Ranking the NFL's Greatest Dynasties (1 Viewer)

[[icon]]

This should be interesting discourse to say the least, however I'll attempt to forge ahead anyway:The primary criteria in my consideration are Superbowls wins and appearances. Secondary is win percentage. That said, if you win 140 games over the course of a decade, but never make it to the big game or win it...then you're not a dynasty. The timeframe I'm looking at is a 11 year window. Why? Because this discussion is centered around the pats returning for a 5th superbowl in roughly a decade. It's flexible (ie teams that do more in a smaller window get more credit than those who require a larger window) but in general I'm operating under roughly each team's best 11 year window surrounding their runs. I'm looking at win percentage rather than Wins as older teams like the Steelers would be hampered by shorter seasons. Under these criteria, IMO there have been 3 Dynasties in the course of NFL history.... in chronological order:

PITTSBURGH STEELERS (72-82)• 4 Super Bowl wins in a 6 year span (quickest 4 SB run in NFL History)• 71.3% Win Rate During This time. • 4 Superbowl appearances - 4 Wins• 6 AFC Championship Game Appearances• 8 AFC Divisional Game AppearancesSAN FRANCISCO 49ERS (81-91)• 4 Super Bowl appearances - 4 Wins• 71.5% Win Rate During This Time.• 6 NFC Championship Game Appearances• 8 NFC Divisional Game AppearancesNEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS (01-11)• 3 Super Bowl wins in a 4 year span (tied for quickest 3 SB run in NFL History)• 76.1% Win Rate During This TIme (NFL Record)• 5 Super Bowl Appearances - 3 Wins / 1 Loss / 1 Pending• 6 AFC Championship Game Appearances• 8 AFC Divisional Game Appearances

First I'd like to point out a few things:• Very interesting to see the similarities between these teams... 4-5 Superbowl Appearances, 6 Conference Championship Appearances, 8 Divisional Appearances, 2 or 3 years where they were shut out of the playoffs. • The Patriots hold a strong lead in Win Percentage over this window, however they also have the longest gap without a SB win (6 years, maybe more), though they did have a SB appearance in that timeframe and a 16-0 season to boot. • The steelers were never truly dominant win-wise with only two 2-loss seasons (in shorter seasons to boot) but they put together the strongest 4-SB stretch in history. IMO I'd rank the dynasties currently: 1) Steelers2) Niners3) Patriots (tempted to flip/flop NE/SF here due to W% and SBApp)IF the Patriots are able to win on Sunday, then I think the order is:1) Patriots2) Steelers3) NinersThe logic behind the move is: • Equal number of superbowl wins• More Superbowl appearances • Significantly Higher win percentageI know this is a hot topic with a substantial amount of Patriots hate going on around here lately... but I'd love to hear what people think.

 

[Shane Falco]

wouldn't a truly great dynasty last longer than 10 years? Say 1981- to 1994?

 

[houndirish]

I think the Cowboys of the early 90's have to be considered a dynasty (and I hate Dallas).

That being said I rank 'em:

1. Pittsburgh

2. SF

3. Dallas

4. NE

Toughest call for me is the top spot as SF has a very legitimate argument. At the end of the day I tend to think Pittsburgh was the more complete team, even if the Niners seemed to have more of an impact on how the game was played.

 

[Don Quixote]

Why limit to the SB era? The Packers dynasties in the 30s and 60s, and the Browns in the 50s, are great dynasties too.

 

[[icon]]

I think the Cowboys of the early 90's have to be considered a dynasty (and I hate Dallas).That being said I rank 'em:1. Pittsburgh2. SF3. Dallas4. NEToughest call for me is the top spot as SF has a very legitimate argument. At the end of the day I tend to think Pittsburgh was the more complete team, even if the Niners seemed to have more of an impact on how the game was played.

You rank Dallas ABOVE New England? Dallas only had a 4 year stretch. Outside of those 4 years they struggled to make even the Divisional Rounds of the playoffs and frequently either didn't qualify or were eliminated in the Wild Card Game. IMO if you're going to count Dallas as a dynasty, they're outside the big 3.

