Q: Do NFL dynasties lose super bowls during their dynamic run? (1 Viewer)

[BigSteelThrill]

Someone asked me this question just a little while ago.

 

[Whiplash Inc.]

I'm not a Pats fan at all, I'd say I'm closer to hating them, but when you visit the Superbowl 4 times in 6 years and you win 3 out of 4 times you're pretty damn close to being a dynasty. Especially compared to the rest of the league since the start of the new millenium.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Just to keep it straight...

Its 7 years. And after 2001 they missed the playoffs in 2002 (not a dynasty trait).

That leaves 2-1 with back-to-back in '03 & '04 and a the '07 result.

But thats not exactly the question.

I'll take your answer as "yes, its fine for a team to lose the championship game and still be a dynasty."

Which is a fine answer, it just has never happend before.

 

[Whiplash Inc.]

People tend to look at teams from certain era's (70's/80's/etc), so in that respect, definitely, they can still be viewed as a dynasty. Certainly of the 2000's.

 

[Macdaddy_2004]

Nope

As far as I am concerned the best team in 2008 is the New York City Giants

 

[Rayderr]

Were the Buffalo Bills a dynasty?

 

[Sabertooth]

Going back a decade, the team has been 3-2 in Super Bowls.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Were the Buffalo Bills a dynasty?

Came here to post this. Damn you. :suplex:

 

[Doug B]

The NFC-title Dallas teams of the 70s were all part of the Landry dynasty. Think they were 2-3 in Super Bowls that decade, but no one ever considered that squad less than elite.

 

[SR388]

The NFC-title Dallas teams of the 70s were all part of the Landry dynasty. Think they were 2-3 in Super Bowls that decade, but no one ever considered that squad less than elite.

There have only been a few Dynasties (in the SB era) and sadly those Cowboys weren't one.It's the Packers(60s)Steelers(70's)Niners(80's)Cowboys (90's)

 

[CalBear]

I don't see how it could be better to lose before the Super Bowl than lose in the Super Bowl. So yes, all the dynasties have lost.

 

[Bobcat10]

People tend to look at teams from certain era's (70's/80's/etc), so in that respect, definitely, they can still be viewed as a dynasty. Certainly of the 2000's.

You can be the best team, or one of the best teams, from an era or decade without being a dynasty.

 

[dgreen]

This question boils down to a conversation I'm having in another thread. In another thread, I said I'd rather be 3-1 in SBs than 3-0. You are asking if a team can be a dynasty if they lose a SB, while simply assuming they can be a dynasty even if they don't reach the SB in some of those years.

I hope you see how insane that is.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

This question boils down to a conversation I'm having in another thread. In another thread, I said I'd rather be 3-1 in SBs than 3-0. You are asking if a team can be a dynasty if they lose a SB, while simply assuming they can be a dynasty even if they don't reach the SB in some of those years.I hope you see how insane that is.

No, Im not asking if its better. Its great. Terrific. Wonderful.But when discussing "dynasties" and dynasties alone - losing the championship game is not a trait that has ever been associated with a dynasty in the NFL.As was pointed out about the 70's Cowboys... they were never considered a dynasty. But they had a run equal to what we have currently.

 

[travdogg]

What about the early 70's dolphins?

They made 3 straight Super Bowls and won the last 2. Are they not a dynasty because they lost the 1st one or because it was too short of a run?

 

[Chase Stuart]

Part of the reason we hold the '60s Packers, the '70s Steelers, the '80s 49ers and the '90s Cowboys is because when the game's lights shone brightest, those teams were a combined 13-0. Favre, Elway, Staubach, Marino have all lost Super Bowls. Aikman, Bradshaw, Montana, Starr never did. The theory behind a dynasty is that when a team is at its best, it can't be beat. Losing in the Super Bowl nullifies that a bit more than losing earlier in the playoffs while you're team is having a down year.

We all know Michael Jordan is 6-0 in the NBA finals. Not 6-1. Montana went 4-0 in his SBs, not 3-1. Why? Because he got his team the 20 points they needed in SBXXIII. The Steelers and the 49ers have classic Super Bowls where they won tight games in the end. The Cowboys and Packers were a bit more dominant. But none of them lost. The Patriots losing as 12 point favorites is a pretty big black eye for them. The Rams won a SB and lost one as huge favorites; the Colts won a SB and lose one as huge favorites; those teams aren't as well remembered.

 

[videoguy505]

The NFC-title Dallas teams of the 70s were all part of the Landry dynasty. Think they were 2-3 in Super Bowls that decade, but no one ever considered that squad less than elite.

