Greatest Football Dynasties of the Super Bowl Era

[USCDoom]

The 17-23 Tampa Bay Bucs

 

[Used 2 B Hu]

The New England White Guys?

Can't believe I left one out...see? Even the pros can have an off day

 

[AmericarunsonDuncan]

The Packers have been one of the best franchises in the NFL for the past decade basically solely due to Rodgers. As I said, that team would be a 3-4 win team without him, and that's because their coaching leaves something to be desired. That's why again, I said both the QB AND the HC.

I get what you're saying, but I'm not really following. Yes, the Packers have been a perennial playoff contender, and I absolutely agree that having an elite QB will have you regularly in contention. The Packers right now are probably a 4 or 5 win team without him. That doesn't translate though to it being easier to be a "dynasty" though.

Take 2010 for instance. They were young, balanced, and deep, and they won a Super Bowl with a lot of backups and most looked at them and thought they looked ready to be a perennial Super Bowl team for years after. It would have been easy if they could have gone to everyone after that win against Pittsburgh and said hey all of you will be back next year and for the years after that. But that isn't how it works. The salary cap forces you to prioritize who to keep and who you have to let go. That offseason they lost guys on defense and it hurt their depth when they had injuries that next year, and their defense was atrocious. When you lose guys that way you have to fill the holes with players from the draft or undervalued free agents (because remember you have to stay within the salary cap). They haven't won since mainly due to the fact that they haven't been able to draft and evaluate good talent on the defensive side of the ball.

In the end you're way underselling what the Patriots do that make them so good. Keep in mind they have done what they've done with arguably the best QB of all time and arguably the best coach of all time. I would be interested to hear how that's "easy", those types of guys aren't exactly hanging off of trees. Like I said in a previous post, what they've been able to do is impressive and after it's over I don't think we'll see anything like it again for a long time.

 

[Ricky Roma]

The Packers and Pats have two different standards when it comes to free agency....the Pats seemingly spend far, far more attention to it vs. GB. It has certainly helped, but the point remains. The QB, in today's game, plays a far, far bigger role in determining wins and losses. You get a HC that can seemingly match up with that QB, and you're set.

All one has to really do is look at those Steelers in the 70's.....talentwise, every Patriots team in the Belichick/Brady era is a joke talentwise, and yet they came away with less titles. No way are the combination of Belichick/Brady alone make up the lack of talent/ability in comparison.

The funny thing is you hear the whole 'Brady/Belichick does more with less' calling all the time, when the exact opposite is fact......'It takes far less to achieve more' in todays game vs. eras in the past.

 

[VikingFan2k2]

How cow! I ran out of time just writing down the teams that won more than one Superbowl. Forget those distinguished loser types like the Bill and Vikings.

Hey! What did we do to you?

 

[USCDoom]

Hey! What did we do to you?

Dont Mind Them, Drunk on Past Glories....

 

[sonnyblack65]

The 60's Packers were part of the Super Bowl era.

Yes they won the first 2SB's If your talking about Pre- SB era 1966 and before The Cleveland Browns with coach Brown were the shit and Dynasty

 

[Fountain City Blues]

The Packers are the perfect argument against your point. If all teams are more or less average and it was a matter of just having an elite QB they would have won more than once with Rodgers, nevermind being a "dynasty". They won a super bowl with a top 5 defense and lost a few guys that offseason to free agency and they haven't rebuilt it yet, a big reason why they haven't won since

Nobody said a dynasty was a given if you had an elite QB, just that it was easier.

 

[sonnyblack65]

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.

Your prob in the 1% that actually believes that. I have never heard any pundit, reporter,player,coach etc say otherwise

 

[sonnyblack65]

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

Sure but how long did we have Revis , Browner, Talib for?. I'd love to have a Ronnie Lott for 10 years

 

[NEhomer]

Roma's seriously red assed watching Brady surpass his boy.

 

[Ricky Roma]

Your prob in the 1% that actually believes that. I have never heard any pundit, reporter,player,coach etc say otherwise

...somebody has to be right....thanks to the Patriots who've proven me correct. I'll let the other 99% of the human cattle pen spew the same stupidity over and over.

 

[soxfan1468927]

...somebody has to be right....thanks to the Patriots who've proven me correct. I'll let the other 99% of the human cattle pen spew the same stupidity over and over.

Not sure how they have "proven you correct"

 

[USCDoom]

If I had the #1 overall pick, and I could ONLY pick a QB, I would pick Joe Montana...

Reverse the Situations, Montana is drafted in 2000, and Brady is drafted in 1979, and No One is talking Brady...

 

[Fountain City Blues]

1st Non-Pats Team in AFC East; division winners in bold. This is just to establish what the threshold was for the Pats to reach the playoffs via division title, aproximately.

