Are Dynasties no longer rare?

[Buffalo716]

1 minute ago, 90sBills said:

I did say since I was a little kid. I wasn’t around in the 70s haha. But yeah they’d be there. So would the 60s Lombardi Packers. 

Gotcha 

[90sBills]

12 minutes ago, Mikie2times said:

Again, I sort of butchered the post and it turned into more of the Bills dethroning the Chiefs. But the main point I was going for is I think in time we will come to find out the Patriots Dynasty is more common of in the current NFL. 
 

The league always has one QB who is a notch better. Perhaps it’s only in the biggest games and brightest moments. Brady and Mahomes have been those guys (as was Montana). Peyton was not. Allen has been great, but I wouldn’t say he is one of those guy yet (please for the love of god don’t make this thread about that statement). Point is, we know Brady and Mahomes have been. The performance they have deep in the playoffs stands by itself. 
 

Then you realize this league is beyond QB dependent. Way more so than even the 80’s or 90’s when RB’s still mattered. 
 

Then people said free agency will

kill the dynasty, but it actually made it worse. Before everybody would get old and retire or lose talent and those teams would fade away. Now these teams are just reloading with it and as long as that QB still plays at a high level (which is way more likely now vs then because of the rules) the dynasty can keep going.

 

Obviously all of this gets exacerbated by having a great GM and Coach, but the continuity of what I’m describing allows that to happen way more so than it normally would as most other teams are swapping out those roles every few years. It sort of creates this snowball effect. 
 

We have a lot of these elements going for us. Very similar. It what’s led to the best overall record this decade. But we haven’t been able to overcome this Dynasty and while we might break thru one year as Manning did and others, this Chiefs team has another 5+ years the way this has been going. So then you wonder, is this really a coincidence? The two longest running most successful dynasty’s in our sport will have occurred back to back, literally concurrent. Which then makes you think, is this really that uncommon anymore or is this a byproduct of the modern game?
 

We will see….

Read the post I just put up 

I see where you’re getting at with this. But the historical facts are since the Super Bowl era there has been 1 dynasty for every decade. I can’t see that changing to 2 dynasties per decade right? By definition of dynasty alone would prohibit such a thing with only 10yrs per decade. So if it continues to be 1 dynastic team per decade than nothing has changed since the Superbowl era started. Interesting topic. 

[Kelly to Allen]

12 minutes ago, 90sBills said:

I see where you’re getting at with this. But the historical facts are since the Super Bowl era there has been 1 dynasty for every decade. I can’t see that changing to 2 dynasties per decade right? By definition of dynasty alone would prohibit such a thing with only 10yrs per decade. So if it continues to be 1 dynastic team per decade than nothing has changed since the Superbowl era started. Interesting topic. 

The 70s dolphins 

70s cowboys 

70s Steelers were all legitimate dynasties 

 

The Vikings were extremely close in the 70s

 

The la rams had really really good teams. 

 

The 80s Washington team had 4 super bowl appearances in 9 years but with different QBs

 

The 80s 49ers obviously. 

 

One could argue with the 85 bears if McMahon doesn't get hurt all the time or buddy Ryan stays longer.

 

The 90s 49ers were extremely close with Dallas and so was buffalo. 

 

Green Bay was very close too

 

There is usually room pre and post free agency changes in 1994 for 2 dynasty level teams per decade and 2-3 other teams that would be close

[90sBills]

12 minutes ago, Kelly to Allen said:

The 70s dolphins 

70s cowboys 

70s Steelers were all legitimate dynasties 

 

The Vikings were extremely close in the 70s

 

The la rams had really really good teams. 

 

The 80s Washington team had 4 super bowl appearances in 9 years but with different QBs

 

The 80s 49ers obviously. 

 

One could argue with the 85 bears if McMahon doesn't get hurt all the time or buddy Ryan stays longer.

 

The 90s 49ers were extremely close with Dallas and so was buffalo. 