 

[Shane Falco]

Why limit to the SB era? The Packers dynasties in the 30s and 60s, and the Browns in the 50s, are great dynasties too.

This should be interesting discourse to say the least, however I'll attempt to forge ahead anyway:

The primary criteria in my consideration are Superbowls wins and appearances. Secondary is win percentage. That said, if you win 140 games over the course of a decade, but never make it to the big game or win it...then you're not a dynasty.

The timeframe I'm looking at is a 11 year window. Why? Because this discussion is centered around the pats returning for a 5th superbowl in roughly a decade. It's flexible (ie teams that do more in a smaller window get more credit than those who require a larger window) but in general I'm operating under roughly each team's best 11 year window surrounding their runs.

and apparently I didn't read the next part

 

[[icon]]

wouldn't a truly great dynasty last longer than 10 years? Say 1981- to 1994?

Valid point to be made here. Niners have perhaps the most "spread out" winning session, but perhaps the greatest prolonged stretch of greatness.

 

[[icon]]

Why limit to the SB era? The Packers dynasties in the 30s and 60s, and the Browns in the 50s, are great dynasties too.

For simplicities sake. The leagues were so small and fragmented there I chose to leave them aside. Unfair, perhaps but I guess I should re title the thread to reflect it's referring to the Superbowl Era only.

 

[Ghost Rider]

3 Super Bowl wins in a 4 year span (quickest 3 SB run in NFL History)

-tied for quickest 3 SB run in NFL history, actually.

The Steelers winning four in six years was pretty absurd.

But I give the 49ers the edge here since they won five SBs if you expand this to 1994, and like it or not, Spygate is a big black mark against the Patriots, especially when comparing them to other dynasties.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Dynasties dont Lose superbowls.

 

[butcher boy]

You absolutely have to expand the Niners' dynasty to '94. They went to the Championship game something like 3 straight years in 92, 93, and 94.

 

[Workhorse]

Dynasties dont Lose superbowls.

Do they get shellacked by 46 points in the Conference Championship?

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Dynasties dont Lose superbowls.

Do they get shellacked by 46 points in the Conference Championship?

Nobody remembers that.

 

[geoff8695]

You absolutely have to expand the Niners' dynasty to '94. They went to the Championship game something like 3 straight years in 92, 93, and 94.

THIS (and I hated on the 49ers far worse and longer than I've ever hated the Patriots, so they're the greatest according to my hate-O-meter)

 

[dutch]

1- Niners- Prolonged greatness and Superbowl success

2- Steelers- Unamtched Superbowl success in terms of 4 in 6 years. Team of many great players who played against, and beat on a number of occasions, 3 other concurrent SB winning franchises(Oak, Dal, Mia)

3- Pats- Long term success with some blips in the road

4- 81-93 Redskins- Long term success and 3 SB's in 4 trips with 3 diff starting qb's and 3 different starting Rb's

5- 90's Cowboys- Brief but extremely bright and hot flame. Terrell Davis of Dynasties.

btw, I do extend the 49er's to '94.

fixed

 

[5Rings]

1- Niners- Prolonged greatness and Superbowl success

2- Steelers- Unamtched Superbowl success in terms of 4 in 6 years. Team of many great players who played against, and beat on a number of occasions, 3 other concurrent SB winning franchises(Oak, Dal, Mia)

3- Pats- Long term success with some blips in the road

4- 81-93 Redskins- Long term success and 3 SB's in 4 trips with 3 diff starting qb's and 3 different starting Rb's

5- 90's Cowboys- Brief but extremely bright and hot flame. Terrell Davis of Dynasties.

btw, I do extend the 49er's to '94.

fixed

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

The Pats haven't won a Super Bowl in eight years. To me it's a stretch to link this team to those that won in 2001, 2003 and 2004.

 

[Ghost Rider]

The Pats haven't won a Super Bowl in eight years. To me it's a stretch to link this team to those that won in 2001, 2003 and 2004.

I kind of agree. I mean, how many players besides Tom Brady are still left from that Patriots 2004 championship team? And neither the 49ers and Steelers needed 7 years after that third title to get the fourth one. That is why the Patriots dynasty ranks way behind both the SF and Pitt ones, IMO (even if you leave Spygate out of it).

