How do you rank the All Time best Dynasties

[mdonnelly21]

60s Packers 

70s Steel Curtain 

80s 49ers

90s Cowboys 

2000s Patriots

2010 Patriots 

2020 Chiefs 

Chiefs are a bit harder since they are started at the tail end of the 2020. 

 

[TecmoSuperJoe]

At their peak I still think it's the Steelers given the competition. They went back to back twice, and beat teams like the Raiders, Cowboys, Vikings, and Dolphins in that decade. Those other teams could have very well been dynasties of their own if it wasn't for Pittsburgh standing in their way. 

[CP3MVP]

2 hours ago, TecmoSuperJoe said:

At their peak I still think it's the Steelers given the competition. They went back to back twice, and beat teams like the Raiders, Cowboys, Vikings, and Dolphins in that decade. Those other teams could have very well been dynasties of their own if it wasn't for Pittsburgh standing in their way. 

How many of those teams did the Steelers beat at their peak though? The dolphins peaked before the Steelers starting winning superbowls(1972-1973). I would argue the Purple People Eaters Vikings peaked in 1969. 
 

I would also argue the 2001 Rams are better than any team the Steelers beat during their SB runs. 

Edited February 13 by CP3MVP

[TecmoSuperJoe]

1 hour ago, CP3MVP said:

How many of those teams did the Steelers beat at their peak though? The dolphins peaked before the Steelers starting winning superbowls(1972-1973). I would argue the Purple People Eaters Vikings peaked in 1969. 
 

I would also argue the 2001 Rams are better than any team the Steelers beat during their SB runs. 

But those Rams teams aren't considered a dynasty by most people. And they weren't included in the premise of the inquiry. 

Vikings may have had their best team in 1969, but those other teams that made the Super Bowl were still dominant teams in the league. Dolphins I'd agree with you on the peak before Pittsburgh got to full power sure. But they still trucked through some really good teams like the Cowboys or Raiders. 

[MaddHatter]

The early 92-95's Cowboys/49ers rivalry provided some of the best football games I've ever seen.  The Triplets vs. Steve Young and Jerry Rice - 49ers had the #1 offense 4yrs in a row and had a Top 10 D 3 of the 4. The Cowboys had the #2 offense 3yrs in a row and a Top 5 D all 4 years.  They played 6 times in those 4 years and each won 3 of the matchups with a finale in 1996 going into OT. 

That being said, the Brady/Belicheck Patriots are the best franchise dynasty IMO

[OkeyDoke21]

80's Niners
70's Steelers

60's Packers
90's Cowboys 
00's Patriots

10's Patriots
20's Chiefs  

Is how I think I would tier them.  You could slot them wherever in those tiers.  The Chiefs are kind of getting "Shaq'd" were they straddle the clean decade cutoffs, but they still have time, so I might be a little unfair there.  00's Patriots are one David Tyree catch from being number 1, so I might be a little low on them, too. 

Edited February 13 by OkeyDoke21

[MaddHatter]

Why do the 00's and 10's patriots get split up?  Does a dynasty have to exist in a decade? I would assume a dynasty starts when the team rises to dominance and ends when it exits, but the Beli/Brady Patriots never left that tier of dominance with SB Appearances in 01, 03, 04, 07, 11, 14, 16, 17, and 18 all under the same duo.  Is the 3yrs from 07 to 11 too long to consider 1 dynasty?  They still went to the playoffs two of those 3 years and the one they missed was Cassell led and still went 11-5.  I can see the 80s - 90s 49ers dynasty being separated b/c of Joe vs. Steve, but even that felt like one continual dominant dynasty when you lived it. haha

Edited February 13 by MaddHatter

[BetterCallSaul]

2030 Browns. 

[mdonnelly21]

1 hour ago, MaddHatter said:

The early 92-95's Cowboys/49ers rivalry provided some of the best football games I've ever seen.  The Triplets vs. Steve Young and Jerry Rice - 49ers had the #1 offense 4yrs in a row and had a Top 10 D 3 of the 4. The Cowboys had the #2 offense 3yrs in a row and a Top 5 D all 4 years.  They played 6 times in those 4 years and each won 3 of the matchups with a finale in 1996 going into OT. 

That being said, the Brady/Belicheck Patriots are the best franchise dynasty IMO

Wow I did not know that about those teams thanks for sharing. 

 

Wish I was old enough at the time to really enjoy that rivalry. 
 

Interesting how the 49ers only got 1 SB win in the 1990s though. 
 

 

[CP3MVP]

2 hours ago, TecmoSuperJoe said:

But those Rams teams aren't considered a dynasty by most people. And they weren't included in the premise of the inquiry. 

Vikings may have had their best team in 1969, but those other teams that made the Super Bowl were still dominant teams in the league. Dolphins I'd agree with you on the peak before Pittsburgh got to full power sure. But they still trucked through some really good teams like the Cowboys or Raiders. 

They aren’t considered a dynasty because they lost to the Patriots. They were trying to cement their legacy in SB 36. 
 

I don’t see the difference between the cowboys and raiders and other great teams the other dynasties beat. 
 

 

[Steelersfan43]

5 minutes ago, CP3MVP said:

They aren’t considered a dynasty because they lost to the Patriots. They were trying to cement their legacy in SB 36. 
 

I don’t see the difference between the cowboys and raiders and other great teams the other dynasties beat. 
 

 

The cowboys would 4 super bowl in the 1970s if they would beat the steelers in 1975 and 1978.It would been a dynasty.The raiders would been in 3 super bowl in a row if they would beat the steelers in 1974 and 1975.The rams would not been a dynasty yet if they would beat the pats in 2001.It take at least 3 rings in short period of times to be a dynasty

[TecmoSuperJoe]

43 minutes ago, CP3MVP said:

They aren’t considered a dynasty because they lost to the Patriots. They were trying to cement their legacy in SB 36. 
 

