Greatest Dynasty Ever?

I keep hearing the phrase greatest Dynasty ever thrown around when talking about the patriots and it got me thinking. A dynasty is usually winning a number of championships in a short time with most of the same personal. Winning 3 in 4 years definetly qualifies, but does this latest championship add to that or is it seperate due to being so far apart? I can see the arguement for both sides and am curious what others think. On one hand the only people left from the championship years are Brady and Belichick, on the other hand they have gone to 6 superbowls in 14 years.

I think it goes together, HC and QB are usually part of that formula. Those remained, and the Patriots had no lull in dominance really. Even between 04 and now they remained the winningest team.

Even when Walsh went to Young the 49er dynasty gets tied together so I certainly don't say it was a dynasty of 3 then another.

Wilfork is also a holdover from the dynasty years, albeit he just won one super bowl in 2004.

As far as the "greatest dynasty ever," I would go with San Francisco because they won 5 super bowls in 15 years. Pats have 4 in 14 years. If the pats get to 5, then I'll go with NE.

TommyBrady12 said:

Wilfork is also a holdover from the dynasty years, albeit he just won one super bowl in 2004.

As far as the "greatest dynasty ever," I would go with San Francisco because they won 5 super bowls in 15 years. Pats have 4 in 14 years. If the pats get to 5, then I'll go with NE.

Click to expand...

Yeah, they did it in the pre-salary cap era and their WR was using stickum.

shmessy said:

Yeah, they did it in the pre-salary cap era and their WR was using stickum.

Click to expand...

True, but for now I'm going with the math: 5>4. There is no right answer on this, obviously. Some will argue in favor of the pats because of the salary cap, no true HOF players other than Brady and Moss (probably Gronk, Revis), 9 AFC championship appearances, 6 super bowl appearances, etc. I can see the argument there.

As far as stickum, it's a wash for me. The pats bent the rules too. In fact every team has broken the rules, so it's meh. Comparing dynasties has gotten to a point where there are too many variables to compare across eras.

Just as winning this Lombardi ended the Brady/Manning debate if the Patriots win another Lombardi in the next year or two then any debate over Greatest Dynasty will be over. Five Lombardi Trophies with the same coach and QB but with a supporting cast of hundreds. in the salary cap era would make it the greatest greatest dynasty ever.

Ivan said:

Just as winning this Lombardi ended the Brady/Manning debate if the Patriots win another Lombardi in the next year or two then any debate over Greatest Dynasty will be over. Five Lombardi Trophies with the same coach and QB but with a supporting cast of hundreds. in the salary cap era would make it the greatest greatest dynasty ever.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

I agree SF is the greatest dynasty ever.

I think the Dynasty officially starts when you win 3 in 5 or 4 in 8-10 or something. After that any continued success in concluded as part of the same dynasty unless you start to go down.

I think Montana-Young were really part of the same dynasty though Montana's part was obviously more successful. Also to your official dynasty run ends when you stop winning SBs and change talent. SF's dynasty to me lasted 15 years. That is cause that is the bookends of their SB wins. SF was good after that win but if you don't win another championship it should not be officially recognized.

The Pats Dynasty will continue until both Brady/BB leave and could be extended IMO if Garoppolo wins a few as that signifies continuity. If BB/Brady/Garo all leave and a new QBs wins that it would not be part of the same dynasty cause you kind of had to start fresh.

If the Patriots can win another 2 Superbowls in a short time it'll be the rebirth of a Dynasty. To be honest the dynasty that won 3 Superbowls ended after 2008. 2009 was the start of the rebuilding process. This would be BB/Brady creating a 2nd dynasty.

pazrul72 said:

I keep hearing the phrase greatest Dynasty ever thrown around when talking about the patriots and it got me thinking. A dynasty is usually winning a number of championships in a short time with most of the same personal. Winning 3 in 4 years definetly qualifies, but does this latest championship add to that or is it seperate due to being so far apart? I can see the arguement for both sides and am curious what others think. On one hand the only people left from the championship years are Brady and Belichick, on the other hand they have gone to 6 superbowls in 14 years.

Click to expand...

Pats are the first salary cap dynasty. You can't possibly go even four years with the same personnel. Even if they were all UDFA, after two trophies, people will want to get paid.

4 titles in the salary cap era, with shifting defensive talent and the QB needing to break in guys all the time. really more impressive in a way and the fact that in between the last two titles, they could have easily picked off 1-3 more with some luck, because they were always in contention.