 

[Workhorse]

The Pats haven't won a Super Bowl in eight years. To me it's a stretch to link this team to those that won in 2001, 2003 and 2004.

I kind of agree. I mean, how many players besides Tom Brady are still left from that Patriots 2004 championship team? And neither the 49ers and Steelers needed 7 years after that third title to get the fourth one. That is why the Patriots dynasty ranks way behind both the SF and Pitt ones, IMO (even if you leave Spygate out of it).

So the Patriots are penalized for being a dynasty in the free agency era?

 

[Ghost Rider]

The Pats haven't won a Super Bowl in eight years. To me it's a stretch to link this team to those that won in 2001, 2003 and 2004.

I kind of agree. I mean, how many players besides Tom Brady are still left from that Patriots 2004 championship team? And neither the 49ers and Steelers needed 7 years after that third title to get the fourth one. That is why the Patriots dynasty ranks way behind both the SF and Pitt ones, IMO (even if you leave Spygate out of it).

So the Patriots are penalized for being a dynasty in the free agency era?

Where did I say that?Also, seriously, how many players besides Tom Brady are still left from that Patriots 2004 championship team? I know only a few are even left from the 2007 team that went 18-1.

 

[GregR]

You absolutely have to expand the Niners' dynasty to '94. They went to the Championship game something like 3 straight years in 92, 93, and 94.

THIS (and I hated on the 49ers far worse and longer than I've ever hated the Patriots, so they're the greatest according to my hate-O-meter)

I agree that if one is going to expand the time frame to 11 years for the Patriots situation, that you have to extend the window further for the 49ers then.That said, I wouldn't extend the window so far for either team. Both teams had too many years between titles and too much roster turnover across that gap to consider it the same dynasty in my mind.

 

[Insomniac]

You absolutely have to expand the Niners' dynasty to '94. They went to the Championship game something like 3 straight years in 92, 93, and 94.

THIS (and I hated on the 49ers far worse and longer than I've ever hated the Patriots, so they're the greatest according to my hate-O-meter)

I agree that if one is going to expand the time frame to 11 years for the Patriots situation, that you have to extend the window further for the 49ers then.That said, I wouldn't extend the window so far for either team. Both teams had too many years between titles and too much roster turnover across that gap to consider it the same dynasty in my mind.

dynasty

1. A succession of rulers from the same family or line.

2. A family or group that maintains power for several generations.

If anything staying in contention/winning titles while turning over the whole team would be a better example of a dynasty than having one group of players who won a number of championships. When I think of American sports dynasties I think of the 1920-1964 Yankees ( and perhaps the post strike Yankees to present) the Celtic and Lakers in the NBA, Montreal in the NHL and perhaps the Wooden UCLA college basketball teams.

If I were trying to identify Super Bowl era NFL dynasties I'd go with the 1981-1998 Niners and the 1966-1985 Cowboys. The other teams had great runs but not long enough to be dynasties.

 

[Tau837]

You absolutely have to expand the Niners' dynasty to '94. They went to the Championship game something like 3 straight years in 92, 93, and 94.

THIS (and I hated on the 49ers far worse and longer than I've ever hated the Patriots, so they're the greatest according to my hate-O-meter)

I agree that if one is going to expand the time frame to 11 years for the Patriots situation, that you have to extend the window further for the 49ers then.That said, I wouldn't extend the window so far for either team. Both teams had too many years between titles and too much roster turnover across that gap to consider it the same dynasty in my mind.

dynasty

1. A succession of rulers from the same family or line.

2. A family or group that maintains power for several generations.

If anything staying in contention/winning titles while turning over the whole team would be a better example of a dynasty than having one group of players who won a number of championships. When I think of American sports dynasties I think of the 1920-1964 Yankees ( and perhaps the post strike Yankees to present) the Celtic and Lakers in the NBA, Montreal in the NHL and perhaps the Wooden UCLA college basketball teams.

If I were trying to identify Super Bowl era NFL dynasties I'd go with the 1981-1998 Niners and the 1966-1985 Cowboys. The other teams had great runs but not long enough to be dynasties.

