Pro Football Outsiders all time Dynasty rankings

[Nightime]

I think “run of success” is a better term than “dynasty.”

[TecmoSuperJoe]

On 7/16/2020 at 6:50 PM, 7DnBrnc53 said:

I see. That's too rigid, though, especially because they made the playoffs the next three years with a fair amount of the same players that were in those SB's.

But you have to draw the line somewhere. I can't think of any of the notable dynasties where they missed the playoffs two years in a row and they were still considered a dynasty. 

[7DnBrnc53]

On 7/19/2020 at 5:30 AM, TecmoSuperJoe said:

But you have to draw the line somewhere. I can't think of any of the notable dynasties where they missed the playoffs two years in a row and they were still considered a dynasty. 

Yeah, but they missed the playoffs due to injuries. In 1980, they had a slew of them, and in 81, they lost Bradshaw when they were 8-5 with three games to go. There are many shades of grey. You can't be too black and white.

[lancerman]

27 minutes ago, 7DnBrnc53 said:

Yeah, but they missed the playoffs due to injuries. In 1980, they had a slew of them, and in 81, they lost Bradshaw when they were 8-5 with three games to go. There are many shades of grey. You can't be too black and white.

Again can we be real, if you generally asked NFL fans how many teams were dynasties, the only team outside the top 10 that would get mentioned is maybe the Dolphins in the early 70’s and even then that’s stretching it.
 

Like I could see trying to stretch it for the Steelers if they win a SB in the 80’s the way the 49’ers did in the 90’s. But really they missed the playoffs twice, then came in 4th in the division but made the playoffs. And we are brushing over that to get extend it to one good season where they went one and done and another season where they went 9-7 and won a playoff game before they went on a 7 year run where they missed the playoffs 6 times. 
 

And not for nothing, that was in an era where the AFC was really bad and they were clearly in decline compared to what they were . 

[TecmoSuperJoe]

1 hour ago, 7DnBrnc53 said:

Yeah, but they missed the playoffs due to injuries. In 1980, they had a slew of them, and in 81, they lost Bradshaw when they were 8-5 with three games to go. There are many shades of grey. You can't be too black and white.

I think for this exercise, it was fine. There were clear boundaries set for everyone, and like I said you have to draw the line somewhere when you're trying to categorize something subjective like a dynasty. Like another poster said, rules are rules, and exceptions can't be made. You can make every excuse for every team over the course of two years as to why their dynasty faltered. There are blurbs for every ranking. You should take the time to read them. Bryan Knowles did plug in some further information for certain teams if they were able to get past a rule or two just to see where certain teams would then land. 

Edited July 20, 2020 by TecmoSuperJoe

[Uncle Buck]

The Vikings have more total dynasty points than all but 6 teams on that list...and not a single championship.  Sigh. 

[rfournier103]

I think rather than “dynasty,” it might be easier to go with “Team of the Decade.”

1920s: Canton Bulldogs - Two championships.

1930s: Green Bay Packers - Four championships.

1940s: Chicago Bears - Four championships.

1950s: Cleveland Browns - Three championships.

Note: The Detroit Lions also won three championships in the 1950s, but Cleveland wins the tiebreaker by virtue of having appeared in seven title games compared to Detroit’s four.

1960s: Green Bay Packers - Five championships.

1970s: Pittsburgh Steelers - Four championships.

1980s: San Francisco 49ers - Four championships.

1990s: Dallas Cowboys - Three championships.

2000s: New England Patriots - Three championships.

2010s: New England Patriots - Three championships.

This is so much easier and definitive than “dynasties” that are very subjective. 
 

 

Edited July 22, 2020 by rfournier103

[TecmoSuperJoe]

12 hours ago, rfournier103 said:

I think rather than “dynasty,” it might be easier to go with “Team of the Decade.”

1920s: Canton Bulldogs - Two championships.

1930s: Green Bay Packers - Four championships.

1940s: Chicago Bears - Four championships.

1950s: Cleveland Browns - Three championships.

Note: The Detroit Lions also won three championships in the 1950s, but Cleveland wins the tiebreaker by virtue of having appeared in seven title games compared to Detroit’s four.

1960s: Green Bay Packers - Five championships.

1970s: Pittsburgh Steelers - Four championships.

1980s: San Francisco 49ers - Four championships.

1990s: Dallas Cowboys - Three championships.

2000s: New England Patriots - Three championships.

2010s: New England Patriots - Three championships.

This is so much easier and definitive than “dynasties” that are very subjective. 
 

 

For the exercise though, it wasn't to just restrict to decades, because the dominance of teams didn't necessarily start and end in a decade. There was overlap. They wouldn't count the Patriots or 49ers as two separate dynasties since they dominated in consecutive decades. I agree largely with their approach. Most 49ers fans consider the 5th ring along with the first 4 since it was the same regime. I do agree that's "easier" to think "team of the decade" equals "dynasty". I see those as two separate things though. 

Edited July 22, 2020 by TecmoSuperJoe