The definition of a dynasty?

[Red Dragon]

I've been thinking about this one of late, and I think it would be reasonably fair and simple to define a "dynasty" as a team that wins three championships in the span of a decade.


This would mean that the Commanders from the 1980s-1990s would count as a dynasty, technically, since they won Super Bowls in 1982, 1987, and 1991, but I guess we'll just have to go with that.


Technically then, there would have been six dynasties in NFL history in the Super Bowl era:



Cowboys: Won three Super Bowls during 1992-1995.

Raiders: Won three Super Bowls during 1976-1983.

Patriots: Won three Super Bowls during 2001-2004.

49ers: Won four Super Bowls during 1981-1989.

Steelers: Won four Super Bowls during 1974-1979.

Commanders: Won three Super Bowls from 1982-1991.







Honorary mention:

Broncos (won back-to-back Super Bowls in 1997 and 1998,)

Bills (four consecutive Super Bowl appearances from 1990-1993,)

Steelers (won two Super Bowls in 2005 and 2008,)

Cowboys (won two Super Bowls in 1971 and 1977,)

Dolphins (won back-to-back Super Bowls in 1972 and 1973,)

Packers (won two Super Bowls in 1966 and 1967,) and

Giants (won two Super Bowls in 1986 and 1990, and two more in 2007 and 2011.)

 

[Afigueroa22]

I often ponder this question. I hate that the Giants will forever get mentioned because their two SB's this decade. I feel like a dynasty team is riddled with HOFers and really great players who cant outshine the main guys.

Aikman, Irvin, and Emmitt are considered top 10 if not top 5 at their respective positions. What player on the Giants team has that? Not only did we win 3 superbowls in 5 years, we contended after that as well. Repeat and threepeat were words that were used. I haven't heard anybody mention a repeat with the Giants.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

Not gonna be popular, but I'd draw the line at 4.

92-95 is a good 4 year run, but the lack of success from 96-99 puts us just short imo.

Skins from 82-91 and Oakland from 76-83 definately weren't dynasties because the 49ers dominated that time period (81-89) and Pittsburg dominated from 74-79.

IMO, you can't have 2 dynasties cover the same time span because it really waters down the term.

 

[burmafrd]

Not gonna be popular, but I'd draw the line at 4.

92-95 is a good 4 year run, but the lack of success from 96-99 puts us just short imo.

Skins from 82-91 and Oakland from 76-83 definately weren't dynasties because the 49ers dominated that time period (81-89) and Pittsburg dominated from 74-79.

IMO, you can't have 2 dynasties cover the same time span because it really waters down the term.

for 4 years we were the team to beat; and most thought we were still in 96. So winning 3 in four years is a dynasty. Just ours was shorter then most.

 

[Denim Chicken]

I would say at least three championships within five years. That way your percentage of winning the Super Bowl is more than half and thus dominating the league.

 

[burmafrd]

I would say at least three championships within five years. That way your percentage of winning the Super Bowl is more than half and thus dominating the league.

That sounds good.

And in this day and age of FA and Cap that is about as good as you can get.

 

[Tezz]

I like that you gave the Bills a honorary mention even though they never got over the hump. Usually there is a drop-off after losing a Superbowl for whatever reason, but they were able to re-group somehow every year.

 

[ABQcowboyJR]

I think a decade is too long. I would have gone with 3 rings in six years, maybe even five. I believe that the team has to remain mostly the same. In other words, the same core group of players. So anything longer than 6 years really won't meet that criteria anymore. Judging past dynasties is a different matter.

 

[jobberone]

Not sure about a good definition but I'd say the Cowboys from 66-85 were a dynasty. Steelers in the 70s. Packers before the Cowboys. 49ers in the 80s to mid 90s. Patriots. Browns in the 50s-60s. Bears before that. I guess I'd say it was subjectively a superior to dominating team over a long period of time that won at least some championships.

Because of the long run I'd call the Cowboys the greatest dynasty although I'm sure some would disagree.

 

[Lonestar94]

70s cowboys was a dynasty. Doesn't matter if we won 2 superbowls in 6 years, we were a dominant team year in and year out. Thats what a "dynasty" means to me.

 

[sonnyboy]

I've been thinking about this one of late, and I think it would be reasonably fair and simple to define a "dynasty" as a team that wins three championships in the span of a decade.


This would mean that the Commanders from the 1980s-1990s would count as a dynasty, technically, since they won Super Bowls in 1982, 1987, and 1991, but I guess we'll just have to go with that.


Technically then, there would have been six dynasties in NFL history in the Super Bowl era:



Cowboys: Won three Super Bowls during 1992-1995.

Raiders: Won three Super Bowls during 1976-1983.

Patriots: Won three Super Bowls during 2001-2004.

49ers: Won four Super Bowls during 1981-1989.

Steelers: Won four Super Bowls during 1974-1979.

Commanders: Won three Super Bowls from 1982-1991.







Honorary mention:

Broncos (won back-to-back Super Bowls in 1997 and 1998,)

Bills (four consecutive Super Bowl appearances from 1990-1993,)

Steelers (won two Super Bowls in 2005 and 2008,)

Cowboys (won two Super Bowls in 1971 and 1977,)

Dolphins (won back-to-back Super Bowls in 1972 and 1973,)

Packers (won two Super Bowls in 1966 and 1967,) and

Giants (won two Super Bowls in 1986 and 1990, and two more in 2007 and 2011.)

I'd be in favor of any definition that cut out the skins.

 

[sonnyboy]

Not gonna be popular, but I'd draw the line at 4.

92-95 is a good 4 year run, but the lack of success from 96-99 puts us just short imo.

Skins from 82-91 and Oakland from 76-83 definately weren't dynasties because the 49ers dominated that time period (81-89) and Pittsburg dominated from 74-79.

IMO, you can't have 2 dynasties cover the same time span because it really waters down the term.

I have to disagree. I don't see it as clear cut but more of a judgement call.

IMO the Cowboys of 1965-1983 were a dynasty even with just two championships. Far too much winning, post season and championship game appearences to not be. Even if you broke it up using our non playoff season as a divider. 1965-1973 and 1975-1983. You get two very respectable dynasties.

I definetly don't agree that you can only have one dynasty at a time.

 

[Cowboys&LakersFan]

I think you have to win at least three titles to be considered a dynasty.

 

[mldardy]

I think you have to win at least three titles to be considered a dynasty.

in a certain time span, you mean?

 

[Red Dragon]

I like that you gave the Bills a honorary mention even though they never got over the hump. Usually there is a drop-off after losing a Superbowl for whatever reason, but they were able to re-group somehow every year.

Yeah. I really wish the Bills would have defeated the Giants and Commanders in Super Bowls XXV and XXVI (but lost to the Cowboys as they did in real life in the next two Super Bowls.) As a Cowboys fan who lived in upstate New York for some time, that would have been just perfect.

 

[Cowboys&LakersFan]

in a certain time span, you mean?

Yeah.

 

[mldardy]

Yeah.

I agree then. 3 is where it starts.