I was thinking the same thing regarding Greg's comment.

 

[Stompin' Tom Connors]

Dynasties dont Lose superbowls.

Unfortunately for the Buffalo Bills.Dominant on both sides of the ball.49-15 over 4 years.An unprecedented 4-straight Super Bowl appearances.A sad 0-4 in the Big Game.

 

[GregR]

You absolutely have to expand the Niners' dynasty to '94. They went to the Championship game something like 3 straight years in 92, 93, and 94.

THIS (and I hated on the 49ers far worse and longer than I've ever hated the Patriots, so they're the greatest according to my hate-O-meter)

I agree that if one is going to expand the time frame to 11 years for the Patriots situation, that you have to extend the window further for the 49ers then.That said, I wouldn't extend the window so far for either team. Both teams had too many years between titles and too much roster turnover across that gap to consider it the same dynasty in my mind.

dynasty

1. A succession of rulers from the same family or line.

2. A family or group that maintains power for several generations.

If anything staying in contention/winning titles while turning over the whole team would be a better example of a dynasty than having one group of players who won a number of championships. When I think of American sports dynasties I think of the 1920-1964 Yankees ( and perhaps the post strike Yankees to present) the Celtic and Lakers in the NBA, Montreal in the NHL and perhaps the Wooden UCLA college basketball teams.

If I were trying to identify Super Bowl era NFL dynasties I'd go with the 1981-1998 Niners and the 1966-1985 Cowboys. The other teams had great runs but not long enough to be dynasties.

I was thinking the same thing regarding Greg's comment.

I disagree. Winning titles while turning over the team would keep a dynasty going, yes. But these teams didn't do that. The 49ers had a championship drought and the Patriots have as well should they even win another. If teams are going to go 7 or 8 years without winning the title and turn their roster over, then they need to at least have several championship appearances in that gap to keep them connected. If you grab the championship results for the last 7 years, do you see anything in there that suggests there is a dynasty going on? If you do it's looking at the Steelers and saying they fall just short, not looking at the Patriots only having been to 1 SB over that stretch, and that a loss. If they had at least one more trip to the SB I could see a better argument being made. But you need to be doing more than making conference championship games if you want to lay claim to still being a dynasty.

 

[joey]

Raiders 72-85

145-58-2 record over that span.

3 super bowl wins

8 division titles

2 wild card berths.

If you go back to 67, you get 4 more division titles, and one AFL championship and 53-12-5 record added to the 145-58-2.

Just to add them to the mix.

 

[dutch]

Here's a running tab on potential dynasties:

80's- early 90's 49er's

00's Pats

70's Steelers

80's- early 90's Redskins

70's- early 80's Raiders

66-85 Cowboys

90's Cowboys

60-67 Pack (5 championships in 6 tries including the first 2 sb's merits consideration even though our limit is SB era)

Am I missing any?

 

[Godsbrother]

The Pats haven't won a Super Bowl in eight years. To me it's a stretch to link this team to those that won in 2001, 2003 and 2004.

 

[houndirish]

Dallas was about as dominant as a team could be for those four years and they won three titles. They could've competed for a fourth if Terrell Owens didn't have the last second catch to win the Conference title. I want to say SF went on to face San Diego that year, although I could be wrong. However it's hardly a stretch to think that the Cowboys wouldn't have also dismantled the Chargers if tehy had the opportunity. I don't bring that up as a means of trying to give Dallas additional credit for something they didn't accomplish. It was more to combat your notion that they couldn't advance past the divisional round. I also recall Dallas absolutely dominating Brett Favre and the rising Packers. If it weren't for Dallas we might be talking about a Green Bay dynasty here too but in his early prime with GB, Brett and co. never seemed to be able to get past the Cowboys.

I don't think any measurement of a dynasty should exclude Dallas's 90's team. Even if they fell off precipitously afterwards they still were as good as it gets during that period. The Patriots on the other hand were not even thought of as a dominant team in the league when they upset the Rams and I do think perception counts in the annals of history when people think of dynasty caliber teams. Let's not forget a contributing reason they made the big game that year was due to the horrific "Tuck Rule" game. Now I give a lot of credit to the Patriots for erasing any would be skeptics from that first Super Bowl thanks to the Pats dominating the next few seasons. I think the Pats dynasty argument would carry bigger weight had they beaten the Giants but they didn't. Every other dynasty mentioned didn't lose the Super Bowl in the years they were considered elite. If you're going to be considered the outright best team of your era, you don't lose the title game. It's that simple.

