Dynasties? Hmmm.

[PatsFanInVa]

So, the Free Agency/Cap era was introduced specifically so that the rest of the league did not have to suffer through a San Francisco or a Dallas (or in the AFC, Buffalo, a dynasty of losers).

You other old-timers remember when the 49ers were the big dog, with some frequent flyers winning the SBs in between, or feeling like "when is it anybody else's turn" when Dallas was the top of the pack. We were a team that never or rarely won the division, in the conference that never won the SB... it just seemed like another level. Incredibly discouraging, you just had to keep believing. Then 2001 and we all know the rest of that story.

So, how much does the rest of the league wish that the Free Agency/Cap era had had the intended effect?

And what if it didn't simply because NE was that good for that long, regardless of how much was Brady, how much was Belichick, and so on?

In other words, maybe the Chiefs aren't a dynasty because dynasties were already rare AF, and should have been hunted to extinction if we go by the intent of the last 20 years' league actions.

Weigh in: When will we see another dynasty in the NFL, with 3 out of 4 being the buy-in for "Dynasty"?

 

[jboston19]

Bob Ryan used to classify dynasties as franchises that won consistently over multiple years and roster changes. I believe he said only the Celtics, godless Yankees, and heathen Canadiens were the only teams he viewed as having achieved such.

All other teams may have had eras.

 

[Kontradiction]

Bob Ryan used to classify dynasties as franchises that won consistently over multiple years and roster changes. I believe he said only the Celtics, godless Yankees, and heathen Canadiens were the only teams he viewed as having achieved such.

All other teams may have had eras.

Bob Ryan is a bozo.

 

[Dingleberry]

So based on Bob Ryan's criteria, the Patriots are the only dynasty because I have my own criteria....

Celtics: Auerbach was before his time to collect the talent to dominate the league. However, when the league is 8 teams from Fort Wayne, Syracuse, Rochester, and other such hubs. Given the NBA's lack of popularity and TV time, it's the tree in the forest question. If a Dynasty happens and makes no sound, is it a dynasty? Not impressed.

Canadiens: Same argument as Celtics but even more so. Being the best of 6 teams is hardly long odds in the first place. And for a long period of time, NHL teams automatically had the rights to players within a certain radius of the franchise. When your franchise is in Montreal in an era when French-Canadian kids are born with skates on, ya might have a slight advantage! Not impressed.

Yankees: Big market always able to out spend the competition is all I've got. But who really gives a shyt. It's baseball and the Yankees. Each are as relevant as the hula hoop and roller skating rinks. Not impressed.

 

[TommyD4207]

So, the Free Agency/Cap era was introduced specifically so that the rest of the league did not have to suffer through a San Francisco or a Dallas (or in the AFC, Buffalo, a dynasty of losers).

You other old-timers remember when the 49ers were the big dog, with some frequent flyers winning the SBs in between, or feeling like "when is it anybody else's turn" when Dallas was the top of the pack. We were a team that never or rarely won the division, in the conference that never won the SB... it just seemed like another level. Incredibly discouraging, you just had to keep believing. Then 2001 and we all know the rest of that story.

So, how much does the rest of the league wish that the Free Agency/Cap era had had the intended effect?

And what if it didn't simply because NE was that good for that long, regardless of how much was Brady, how much was Belichick, and so on?

In other words, maybe the Chiefs aren't a dynasty because dynasties were already rare AF, and should have been hunted to extinction if we go by the intent of the last 20 years' league actions.

Weigh in: When will we see another dynasty in the NFL, with 3 out of 4 being the buy-in for "Dynasty"?

Some team would have to nail QB, LT, WR, RB, Edge, MLB and CB all within 2 drafts, and get lucky to make 3 of 4 Super Bowls.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

3 outta 4 wont happen again imo.you may see teams like pitt and nyg win 2 in a short span but we were the exception to the rule there and a very rare combo. Plus with only the 1 seeds getting byes thatll make it even harder to secure multiple titles.

 

[Pape]

3 outta 4 wont happen again imo.you may see teams like pitt and nyg win 2 in a short span but we were the exception to the rule there and a very rare combo. Plus with only the 1 seeds getting byes thatll make it even harder to secure multiple titles.

the 1 team per conference bye will disappear when they get to 18 games and expand the playoffs to 16 teams

i think a jumping off point for a dynasty is 2/3 or back to back championships, as long as the team remains competitive after the initial playoff run

 

[upstater1]

3 outta 4 wont happen again imo.you may see teams like pitt and nyg win 2 in a short span but we were the exception to the rule there and a very rare combo. Plus with only the 1 seeds getting byes thatll make it even harder to secure multiple titles.

The Chiefs could have easily done it if Andy Reid weren't Andy Reid.

