Greatest Football Dynasties of the Super Bowl Era

[BigKen]

No team has ever dominated the regular season and post season like the Patriots have for the past 17 years. No other team has had their success in any era, especially the Salary Cap Era.

 

[Fountain City Blues]

No team has ever dominated the regular season and post season like the Patriots have for the past 17 years. No other team has had their success in any era, especially the Salary Cap Era.

If anything the Pats have proven dynasties are alive and well, and that parity isn't really a thing. They just changed how you arrive upon said dynasty. The Salary Cap era is a misnomer.

 

[PatsFan2003]

A little more like college where turnover is part of the game. The teams that are still doing well are constantly drafting well, getting good free agents, high value free agents. You just can't hold on to everyone good anymore.

 

[obxyankeefan]

Funny... as soon as I posted "Pittsburgh" and voted accordingly, I went out to get my Dallas Morning News (I still get a morning paper - goes great with coffee). Open up the sports section (the reason I have a morning paper) and see this;

Ranking the NFL franchises from 1-32: Where do Cowboys rank?
Ranking the NFL franchises from 1-32: Where do Cowboys rank? | SportsDay

Wasn't surprised to see Pittsburgh at #1. Was surprised to see Dallas still at #2. And - NE is coming hard.

Thought I would share to advance the discussion... this is a good topic to chew on.

I have some problems with his equation. First off he has all four teams that lose in the Divisional round equal to all four teams that lose in the Wild card round. The Seahawks beat the Lions this year in the playoffs, but under his system they are equal. Secondly, he does not give any credence to the regular season. So in 2008 the Patriots 11 win season that missed the playoffs is equal to the Lions 0 wins that year. Now I do understand that no equation is ever going to satisfy everybody, but I set one up a few years ago for shit and giggles. My system is 2 points for a regular season win, 1 point for a tie. 10 points for losing in the Wild Card. 25 points for losing in the divisional. 45 points for losing in the Conference. 70 points for losing the Super Bowl, and 100 points for winning it all. The 32 teams ranked since the start of the Super Bowl era are:

1 Dallas 2333
2 Pittsburgh 2267
3 San Francisco 2056
4 New England 2017
5 Oakland 1856
6 Denver 1843
7 Green Bay 1766
8 Minnesota 1746
9 Miami 1692
10 Baltimore 1651 (yes I give them all of the original Browns teams)
11 Indianapolis 1630
12 Washington 1560
13 Rams 1529
14 Giants 1436
15 Philadelphia 1344
16 Kansas City 1299
17 Chicago 1258
18 Tennessee 1241
19 Buffalo 1235
20 Seattle 1176 (only 41 seasons)
21 Jets 1176
22 Chargers 1151
23 Atlanta 1099
24 Cincinnati 1012 (49 seasons)
25 New Orleans 951 (50 seasons)
26 Arizona 920
27 Detroit 855
28 Tampa Bay 791 (41 seasons)
29 Carolina 634 (22 seasons)
30 Jacksonville 470 (22 seasons)
31 Houston 297 (15 seasons)
32 Cleveland 186 (18 seasons)

Now using the same equation starting with 2000 and only listing the top 10

1 New England 1282
2 Pittsburgh 836
3 Indianapolis 762
4 Baltimore 739
5 Green Bay 731
6 Seattle 715
7 Philadelphia 649
8 Denver 648
9 Giants 627 (not even half of what NE has in this period)
10 Atlanta 527

 

[Manster7588]

I have some problems with his equation. First off he has all four teams that lose in the Divisional round equal to all four teams that lose in the Wild card round. The Seahawks beat the Lions this year in the playoffs, but under his system they are equal. Secondly, he does not give any credence to the regular season. So in 2008 the Patriots 11 win season that missed the playoffs is equal to the Lions 0 wins that year. Now I do understand that no equation is ever going to satisfy everybody, but I set one up a few years ago for shit and giggles. My system is 2 points for a regular season win, 1 point for a tie. 10 points for losing in the Wild Card. 25 points for losing in the divisional. 45 points for losing in the Conference. 70 points for losing the Super Bowl, and 100 points for winning it all. The 32 teams ranked since the start of the Super Bowl era are:

1 Dallas 2333
2 Pittsburgh 2267
3 San Francisco 2056
4 New England 2017
5 Oakland 1856
6 Denver 1843
7 Green Bay 1766
8 Minnesota 1746
9 Miami 1692
10 Baltimore 1651 (yes I give them all of the original Browns teams)
11 Indianapolis 1630
12 Washington 1560
13 Rams 1529
14 Giants 1436
15 Philadelphia 1344
16 Kansas City 1299
17 Chicago 1258
18 Tennessee 1241
19 Buffalo 1235
20 Seattle 1176 (only 41 seasons)
21 Jets 1176
22 Chargers 1151
23 Atlanta 1099
24 Cincinnati 1012 (49 seasons)
25 New Orleans 951 (50 seasons)
26 Arizona 920
27 Detroit 855
28 Tampa Bay 791 (41 seasons)
29 Carolina 634 (22 seasons)
30 Jacksonville 470 (22 seasons)
31 Houston 297 (15 seasons)
32 Cleveland 186 (18 seasons)

Now using the same equation starting with 2000 and only listing the top 10

1 New England 1282
2 Pittsburgh 836
3 Indianapolis 762
4 Baltimore 739
5 Green Bay 731
6 Seattle 715
7 Philadelphia 649
8 Denver 648
9 Giants 627 (not even half of what NE has in this period)
10 Atlanta 527

All 4 NFCE team above midpoint, and thats with the E being down a little as of late.

 

[VikingFan2k2]

I also don't personally consider all of these teams listed dynasties. I agree with these ones:

-Packers (1960s)
-Steelers (1970s)
-49ers (1980s)
-Cowboys (1990s)
-Patriots (2000s-present)

The Raiders, Dolphins, Broncos and Redskins all had good teams but I don't consider those teams dynasties. I guess they're listed for the sake of completeness, but I think they were just great teams, similar to what the Seahawks were from 2012-2015 or the Rams were from 1999-2001

I am inclined to agree. I might throw in the Redskins because they did win 3 in a 10 year span, with 3 different QBs.

 

[rmilia1]

1. STEELERS
2. PATS
3. COWBOYS
4. 49ERS
5. RAIDERS
6. BRONCOS
7. PACKERS
8. NY GIANTS
9. MIAMI
10. WASHINGTON

 

[Bmurph]

Pats
Steelers
Cowboys
Niners
Packers

 

[Ricky Roma]

If anything the Pats have proven dynasties are alive and well, and that parity isn't really a thing. They just changed how you arrive upon said dynasty. The Salary Cap era is a misnomer.

Yup. It's actually easier to have a dynasty now, and the Patriots are the proving grounds. Get one of the great QB's of all time, and you're half-set. Get one of the great HC's of all time with said QB, and that's the template in today's pass happy/free agent/salary cap era. It won't stop the groupthink that this era breaks down dynasties and whatnot.

 

[NEhomer]

No, it's not easier to have a dynasty now. For Christ's sake. You don't get to keep Jerry Rice for a decade anymore.

Sorry Bro, Montana's not goat anymore.

 

[Ricky Roma]

Sensitive little pat fan. Thanks for proving my point...and of course failing to understand how...'homer.'

 

[Fountain City Blues]

No, it's not easier to have a dynasty now. For Christ's sake. You don't get to keep Jerry Rice for a decade anymore.

Sorry Bro, Montana's not goat anymore.

No, you just get a vastly more valuable player in Tom Brady for twice as long instead.

 

[NEhomer]

Sensitive little pat fan. Thanks for proving my point...and of course failing to understand how...'homer.'

Ha, nice try sensitive little Montana fan. You just watched your boy get eclipsed.

 

[Ricky Roma]

....'says' the admitted homer.

Pssst....still easier to have a dynasty in today's 'parity'/pass happy/salary cap/free agency era...a great big thanks to the Pats for proving that.

 

[NWPATSFAN]

....'says' the admitted homer.