Lastly, and I recognize discussions like these are totally subjective, but I think those Aikman, Emmitt and Irvin teams were far superior to Brady's Patriots. They may not have been as quick strike explosive as New England but they certainly were more punishing and had the ability to run or pass to win. Dallas's O-Line back then was as good as it gets. I also think their defense was a superior unit. I give the nod to New England in coaching and ability to come up big in the clutch but if I was a betting man and those two teams faced each other my money would be on Dallas.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Dallas was about as dominant as a team could be for those four years and they won three titles. They could've competed for a fourth if Terrell Owens didn't have the last second catch to win the Conference title. I want to say SF went on to face San Diego that year, although I could be wrong. However it's hardly a stretch to think that the Cowboys wouldn't have also dismantled the Chargers if tehy had the opportunity. I don't bring that up as a means of trying to give Dallas additional credit for something they didn't accomplish. It was more to combat your notion that they couldn't advance past the divisional round. I also recall Dallas absolutely dominating Brett Favre and the rising Packers. If it weren't for Dallas we might be talking about a Green Bay dynasty here too but in his early prime with GB, Brett and co. never seemed to be able to get past the Cowboys.

I don't think any measurement of a dynasty should exclude Dallas's 90's team. Even if they fell off precipitously afterwards they still were as good as it gets during that period. The Patriots on the other hand were not even thought of as a dominant team in the league when they upset the Rams and I do think perception counts in the annals of history when people think of dynasty caliber teams. Let's not forget a contributing reason they made the big game that year was due to the horrific "Tuck Rule" game. Now I give a lot of credit to the Patriots for erasing any would be skeptics from that first Super Bowl thanks to the Pats dominating the next few seasons. I think the Pats dynasty argument would carry bigger weight had they beaten the Giants but they didn't. Every other dynasty mentioned didn't lose the Super Bowl in the years they were considered elite. If you're going to be considered the outright best team of your era, you don't lose the title game. It's that simple.

Lastly, and I recognize discussions like these are totally subjective, but I think those Aikman, Emmitt and Irvin teams were far superior to Brady's Patriots. They may not have been as quick strike explosive as New England but they certainly were more punishing and had the ability to run or pass to win. Dallas's O-Line back then was as good as it gets. I also think their defense was a superior unit. I give the nod to New England in coaching and ability to come up big in the clutch but if I was a betting man and those two teams faced each other my money would be on Dallas.

You're way off about what I bolded, but that aside, I agree with much of this. That Dallas team was filled with Pro Bowlers and Hall of Famers on both sides of the ball; the Patriots were not. The '92 and '93 Dallas teams would have mopped the floor with any of the three Patriots championship teams.

 

[houndirish]

Dallas was about as dominant as a team could be for those four years and they won three titles. They could've competed for a fourth if Terrell Owens didn't have the last second catch to win the Conference title. I want to say SF went on to face San Diego that year, although I could be wrong. However it's hardly a stretch to think that the Cowboys wouldn't have also dismantled the Chargers if tehy had the opportunity. I don't bring that up as a means of trying to give Dallas additional credit for something they didn't accomplish. It was more to combat your notion that they couldn't advance past the divisional round. I also recall Dallas absolutely dominating Brett Favre and the rising Packers. If it weren't for Dallas we might be talking about a Green Bay dynasty here too but in his early prime with GB, Brett and co. never seemed to be able to get past the Cowboys.