The '69 Celtics, or other really old teams are impressive too, but in a totally different way. Steelers classic lineup similar and the niners winning with two QBs another level.

Only the rottenberger Steelers challenfged the salary cap and they did get damn lucky by being consistent with a rotten performance winning against the seahawks.

I'm guessing we won't see another salary cap dynasty for a while, because it takes so much more work getting talent, managing business and managing chemistry than just riding a talented team.

Dynasty definition: A succession of people from the same family who play a prominent role in business, politics, or another field. (https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=definition+dynasty)

Going by that definition, and using Super Bowl championships as the measure of prominence, SB49 would still be part of the same Dynasty because it is still the Patriots, still Kraft, still Belichick, still Brady, but they were different teams that won.

That's how I see it anyways.

Ivan said:

Just as winning this Lombardi ended the Brady/Manning debate if the Patriots win another Lombardi in the next year or two then any debate over Greatest Dynasty will be over. Five Lombardi Trophies with the same coach and QB but with a supporting cast of hundreds. in the salary cap era would make it the greatest greatest dynasty ever.

Click to expand...

The Cleveland Browns of the '50s (add the 4 AAFC championships- compare to AFL championships) say, "Hi."

Yes, there were fewer teams then. The best athletes either went into baseball or boxing. (Yes, boxing used to be bigger that NBA, NHL, and NFL combined - but not NCAA football for some inexplicable reason, but I digress.)
The rules were also different. Heck, the hash marks were different.

Still, in 10 years 4 AAFC championships, 3 NFL championships, and 3 other championship appearances is hard to ignore.

There was no playoff, just the championship game, so those 3 losses are unfortunately "one-and-done"s.

The point is we have to go to the NFL's pre-history to get a clearly more successful franchise.
Oh, and before anyone asks about games won, they had 12 game seasons then.

I think they are connected not only because of the Brady-Belichick-Kraft continuity, but you have to look at all their seasons, even the non-championship ones, where you have Divisions titles, Conference titles and Super Bowl appearances. It has been an unbroken stream since 2001, and even in 2008 when we didn't make the playoffs, that was only a mathematical fluke because we went 11-5 for crying out loud, and with our back-up quarterback! We have been competitive every year - your can't win them all - and there really hasn't been a major let down in the success.

Interesting question, and I think we're all just grateful for just being in the conversation. As mentioned above, the fact that we did it in the salary cap era is one the most remarkable aspects.

But every dynasty is a little different. I'm sure there are aspects of each dynasty that make them more impressive when compared to the rest. For the NEP, it's:

• SB wins (4>3, sorry Cowboys)
• SB appearances
• Regular season records and playoff wins
• longevity of success
• obstacles such as free agency, salary cap, bottom of the draft/waiver wire, NEP players being overvalued in free agency since they play for a winner, coaches and executive personnel being poached (fairly), teams might play us harder since we're a "measuring stick"
• pace of change in the game
• the different ways in which this team has won games (i.e the early SB years, versus the Randy Moss years, versus the TE years)

It does help that TB is friendly with the Cap, and sometimes we're favored by free agents because we win games.

This current team has virtually no connection to the earlier title teams, It's not a dynasty when you go ten years between championships

TommyBrady12 said:

True, but for now I'm going with the math: 5>4. There is no right answer on this, obviously. Some will argue in favor of the pats because of the salary cap, no true HOF players other than Brady and Moss (probably Gronk, Revis), 9 AFC championship appearances, 6 super bowl appearances, etc. I can see the argument there.

As far as stickum, it's a wash for me. The pats bent the rules too. In fact every team has broken the rules, so it's meh. Comparing dynasties has gotten to a point where there are too many variables to compare across eras.

Click to expand...

The really odd thing is that the Pats didn't break any rules or win any SBs because of any violation.

The same can't be said for those teams that cheated to win SBs by breaking the salary cap rules, using stickum, having a bounty system to take out opposing players or breaking the tampering rules to get a HC that takes your team to an undefeated season.

Compared to those rule breakers the Pats are clearly the cleanest, no matter what the mediots want people to believe.

If the Pats sucked or had a different QB, this would not be considered a continuation of the dynasty.