 

[VectorPrime]

Bob Ryan used to classify dynasties as franchises that won consistently over multiple years and roster changes. I believe he said only the Celtics, godless Yankees, and heathen Canadiens were the only teams he viewed as having achieved such.

All other teams may have had eras.

Bob Ryan is the kind of guy who will still claim that the 1967 Red Sox were the best story in Boston sports history.

 

[NE_Zealot]

I don’t think there’s any argument against KC not being a dynasty. Dynasties don’t run on almost being great. They are an upgrade over the Rodgers-era packers by winning 2 conference titles.

 

[everlong]

I don’t think there’s any argument against KC not being a dynasty. Dynasties don’t run on almost being great. They are an upgrade over the Rodgers-era packers by winning 2 conference titles.

Ya it drives me nuts when people refer to the Colts of the 2000's as a dynasty. You won one and lost another. That's not a dynasty. Even Denver or Miami with their back to backs doesn't qualify.

I do think we'll see somebody win back to back in the next decade. It's simply been too long and this drought is a bit of an anomoly Really if Bill didn't bench Butler the Patiots win 3 in a row. If Butler doesn't jump that route and retain possession the Seahawks would have done it.

3 of 4 or 3 of 5 that the Patriots did the last two decades......that might take a really long time. I think to do that trick it's going to be more like the Cowboys of the 90's where a team just hits on every pick and a couple of FAs all at once and is able to keep them together for awhile but they fall off really fast as well.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

The Chiefs could have easily done it if Andy Reid weren't Andy Reid.

Easily done 3 outta 4? Highly doubt that. The coach made no difference last year that much is certain.

 

[NE_Zealot]

Ya it drives me nuts when people refer to the Colts of the 2000's as a dynasty. You won one and lost another. That's not a dynasty. Even Denver or Miami with their back to backs doesn't qualify.

I do think we'll see somebody win back to back in the next decade. It's simply been too long and this drought is a bit of an anomoly Really if Bill didn't bench Butler the Patiots win 3 in a row. If Butler doesn't jump that route and retain possession the Seahawks would have done it.

3 of 4 or 3 of 5 that the Patriots did the last two decades......that might take a really long time. I think to do that trick it's going to be more like the Cowboys of the 90's where a team just hits on every pick and a couple of FAs all at once and is able to keep them together for awhile but they fall off really fast as well.

Going repeat in the AFC is going to be really hard. Our conference has Mahomes, Allen, Herbert and Burrow. It’s going to be a bloodbath for the next decade +

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

the 1 team per conference bye will disappear when they get to 18 games and expand the playoffs to 16 teams

i think a jumping off point for a dynasty is 2/3 or back to back championships, as long as the team remains competitive after the initial playoff run

If they go to 8 playoff teams would nobody get a bye? Now that would suck

 

[lancerman]

Bob Ryan used to classify dynasties as franchises that won consistently over multiple years and roster changes. I believe he said only the Celtics, godless Yankees, and heathen Canadiens were the only teams he viewed as having achieved such.

All other teams may have had eras.

Ryan is just an old fart who worships the Aurbach and Russell era Celtics and doesn’t like giving credit to other Boston teams.

 

[lancerman]

Going repeat in the AFC is going to be really hard. Our conference has Mahomes, Allen, Herbert and Burrow. It’s going to be a bloodbath for the next decade +

Ehh. When our dynasty started the AFC had Brady, Manning, Ben, and Rivers. Also later on guys like Flacco, Luck, etc came in

 

[Guts]

Ehh. When our dynasty started the AFC had Brady, Manning, Ben, and Rivers. Also later on guys like Flacco, Luck, etc came in

Those pesky Ravens too and your annual AFC East annoying teamb

 

[Guts]

I think a dynasty is simple a team that wins at least 3 championships in a span of 5 years. KC is far from a dynasty

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Bengals: *win one AFC Championship*

TV host: “the Bengals are one win from a dynasty… comparable to the NE Patriots dynasty”

 

[PatsFanInVa]

It's interesting seeing comments like "some team would have to nail [list of necessary positions] and "It will be really hard. Our conference has [list of quarterbacks.]"

The NFL's last dynasty - the last 2 really - had the GOAT, but he's the GOAT in part because he won over the other greats of an era... over and over, in Peyton's case. (Then Eli got him back for that.) But in terms of "nailing" TE, EDGE, LT, and so on and so forth, the Pats rarely had the best of many other things, and when they did, they had a drought (that time they fielded Moss, Welker, and that slouch Stallworth from FA because "Bill the GM" can't draft a WR ) And in terms of being able to beat other teams with decent QBs, that's doable. You just look like another whole level of good by being the ones who do it (though far easier said than done.)

Something else happened in NE's case besides collecting talent (unless of course we think that TFB just did it all himself.) We outclassed the whole league, and we did it twice. Maybe that's just having Brady at QB, Imunno.