I don't think any measurement of a dynasty should exclude Dallas's 90's team. Even if they fell off precipitously afterwards they still were as good as it gets during that period. The Patriots on the other hand were not even thought of as a dominant team in the league when they upset the Rams and I do think perception counts in the annals of history when people think of dynasty caliber teams. Let's not forget a contributing reason they made the big game that year was due to the horrific "Tuck Rule" game. Now I give a lot of credit to the Patriots for erasing any would be skeptics from that first Super Bowl thanks to the Pats dominating the next few seasons. I think the Pats dynasty argument would carry bigger weight had they beaten the Giants but they didn't. Every other dynasty mentioned didn't lose the Super Bowl in the years they were considered elite. If you're going to be considered the outright best team of your era, you don't lose the title game. It's that simple.

Lastly, and I recognize discussions like these are totally subjective, but I think those Aikman, Emmitt and Irvin teams were far superior to Brady's Patriots. They may not have been as quick strike explosive as New England but they certainly were more punishing and had the ability to run or pass to win. Dallas's O-Line back then was as good as it gets. I also think their defense was a superior unit. I give the nod to New England in coaching and ability to come up big in the clutch but if I was a betting man and those two teams faced each other my money would be on Dallas.

You're way off about what I bolded, but that aside, I agree with much of this. That Dallas team was filled with Pro Bowlers and Hall of Famers on both sides of the ball; the Patriots were not. The '92 and '93 Dallas teams would have mopped the floor with any of the three Patriots championship teams.

You're right ... that TO catch was against GB. Scratch that.

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

BUMP

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

Dynasties dont Lose superbowls.

AbsolutelySomeone said in a thread in here "you'd rank Dallas over NE?"Easily, Dallas didn't last as long but quality over quantity in years. Dallas dominated in 2 of their SBs and won it's 3rd without losing any SBs.In the last 5 years NE lost 2 SBs, big deal. Buffalo did better than that by losing 4 in a row.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

I've thought about this for years but if I'm objective here is my list.

1. 80s 49ers: Probably the best teams I've ever seen. They made everything look easy. Best Qb of all time helps.

2. Dallas Cowboys of early 90s. I'd love to see the 93 Dallas team play the 84 49ers to decide the top spot but Montana is the tiebreaker and he doesn't lose.

3. Pittaburgh Steelers mid to late 70s. Great defense, gutsy QB, and a solid run game.

4. NE Patriots- Great Qb, great coach. They get the most out of what they have and that's really all you can ask of anyone in life. Talent wise, they fall a little short of the above groups but still will be remembered as one of the greats in NFL history.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

the dynasty is over

 

[Shutout]

Here's a running tab on potential dynasties:80's- early 90's 49er's00's Pats70's Steelers80's- early 90's Redskins70's- early 80's Raiders66-85 Cowboys90's Cowboys60-67 Pack (5 championships in 6 tries including the first 2 sb's merits consideration even though our limit is SB era)Am I missing any?

The Browns Waaay back in the day had a run that is unparalleled. They won 4 straight "world championships" before officially joining the NFL. then they went to SIX straight NFL championships, winning three.and then there's Da Bears. Between 1932-1946 they appeared in 9 World title games, winning 6. The won 3 out of 4 in their best stretch and they went undefeated twice.

 

[Shutout]

best Mini-dynasty: '84-'88 Chicago Bears

-Averaged 12.5 wins per year

-Featured the most dominant single-season team EVAH!

-Produced the most lopsided SB victory in history (at the time)

-Their losses in the playoffs in every other year was to the eventual Super Bowl Champion (except the year the Giants won)...making at least a sound argument that the bears could have easily won it all for about 5 straight years.

Honarable mention:

'90-'93 Buffalo Bills

-Averaged 12 wins a year

-Four straight Super Bowl appearances

Just an amazing run of overall success.

 

[Riversco]

Impossible to grade because the Patriots dynasty may not have ended.

 

[Riversco]

Here's a running tab on potential dynasties:80's- early 90's 49er's00's Pats70's Steelers80's- early 90's Redskins70's- early 80's Raiders66-85 Cowboys90's Cowboys60-67 Pack (5 championships in 6 tries including the first 2 sb's merits consideration even though our limit is SB era)Am I missing any?

Dolphins under Shula were good from the moment he stepped in the door in 1970 to 1995.

 

[The Jerk]

So the Patriots are penalized for being a dynasty in the free agency era?

