NE from 2001-2017
SF from 1981-1998
Avg record:
- NE: 12.3-3.7
- SF: 11.5-4.0 (skewed by the strike-shortened 1982 season)
Regular season win %:
- NE: .768
- SF: .739
First place finishes:
- NE: 15 (88.2% of the time)
- SF: 13 (72.2% of the time)
Avg place finished:
- NE: 1.1
- SF: 1.4
Avg point differential per year:
- NE: +149.1
- SF: +149.6
Avg Off Rank:
- NE: 4.9 points, 7.7 yards
- SF: 3.7 points, 3.4 yards
Avg Def Rank:
- NE: 7.5 points, 16.8 yards
- SF: 5.7 points, 8.3 yards
Avg Strength of Schedule (pro-football-reference.com)
- NE: -0.1
- SF: -0.8
Avg OSRS:
- NE: 6.3
- SF: 5.3
Avg DSRS:
- NE: 2.9
- SF: 3.3
Avg SRS:
- NE: 9.2
- SF: 8.3
Trips to the Conference Championship Game:
- NE: 12 (70.6%), NE going 8-4 (.667)
- SF: 10 (55.5%), SF going 5-5 (.500)
Super Bowl Record:
- NE: 5-3 (.625)
- SF: 5-0 (1.000)
Combined CCG and SB records:
- NE: 13-7 (.650)
- SF: 10-5 (.667)
New England did this in the salary cap era, when teams were forced to lose high-end talent year after year because of the cap. Harder to keep a team together. NE also did this with the same QB-HC combo (Brady-Belichick). SF did this with multiple QB-HC combos (Walsh-Montana, Seifert-Montana, Seifert-Young, Marinucci-Young). Not sure which is more impressive.
That San Francisco dynasty was all-time, really. Just an incredible run of greatness, spanning 18 years. I think - and I know I'm a homer - that the Patriots' dynasty has been even better, doing a little more in 17 years than SF did in 18. If they tack on a 6th SB before this dynasty is over, holy smokes.
NE has more CG appearances, more SB appearances, more 1st place finishes, a better overall record, more playoff wins, a stronger SRS metric, and each team won 5 SB titles (so far). SF had a slightly better point differential, and better team rankings relative to their NFL peers at the time. Plus an undefeated SB record (5-0).
I give the edge to New England. But these two are clearly the only two in the discussion for greatest NFL dynasties of all time.
SF from 1981-1998
Avg record:
- NE: 12.3-3.7
- SF: 11.5-4.0 (skewed by the strike-shortened 1982 season)
Regular season win %:
- NE: .768
- SF: .739
First place finishes:
- NE: 15 (88.2% of the time)
- SF: 13 (72.2% of the time)
Avg place finished:
- NE: 1.1
- SF: 1.4
Avg point differential per year:
- NE: +149.1
- SF: +149.6
Avg Off Rank:
- NE: 4.9 points, 7.7 yards
- SF: 3.7 points, 3.4 yards
Avg Def Rank:
- NE: 7.5 points, 16.8 yards
- SF: 5.7 points, 8.3 yards
Avg Strength of Schedule (pro-football-reference.com)
- NE: -0.1
- SF: -0.8
Avg OSRS:
- NE: 6.3
- SF: 5.3
Avg DSRS:
- NE: 2.9
- SF: 3.3
Avg SRS:
- NE: 9.2
- SF: 8.3
Trips to the Conference Championship Game:
- NE: 12 (70.6%), NE going 8-4 (.667)
- SF: 10 (55.5%), SF going 5-5 (.500)
Super Bowl Record:
- NE: 5-3 (.625)
- SF: 5-0 (1.000)
Combined CCG and SB records:
- NE: 13-7 (.650)
- SF: 10-5 (.667)
New England did this in the salary cap era, when teams were forced to lose high-end talent year after year because of the cap. Harder to keep a team together. NE also did this with the same QB-HC combo (Brady-Belichick). SF did this with multiple QB-HC combos (Walsh-Montana, Seifert-Montana, Seifert-Young, Marinucci-Young). Not sure which is more impressive.
That San Francisco dynasty was all-time, really. Just an incredible run of greatness, spanning 18 years. I think - and I know I'm a homer - that the Patriots' dynasty has been even better, doing a little more in 17 years than SF did in 18. If they tack on a 6th SB before this dynasty is over, holy smokes.
NE has more CG appearances, more SB appearances, more 1st place finishes, a better overall record, more playoff wins, a stronger SRS metric, and each team won 5 SB titles (so far). SF had a slightly better point differential, and better team rankings relative to their NFL peers at the time. Plus an undefeated SB record (5-0).
I give the edge to New England. But these two are clearly the only two in the discussion for greatest NFL dynasties of all time.