There have only been a few Dynasties (in the SB era) and sadly those Cowboys weren't one.It's the Packers(60s)Steelers(70's)Niners(80's)Cowboys (90's)

70s Steelers didn't even make the Super Bowl in 76 or 77. 2 wins, 2 no-shows, 2 wins. I don't get why they'd be considered a dynasty when they failed in the middle of their run to even make the championship--like somehow it's better to lose early than lose late.80s 49ers went 2 and 3 consecutive seasons without making the game as well in between their victories, and the Cowboys had 1 off year in the middle of their 3 wins as well.

 

[Little Lord Humpleroy]

The Pats dynasty ended after the Eagles Superbowl. Since then they

lost to Denver in the playoffs, followed by the loss to the Colts in the

AFC championship game last year, culminating in yesterdays defeat

in the SB. It's too long of a losing period to bridge over a dynasty. The

past three years they've been very competitive, not a dynasty.

 

[SSOG]

Someone asked me this question just a little while ago.

Better to lose the superbowl than not make the superbowl.Besides, even if you say no, then the Patriots dynasty only extended from 2001-2006 instead of from 2001-2007.

 

[SSOG]

The Pats dynasty ended after the Eagles Superbowl. Since then they lost to Denver in the playoffs, followed by the loss to the Colts in the AFC championship game last year, culminating in yesterdays defeat in the SB. It's too long of a losing period to bridge over a dynasty. Thepast three years they've been very competitive, not a dynasty.

The 49ers dynasty didn't make it past the divisional round in 1985, 1986, or 1987. They also lost 3 conference championships from 1990 to 1993 (failing to make the postseason one year). If a three-year superbowl drought means a team's not a dynasty, then the 49ers were never a dynasty, because they never won more than 2 SBs without at least a 3-year drought before their next one (and 2 SBs does not a dynasty make, or we'd be talking about the Broncos dynasty of the late 90s).

 

[Little Lord Humpleroy]

The Pats dynasty ended after the Eagles Superbowl. Since then they lost to Denver in the playoffs, followed by the loss to the Colts in the AFC championship game last year, culminating in yesterdays defeat in the SB. It's too long of a losing period to bridge over a dynasty. Thepast three years they've been very competitive, not a dynasty.

The 49ers dynasty didn't make it past the divisional round in 1985, 1986, or 1987. They also lost 3 conference championships from 1990 to 1993 (failing to make the postseason one year). If a three-year superbowl drought means a team's not a dynasty, then the 49ers were never a dynasty, because they never won more than 2 SBs without at least a 3-year drought before their next one (and 2 SBs does not a dynasty make, or we'd be talking about the Broncos dynasty of the late 90s).

Good point. I still think it's stretching it a bit. If the Pats were to miss the playoffs for the next couple of years at what point would you say their dynasty ended? I'd say after the 05 SB. Winning championships defines dynastys. any other residual success is like an aftershock is to an earthquake.

 

[pecorino]

The NFC-title Dallas teams of the 70s were all part of the Landry dynasty. Think they were 2-3 in Super Bowls that decade, but no one ever considered that squad less than elite.

There have only been a few Dynasties (in the SB era) and sadly those Cowboys weren't one.It's the Packers(60s)Steelers(70's)Niners(80's)Cowboys (90's)

70s Steelers didn't even make the Super Bowl in 76 or 77. 2 wins, 2 no-shows, 2 wins. I don't get why they'd be considered a dynasty when they failed in the middle of their run to even make the championship--like somehow it's better to lose early than lose late.80s 49ers went 2 and 3 consecutive seasons without making the game as well in between their victories, and the Cowboys had 1 off year in the middle of their 3 wins as well.

many claim the 1976 steelers team to be the best of the bunch. the defense only gave up 28 points in the last 9 games of the season including 5 shutouts. they lost in the championship game after significant injuries to both bleier and harris. i don't recall the circumstances of the 1977 team but i just looked it up--they lost in the first round at denver after going 9-5. not a dynastic year for sure.

 

[SSOG]

The Pats dynasty ended after the Eagles Superbowl. Since then they lost to Denver in the playoffs, followed by the loss to the Colts in the AFC championship game last year, culminating in yesterdays defeat in the SB. It's too long of a losing period to bridge over a dynasty. Thepast three years they've been very competitive, not a dynasty.

The 49ers dynasty didn't make it past the divisional round in 1985, 1986, or 1987. They also lost 3 conference championships from 1990 to 1993 (failing to make the postseason one year). If a three-year superbowl drought means a team's not a dynasty, then the 49ers were never a dynasty, because they never won more than 2 SBs without at least a 3-year drought before their next one (and 2 SBs does not a dynasty make, or we'd be talking about the Broncos dynasty of the late 90s).

Good point. I still think it's stretching it a bit. If the Pats were to miss the playoffs for the next couple of years at what point would you say their dynasty ended? I'd say after the 05 SB. Winning championships defines dynastys. any other residual success is like an aftershock is to an earthquake.

Maybe, but if New England wins a championship in 2010 and another in 2011, are you going to say that their dynasty ended in 2005 because of the following drought?