2016: 10 Dolphins (+4)
2015: 10 Jets (+2)
2014: 9 Bills (+3)
2013: 8 Jets (+4)
2012: 7 Dolphins (+5)
2011: 8 Jets (+5)
2010: 11 Jets (+3)
2009: 9 Jets (+1)
2008: 11 Dolphins* (tiebreaker; Cassel year)
2007: 7 Bills (+9)
2006: 10 Jets (+2)
2005: 9 Dolphins (+1)
2004: 10 Jets (+4)
2003: 10 Dolphins (+4)
2002: 9 Jets* (Tiebreaker)
2001: 11 Dolphins* (Tiebreaker in favor of Pats)

AFC West in same time period:

2016: 12 Raiders* (tiebreaker)
2015: 11 Chiefs
2014: 9 Chiefs
2013: 11 Chiefs
2012: 7 Chargers
2011: 8 Raiders* (tiebreaker)
2010: 9 Chargers
2009: 8 Broncos
2008: 8 Broncos* (tiebreaker)
2007: 7 Broncos
2006: 9 Chiefs
2005: 10 Chiefs
2004: 10 Broncos
2003: 10 Broncos
2002: 9 Broncos
2001: 9 Seahawks

AFC North:

2016: 8 Ravens
2015: 10 Steelers
2014: 10-5-1 Bengals
2013: 8 Steelers
2012: 10 Bengals* (tiebreaker)
2011: 12 Steelers* (tiebreaker)
2010: 12 Ravens* (tiebreaker)
2009: 9 Ravens
2008: 11 Ravens
2007: 10 Browns* (tiebreaker)
2006: 8 Bengals
2005: 11 Steelers* (tiebreaker)
2004: 9 Ravens
2003: 8 Bengals
2002: 9 Browns
2001: 10 Ravens

AFC South:

2016: 9 Titans* (Tiebreaker)
2015: 8 Colts
2014: 9 Texans
2013: 7 Titans
2012: 11 Colts
2011: 9 Titans
2010: 8 Jags
2009: 9 Texans
2008: 12 Colts
2007: 11 Jags
2006: 8 Titans
2005: 12 Jags
2004: 9 Jags
2003: 12 Titans* (tiebreaker)
2002: 10 Colts

NFC East:

2016: 11 Giants
2015: 7 Eagles
2014: 10 Eagles
2013: 8 Cowboys
2012: 9 Giants
2011: 8 Eagles
2010: 10 Giants* (tiebreaker)
2009: 11 Cowboys* (tiebreaker)
2008: 9-6-1 Eagles
2007: 10 Giants
2006: 9 Cowboys
2005: 10 Washington
2004: 6 Washington
2003: 10 Cowboys
2002: 10 Giants
2001: 8 Washington

NFC West:

2016: 7-8-1 Cardinals
2015: 10 Seahawks
2014: 11 Cardinals
2013: 10 Cardinals
2012: 11 Seahawks
2011: 8 Cardinals
2010: 7 Rams* (tiebreaker)
2009: 8 49ers
2008: 7 49ers
2007: 8 Cardinals
2006: 8 Rams
2005: 6 Rams
2004: 8 Rams
2003: 10 Seahawks
2002: 7 Rams
2001: 12 49ers

NFC North:

2016: 9 Lions
2015: 10 Packers
2014: 11 Lions
2013: 8 Bears
2012: 10 Vikings
2011: 10 Lions
2010: 10 Packers
2009: 11 Packers
2008: 9 Bears
2007: 8 Vikings
2006: 8 Packers
2005: 9 Vikings
2004: 8 Vikings
2003: 9 Vikings
2002: 6 Vikings
2001: 12 Packers

NFC South:

2016: 9 Bucs
2015: 8 Falcons
2014: 7 Saints
2013: 11 Saints
2012: 7 Saints
2011: 10 Falcons
2010: 11 Saints
2009: 9 Falcons
2008: 11 Falcons
2007: 7 Panthers
2006: 8 Panthers
2005 11 Panthers* (tiebreaker)
2004: 8 Saints
2003: 8 Saints
2002: 9-6-1 Falcons

 

[ATL96Steeler]

I think going back to back twice in a 6-7 yr span puts PIT at the top in terms of the most dominant dynasty imo. That said...the Patriots dynasty period was '02-'05 imo, but to sustain the high level of success and come back and win two more nearly a decade later is more impressive.

 

[soxfan1468927]

1st Non-Pats Team in AFC East; division winners in bold. This is just to establish what the threshold was for the Pats to reach the playoffs via division title, aproximately.