The fact is, only 2 out of 60+ players (and 1? out of of 10+ coaches/front-office) that took part in the last championship, so I wouldn't call it a continuation of a dynasty.
I feel like you need more than 2 people taking part in everything to be really considered a continuation rather than s rebirth.

It's a testament to Brady & Belichik's skills/career; but as a team, there's not a str0ng continuation of personnel.

The Pats have had the best team in the NFL for the entire century so far.

The only team that can claim superiority over the Pats is the Steelers of the 70s. Their double back to back titles in six years separates them from the pack.

Dynasties can have different definitions. Is it the org or a group of individuals? How long do they last? What is "excellence" or "dominance" mean? For the sake of trying to define it, the Ming Dynasty and the Roman Empire each lasted hundreds of years and had multiple leaders. The common thread is that the organizational structure stayed relatively constant. For the sake of discussion, I will define as dynasty as a franchise having a consistent pattern of excellence for an extended period of time. Like the Ming D and Roman E., they lost a battle every now and then but when they were always a power.

For sports that is not the NFL, I am book-ending the dynasty eras with championships or championship appearances

From 1921 to 1964 Yankees played in 29 World Series and won 20 of them.
From 1953 to 1979, the Canadiens played in 19 Stanley Cup finals and won 16 of them.
From 1957 to 1969, the Celtics played in 12 NBA Finals and won 11 championships.

Football. This is hard. IMO there are four teams that are in the discussion. 49ers, Pats, Steelers and Cowboys(?). For the sake of argument, I'm trying to create an apples-to-apples comparison.

49ers: 1980-2002 (22 years) 5 SB appearances. 5 titles. 9 NFCCG appearances. 18 playoff appearances. 49ers had various coaches but the Yorks (Eddie, Denise, Jed) owned the team and Walsh - and his system were around for the most part (coach & GM). From 2003 to 2010 the 49ers were a mess. I will not include 2011-2014. Even though the Yorks still own the team, I am excluding Yankees in the latter 60s and afterwards and Canadiens after 1979.

Patriots: 1994 to 2014 (20 years) 7 SB appearances. 4 titles. 9 AFCCG appearances. 16 playoff appearances. Kraft has been there. BB was there in 1996. Drew was there in 1996 and 2001. TB of course from 2000 on..

Steelers: 1972 to 2014 (42 years) 8 SB appearances. 6 SB titles. 14 AFCCG appearances. 27 playoff appearances. Rooneys are the only constant. The Steelers need to be in the discussion b/c they have the most titles. Obviously when compared to Pats and 49ers, they have had almost 2X amount of time to accumulate the numbers.

Cowboys: 1966 to 1995 (30 years) 16 NFCCG appearances, 5 SB, 8 SB appearances and 23 playoff appearances. Strong trend of winning but without a common denominator as they have had different owners, coaches, etc. not sure the term "dynasty" applies.

Giants: 1981-2011 (30 years) 4 SB. 5 SB appearances. 5 NFCCG appearances. 15 playoff appearances. The Mara family is the constant. Pats and 49ers have done more in less time.

It was fun to do this. Not sure what the right answer is..

I've always felt there were/are two forms of 'dynasty':
1. 3-6 year stretch of complete domination. Pats 2001-2004 qualifies, Cowboys in the 90's, Steelers in the 70's. Across sports you have many: Celtics, Lakers, Oilers, Bulls, Yankees, Canadiens, on and on.
2. Multi-generational, institutional winning. Pats 2001-2014 qualifies, 49ers from early-80's to mid-90's. In football this is generally coach/QB domination, with pieces cycling around them but consistent winning. Across sports there are fewer, basically the Yankees and Canadiens for long stretches, then the Celtics and Lakers. Add in the Steelers and Cowboys if you want, maybe a few more I'm not thinking of.

The second form of 'dynasty' is harder to accomplish, obviously...anyone can stumble into a half-dozen core players who gel at the right time and win 3-4 championships over a short stretch. Look what happened to the Cowboys of the 90's, the Broncos of the late-90's: the core got old and/or expensive and the team fell back to mediocrity in short order. It takes a committed ownership group, great coaching and scouting and a few key GOAT-level players to accomplish the second feat. After 2004 the Patriots could have fallen into group one quite easily, but Belichick managed to retool around Brady--twice, arguably three times after Hernandez was busted and Welker left--and continue winning at an elite level. Another couple of championships would be nice but this stretch is already among the greatest we've seen in sports.