, unlike Landry who developed the 4-3, the Flex, the offensive line shift and expanded the "shotgun" use.

I'd still have to go with Landry as the greatest of all time coach...

 

[sean10mm]

It's hard to argue against Landry's greatness even if I wanted to. But Belichick's strength is that he doesn't have a signature scheme. It's whatever works in the specific game, or even part of a game.

Like who the hell runs a 6-1 defense with quarters coverage in the Super Bowl after playing 3-4/4-3 man coverage all year, just so they don't run the defense the other coach was watching the film of? Are they a pro-ified Air Raid spread team or a smashmouth dinosaur using the fullback more than anybody since 1979? They're both, and neither, because of Belichick.