To me, the idea that it is harder to have a dynasty in the free agency era in the NFL is a myth. Media blowhards talking about it doens't make it so.There is no doubt that free agency has changed the NFL and what skills management must master to craft consistent contenders. However, rules changes that make quarterback play even more decisive in terms of winning championships have also impacted the possibility of dynasties.To be a consistent championship contender in the Super Bowl era prior to free agency, roughly through SB XXX as free agency only began late in that span, teams needed to be proficient at drafting and developing their own players. The 1970s Steelers and 1990s Cowboys are the best examples, particularly the Steelers, who won SB XIV with no players on their roster who had ever played for another NFL team.To be a consistent championship contender in the free agency/salary cap era, teams must be proficient at the draft, free agency and salary cap, and not necessarily in that order.One aspect that I think we can all agree on is that the draft, while still important, is less important than it was prior to free agency. As a result, it can be argued that it is actually EASIER to stay on top given that free agency can be used to replenish talent, instead of trying to maintain a champion while consistently drafting near the end of every round. Not all teams can do this, but it is POSSIBLE, and certainly New England seems to do this very well.If you need any more evidence that it is actually at the very least no more difficult to consistently contend for championships, look to the AFC, who has had three teams represent the conference in 10 of the past 11 Super Bowls (winning 6). I realize the NFC has been as opposite as possible, with ten different teams in ten seasons prior to the Giants this season. Still, it shows it is possible to stay at the top in this era.Compare this ear to the 1970s in each conference.From 1971 to 1980, the Steelers, Dolphins and Raiders made 9 of 10 Super Bowl appearances, winning the final 8.From 1969 to 1978, the Vikings and Cowboys made 9 of 10 Super Bowl appearances, winning just two.So while it can be argued that the 70s NFC made 10 of 10 with three teams, it is different in that only two teams were truly consistently involved (the Redskins broke through in 1972), and more importantly, they were 2-8 in those Super Bowls compared to the AFC going 7-4 in this 2001-2011 stretch.If there is a common thread between eras, it is the simplest rule of any when it comes to football championships: great QBs.1970s Steelers: Bradshaw1970s Cowboys: Staubach1970s Dolphins: Griese1970s Raiders: Stabler/Plunkett1970s Vikings: Tarkenton2000s Patriots: Brady2000s Steelers: Roethlisberger2000s Colts: P.ManningIf Stabler and/or Plunkett is the weakest link, it becomes obvious how good this group of QBs truly is.To me, the same ingredients apply to having consistent championship contenders, if not dynasties. Great QB play and a management team that knows how to manage the vital aspects of its era. There may be more involvement now, with a cap and free agency added to draft acumen. However, perhaps that just provides the truly well-managed organizations with more possible avenues to get ahead of the rest of the pack.I realize that free agency has weakened many successful teams in the past decade and a half. But prior to free agency, the talent attrition enforced by the draft eventually weakened EVERY team that had sustained success.Just something to think about...

 

[netnalp]

A posting I found interesting from BBI.

Random Factoid about Super Bowl Victories...

M.S. : 9:16 am

...just 5 NFL teams...

Pittsburgh Steelers

Dallas Cowboys

San Francisco 49ers

New York Giants

Green Bay Packers

...account for over half (52%) of all (46) Super Bowl victories.

He should have put Pats in too though.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

A posting I found interesting from BBI.

Random Factoid about Super Bowl Victories...

M.S. : 9:16 am

...just 5 NFL teams...

Pittsburgh Steelers

Dallas Cowboys

San Francisco 49ers

New York Giants

Green Bay Packers

...account for over half (52%) of all (46) Super Bowl victories.

He should have put Pats in too though.

add in the Pats (3), the Redskins (3) and the Raiders (3)and thats 71.7% of all superbowls.

 

[kentric]

I also believe that maintaining a dynasty with Free Agency/Salary Cap is much harder than prior to FA/SC. Not only from the retention of talent, but also from the sense of continuity and team spirit. An argument can be made that in FA, successful teams are more likely to attract players who may be willing to play for less in order to get a ring. There is a measure of truth in this, but I believe this is mitigated somewhat by the amount of interest the players on a SB winning team get. This attention/interest translates into larger contracts and less SC space.