 

Green Bay was very close too

 

There is usually room pre and post free agency changes in 1994 for 2 dynasty level teams per decade and 2-3 other teams that would be close

For most, me included, a dynasty has to include 3 Super Bowl wins within 4-7yr span. Dolphins and Cowboys were great teams in the 70s but the true dynasty was the Steelers. Just like the ‘00 Steelers were not a dynasty even though they won 2 amidst the Patriots dynasty. 
 

The only one that was borderline on your list would be Washington. But their championships were too spread out while being book ended by 2 legitimate dynasties in the 49ers and Cowboys. 
 

70s Vikings? 90s Bills? C’mon. Making it to the big game 4 times is a major accomplishment. Not winning at least 1 is a major failure. Great teams but not even close to being a dynasty. 

[Mikie2times]

27 minutes ago, Kelly to Allen said:

The 70s dolphins 

70s cowboys 

70s Steelers were all legitimate dynasties 

 

The Vikings were extremely close in the 70s

 

The la rams had really really good teams. 

 

The 80s Washington team had 4 super bowl appearances in 9 years but with different QBs

 

The 80s 49ers obviously. 

 

One could argue with the 85 bears if McMahon doesn't get hurt all the time or buddy Ryan stays longer.

 

The 90s 49ers were extremely close with Dallas and so was buffalo. 

 

Green Bay was very close too

 

There is usually room pre and post free agency changes in 1994 for 2 dynasty level teams per decade and 2-3 other teams that would be close

An yet it took all those teams a decade to accomplish what the Chiefs will in half the time 

[Dr.Sack]

What’s rare is one player (not to named) being your nemesis for 19 seasons. This is officially year 5 of our “rivalary” and one can reasonably assume we will be in for another 5 more barring injury / FO organizational upheaval. 

[Ray Stonada]

Just because Brady/Pats kept it up for 18 years doesn't mean Mahomes/Chiefs will.

 

Maybe his body breaks down, or he has a serious injury, or they lose Kelce, or Reid retires, or Spagnuolo gets another HC gig...

 

Any of these things could bring them down just enough to make them a playoff team but not a regular SB-winner.

 

You never, never know.

[Mr. WEO]

13 hours ago, Mikie2times said:

When you look at what New England accomplished, it’s clear they did something unprecedented in professional football. Sure, we’ve seen dynasties before—teams like the Bears in the Halas era, the Browns in the AAFL, the Packers, Steelers, and 49ers all had their time at the top. But as someone who’s followed the sport closely since the early '90s, and has really dug into its history, I didn’t think we’d ever see anything like what the Patriots did. That kind of sustained dominance, stretching across multiple decades, felt like it would never happen again. It seemed like something that couldn’t be replicated.

 

Yet here we are, with Kansas City chasing a potential three-peat, which—again—has never been done before. The crazy thing is, it only took a single off-season for the Patriots’ dynasty to smoothly transition into Kansas City’s. And when I started thinking about that, as I bounced it around my normal Bills thoughts, it seems to fit. Honestly, I don’t think we’re all that great, but when you take a step back, the truth is nobody else really is either. McDermott, for all the criticism he gets from me and others, is a disciplined coach. Combine that with a top-tier QB, and you’re set to win a lot of games. That’s something most teams just don’t have. So, I started wondering—are these dynasties really as rare as we think, or is this just the new normal for the NFL?

 

Sure, Brady had Manning, Roethlisberger, and others, while Mahomes has Allen, Burrow, Lamar, and others to contend with, but as we’ve hashed out endlessly in these forums, they’re still a step behind. Once you look beyond those guys, who’s really challenging Mahomes and the Chiefs? The NFL is so firmly a quarterback-driven league now. Out of all the professional sports, I’d argue QB is by far the most impactful position, the one that dictates the outcome more than any other. The way the game is structured now, if you have an elite QB, you don’t have down years. You don’t rebuild—you’re always competitive.

 

And when you get a great QB paired with excellent coaching and roster management? That’s when you get dynasties like we’re seeing now. Even back in the old days, when free agency wasn’t a factor, the value of a team was spread out across all positions, with the QB still being the most important piece, but not to the extent it is today. Now, I’m starting to think these so-called dynasties may not be as special or rare as we once thought. They might just be what we can expect moving forward in the NFL. Meanwhile, the rest of the teams are like the Colts with Peyton Mannings, trying to catch up, but for the most part, they’ll just be outclassed.