2016: 10 Dolphins (+4)
2015: 10 Jets (+2)
2014: 9 Bills (+3)
2013: 8 Jets (+4)
2012: 7 Dolphins (+5)
2011: 8 Jets (+5)
2010: 11 Jets (+3)
2009: 9 Jets (+1)
2008: 11 Dolphins* (tiebreaker; Cassel year)
2007: 7 Bills (+9)
2006: 10 Jets (+2)
2005: 9 Dolphins (+1)
2004: 10 Jets (+4)
2003: 10 Dolphins (+4)
2002: 9 Jets* (Tiebreaker)
2001: 11 Dolphins* (Tiebreaker in favor of Pats)

AFC West in same time period:

2016: 12 Raiders* (tiebreaker)
2015: 11 Chiefs
2014: 9 Chiefs
2013: 11 Chiefs
2012: 7 Chargers
2011: 8 Raiders* (tiebreaker)
2010: 9 Chargers
2009: 8 Broncos
2008: 8 Broncos* (tiebreaker)
2007: 7 Broncos
2006: 9 Chiefs
2005: 10 Chiefs
2004: 10 Broncos
2003: 10 Broncos
2002: 9 Broncos
2001: 9 Seahawks

AFC North:

2016: 8 Ravens
2015: 10 Steelers
2014: 10-5-1 Bengals
2013: 8 Steelers
2012: 10 Bengals* (tiebreaker)
2011: 12 Steelers* (tiebreaker)
2010: 12 Ravens* (tiebreaker)
2009: 9 Ravens
2008: 11 Ravens
2007: 10 Browns* (tiebreaker)
2006: 8 Bengals
2005: 11 Steelers* (tiebreaker)
2004: 9 Ravens
2003: 8 Bengals
2002: 9 Browns
2001: 10 Ravens

AFC South:

2016: 9 Titans* (Tiebreaker)
2015: 8 Colts
2014: 9 Texans
2013: 7 Titans
2012: 11 Colts
2011: 9 Titans
2010: 8 Jags
2009: 9 Texans
2008: 12 Colts
2007: 11 Jags
2006: 8 Titans
2005: 12 Jags
2004: 9 Jags
2003: 12 Titans* (tiebreaker)
2002: 10 Colts

NFC East:

2016: 11 Giants
2015: 7 Eagles
2014: 10 Eagles
2013: 8 Cowboys
2012: 9 Giants
2011: 8 Eagles
2010: 10 Giants* (tiebreaker)
2009: 11 Cowboys* (tiebreaker)
2008: 9-6-1 Eagles
2007: 10 Giants
2006: 9 Cowboys
2005: 10 Washington
2004: 6 Washington
2003: 10 Cowboys
2002: 10 Giants
2001: 8 Washington

NFC West:

2016: 7-8-1 Cardinals
2015: 10 Seahawks
2014: 11 Cardinals
2013: 10 Cardinals
2012: 11 Seahawks
2011: 8 Cardinals
2010: 7 Rams* (tiebreaker)
2009: 8 49ers
2008: 7 49ers
2007: 8 Cardinals
2006: 8 Rams
2005: 6 Rams
2004: 8 Rams
2003: 10 Seahawks
2002: 7 Rams
2001: 12 49ers

NFC North:

2016: 9 Lions
2015: 10 Packers
2014: 11 Lions
2013: 8 Bears
2012: 10 Vikings
2011: 10 Lions
2010: 10 Packers
2009: 11 Packers
2008: 9 Bears
2007: 8 Vikings
2006: 8 Packers
2005: 9 Vikings
2004: 8 Vikings
2003: 9 Vikings
2002: 6 Vikings
2001: 12 Packers

NFC South:

2016: 9 Bucs
2015: 8 Falcons
2014: 7 Saints
2013: 11 Saints
2012: 7 Saints
2011: 10 Falcons
2010: 11 Saints
2009: 9 Falcons
2008: 11 Falcons
2007: 7 Panthers
2006: 8 Panthers
2005 11 Panthers* (tiebreaker)
2004: 8 Saints
2003: 8 Saints
2002: 9-6-1 Falcons

So if your numbers are right, the average 2nd place finisher in the division would rank the AFC East 3rd.

 

[Fountain City Blues]

So if your numbers are right, the average 2nd place finisher in the division would rank the AFC East 3rd.

Correct

 

[soxfan1468927]

Correct

Kinda goes against the whole "Patriots win an easy division every year" theory.

 

[Fountain City Blues]

Kinda goes against the whole "Patriots win an easy division every year" theory.

Certainly does. It's probably not as difficult as the kneejerk in the other direction citing the AFC Easts record vs non-divisional opponents. In this case the middle ground does in fact appear to be the accurate take here as far as I can tell. Dominance does not necessarily diminish the competition. I get similar complaints when people whine about the BIG12 in college basketball.