Pssst....still easier to have a dynasty in today's 'parity'/pass happy/salary cap/free agency era...a great big thanks to the Pats for proving that.

It's so easy everyone is doing it

 

[AmericarunsonDuncan]

Yup. It's actually easier to have a dynasty now, and the Patriots are the proving grounds. Get one of the great QB's of all time, and you're half-set. Get one of the great HC's of all time with said QB, and that's the template in today's pass happy/free agent/salary cap era. It won't stop the groupthink that this era breaks down dynasties and whatnot.

I really don't understand this line of thinking. A dynasty is when a team is head and shoulders above all others. You could argue parity makes it easier for teams to win singular titles now, but a sustained run of success? No way. You could make an all star team out of the guys the Blackhawks have had to get rid of just to stay within the salary cap, otherwise they could have even more than 3 titles in 6 years. They can't hang on to everyone like they used to be able to in the past, and the same applies in the NFL, although at least there a great QB can help a lot

 

[soxfan1468927]

I really don't understand this line of thinking. A dynasty is when a team is head and shoulders above all others. You could argue parity makes it easier for teams to win singular titles now, but a sustained run of success? No way. You could make an all star team out of the guys the Blackhawks have had to get rid of just to stay within the salary cap, otherwise they could have even more than 3 titles in 6 years. They can't hang on to everyone like they used to be able to in the past, and the same applies in the NFL, although at least there a great QB can help a lot

Blackhawks win another one with that core of Toews, Keith, Kane, Seabrook, Hossa, and Crawford, and they should be talking about them as one of the great dynasties.

 

[Ricky Roma]

I really don't understand this line of thinking. A dynasty is when a team is head and shoulders above all others. You could argue parity makes it easier for teams to win singular titles now, but a sustained run of success? No way. You could make an all star team out of the guys the Blackhawks have had to get rid of just to stay within the salary cap, otherwise they could have even more than 3 titles in 6 years. They can't hang on to everyone like they used to be able to in the past, and the same applies in the NFL, although at least there a great QB can help a lot

You just answered half the battle....get a great QB, and in this era where the salary cap/free agency spreads talent evenly throughout the league, you've got almost team every beat at that point. Given this era also coincides with the most pass happy rules in NFL history, it only tilts the advantage to the QB-driven team even moreso.

The Pats have proven you don't need a stacked team to have a great run of success in this era - basically an all time top 10 QB and Head Coach.....

 

[AmericarunsonDuncan]

You just answered half the battle....get a great QB, and in this era where the salary cap/free agency spreads talent evenly throughout the league, you've got almost team every beat at that point. Given this era also coincides with the most pass happy rules in NFL history, it only tilts the advantage to the QB-driven team even moreso.

The Pats have proven you don't need a stacked team to have a great run of success in this era - basically an all time top 10 QB and Head Coach.....

The QB point I was making was just to point out that may it be slightly easier than in hockey. But with respect to the NFL specifically, that really is no different than eras past, it's just changed to a new position. Today it centers around the QB because of rule changes, but the concept of having a great player or unit being the building block of your team isn't new. The game used to revolve around defense and the running game. You weren't winning in the 70s and 80s with bad defense, just as today you aren't winning without competent QB play. Now though it's difficult to fill a complete team on a consistent basis. After you pay your elite QB, there isn't a ton of extra money to go around. So you either have to perpetually draft well or find undervalued players who an perform above what they're worth as New England does. You just can't find a group that works and keep everyone together for 10 years like you used to.

I honestly think after this Patriot run is over we will see anything like it again for a long time

 

[PatsFan2003]

You just answered half the battle....get a great QB, and in this era where the salary cap/free agency spreads talent evenly throughout the league, you've got almost team every beat at that point. Given this era also coincides with the most pass happy rules in NFL history, it only tilts the advantage to the QB-driven team even moreso.

The Pats have proven you don't need a stacked team to have a great run of success in this era - basically an all time top 10 QB and Head Coach.....

You still need the top 10 head coach to make the rest of the team credible. Even Aaron Rodgers couldn't carry the rest of GB to the Superbowl.