I don’t see the difference between the cowboys and raiders and other great teams the other dynasties beat. 
 

 

Oh I see what you're saying. From the 2001 Patriots perspective. Yes, that's true. But I still think the 70s when the Steelers dominated had a few teams that throughout the entire decade could have been a dynasty. And they either ran into the Steelers and/or had bad luck at the end of the rainbow. But the point is they were all constantly good for a while, but still below Pittsburgh. Could easily have seen the Rams, Cowboys, Vikings, Raiders, or Dolphins have be a dynasty of that decade. But the Steelers stand alone.

For the 49ers of the 80s for example, the SB opponents never won a SB in other years. They didn't keep stonewalling a specific team in the NFC either. The only other potential dynasty that entire decade was Washington. 

Edited February 13 by TecmoSuperJoe

[Jakuvious]

1 hour ago, MaddHatter said:

Why do the 00's and 10's patriots get split up?  Does a dynasty have to exist in a decade? I would assume a dynasty starts when the team rises to dominance and ends when it exits, but the Beli/Brady Patriots never left that tier of dominance with SB Appearances in 01, 03, 04, 07, 11, 14, 16, 17, and 18 all under the same duo.  Is the 3yrs from 07 to 11 too long to consider 1 dynasty?  They still went to the playoffs two of those 3 years and the one they missed was Cassell led and still went 11-5.  I can see the 80s - 90s 49ers dynasty being separated b/c of Joe vs. Steve, but even that felt like one continual dominant dynasty when you lived it. haha

I've always seen the split not because of the appearance gap between 07 and 11, but the victory gap between 04 and 14. Tom Brady was the only player who started on both of those teams. I think Vince Wilfork may have been a rookie in 04, but didn't start IIRC. Belichick was the only coach continuous between the two teams, I believe, as well. Daboll was on both teams as a position coach, but he made multiple stops elsewhere in between. You had the entire Patriot careers of some really noteworthy players occur in that gap. Wes Welker's entire tenure as a Patriot fell in that gap. Logan Mankins. Randy Moss, obviously.

So from a sustained success perspective, you could consider it all one stretch. But the 2014 Pats and the 2004 Pats only really had the two guys in common. Let alone the 2018 Pats versus the 2001 Pats. So it gets kind of semantics-y in terms of what you think constitutes a dynasty. Whether that just requires consistent success or some level of continuity within the roster/organization. It's very much a ship of Theseus kind of thing. Same captain, same first mate, but if every other member of the crew and piece of the ship has been replaced one by one, is it the same ship? Maybe.

 

Some of this is also just the problem that occurs with lumping in the old dynasties with the new ones. Free agency has kind of changed what is possible in terms of team continuity. At a glance, 15 of the 22 starters for the 1979 Steelers were on the 1974 Steelers. Not all started for both teams, but that's insane across 6 seasons. While I want to say only 8 Chiefs total who were on the roster this year were here for the 2019 Superbowl win. And that's including the K, LS, and two players who got cut and then came back in Bell and Hardman. So only 3 out of the 22 actually started both Superbowls. To me, this makes it really hard to compare the Pats/Chiefs dynasties to the old ones like the Steelers or Packers. Just fundamentally different levels of continuity and methods of team composition.

[MaddHatter]

11 minutes ago, Jakuvious said:

I've always seen the split not because of the appearance gap between 07 and 11, but the victory gap between 04 and 14. Tom Brady was the only player who started on both of those teams. I think Vince Wilfork may have been a rookie in 04, but didn't start IIRC. Belichick was the only coach continuous between the two teams, I believe, as well. Daboll was on both teams as a position coach, but he made multiple stops elsewhere in between. You had the entire Patriot careers of some really noteworthy players occur in that gap. Wes Welker's entire tenure as a Patriot fell in that gap. Logan Mankins. Randy Moss, obviously.

So from a sustained success perspective, you could consider it all one stretch. But the 2014 Pats and the 2004 Pats only really had the two guys in common. Let alone the 2018 Pats versus the 2001 Pats. So it gets kind of semantics-y in terms of what you think constitutes a dynasty. Whether that just requires consistent success or some level of continuity within the roster/organization. It's very much a ship of Theseus kind of thing. Same captain, same first mate, but if every other member of the crew and piece of the ship has been replaced one by one, is it the same ship? Maybe.

 

Some of this is also just the problem that occurs with lumping in the old dynasties with the new ones. Free agency has kind of changed what is possible in terms of team continuity. At a glance, 15 of the 22 starters for the 1979 Steelers were on the 1974 Steelers. Not all started for both teams, but that's insane across 6 seasons. While I want to say only 8 Chiefs total who were on the roster this year were here for the 2019 Superbowl win. And that's including the K, LS, and two players who got cut and then came back in Bell and Hardman. So only 3 out of the 22 actually started both Superbowls. To me, this makes it really hard to compare the Pats/Chiefs dynasties to the old ones like the Steelers or Packers. Just fundamentally different levels of continuity and methods of team composition.

Great points all around - I didn't look it up, but how many starters were on the 49ers team from 4 yrs ago and started this year's Super Bowl? I thought I heard Nantz say something about only 1 but maybe that was on Defense?

[Jakuvious]

2 minutes ago, MaddHatter said:

Great points all around - I didn't look it up, but how many starters were on the 49ers team from 4 yrs ago and started this year's Super Bowl? I thought I heard Nantz say something about only 1 but maybe that was on Defense?

Off the top of my head, I think Juice, Kittle, Deebo, Bosa, Armstead, Warner, and Greenlaw would be it. So a bit more continuity, but still turned over their entire OL and secondary.