 

 

HOF Qb and HC aren't common.  There have been a handful of dynastic NFL teams over 60 years...so, still rare.  We just happen to see 2 back to back. 

 

New normal?  Yes, it's a QB driven league, but half the starting QBs are mediocre to awful.  Too many coming out of college without enough experience---or, worse, are basically option QBs who have no significant passing game, can't read Defenses, can't go through progressions.  It's one look, take off, get injured.  Or guys like Herbert--big arm, great passer, decent rosters, can't win a post season game.  Similar for Ravens.  MVP QB+great HC=playoff futility.

 

Recency bias clouds your post. Dynasties are as rare as we have seen.

[djp14150]

14 hours ago, Mikie2times said:

When you look at what New England accomplished, it’s clear they did something unprecedented in professional football. Sure, we’ve seen dynasties before—teams like the Bears in the Halas era, the Browns in the AAFL, the Packers, Steelers, and 49ers all had their time at the top. But as someone who’s followed the sport closely since the early '90s, and has really dug into its history, I didn’t think we’d ever see anything like what the Patriots did. That kind of sustained dominance, stretching across multiple decades, felt like it would never happen again. It seemed like something that couldn’t be replicated.

 

Yet here we are, with Kansas City chasing a potential three-peat, which—again—has never been done before. The crazy thing is, it only took a single off-season for the Patriots’ dynasty to smoothly transition into Kansas City’s. And when I started thinking about that, as I bounced it around my normal Bills thoughts, it seems to fit. Honestly, I don’t think we’re all that great, but when you take a step back, the truth is nobody else really is either. McDermott, for all the criticism he gets from me and others, is a disciplined coach. Combine that with a top-tier QB, and you’re set to win a lot of games. That’s something most teams just don’t have. So, I started wondering—are these dynasties really as rare as we think, or is this just the new normal for the NFL?

 

Sure, Brady had Manning, Roethlisberger, and others, while Mahomes has Allen, Burrow, Lamar, and others to contend with, but as we’ve hashed out endlessly in these forums, they’re still a step behind. Once you look beyond those guys, who’s really challenging Mahomes and the Chiefs? The NFL is so firmly a quarterback-driven league now. Out of all the professional sports, I’d argue QB is by far the most impactful position, the one that dictates the outcome more than any other. The way the game is structured now, if you have an elite QB, you don’t have down years. You don’t rebuild—you’re always competitive.

 

And when you get a great QB paired with excellent coaching and roster management? That’s when you get dynasties like we’re seeing now. Even back in the old days, when free agency wasn’t a factor, the value of a team was spread out across all positions, with the QB still being the most important piece, but not to the extent it is today. Now, I’m starting to think these so-called dynasties may not be as special or rare as we once thought. They might just be what we can expect moving forward in the NFL. Meanwhile, the rest of the teams are like the Colts with Peyton Mannings, trying to catch up, but for the most part, they’ll just be outclassed.

 

in the era of the salary cap and free agency it is hard to create dynasties because you can’t afford to keep all your players.

 

Phase 1 riding the rookie QB paying for vets

phase 2 QB now needs to be paid, you can’t afford to keep all the other players so you need to choose wisely and draft well and then focus on talent that is hard to get if you aren’t drafting in the top 20.

 

during phase 2 you may take step backs where you might mis the playoffs or be a 6/7 seed

 

phase 3 this is when you need to plan on getting the next QB through the draft. Maybe the starting QB is willing to take less so the team can be better. Maybe they trade the QB to keep the other good players on the team and thrn draft a qb and pay less for a QB wanting a chance to start ( mayfield, Darnold, Seattle traded Wilson)

[Thurman#1]

15 hours ago, Mikie2times said:

When you look at what New England accomplished, it’s clear they did something unprecedented in professional football. Sure, we’ve seen dynasties before—teams like the Bears in the Halas era, the Browns in the AAFL, the Packers, Steelers, and 49ers all had their time at the top. But as someone who’s followed the sport closely since the early '90s, and has really dug into its history, I didn’t think we’d ever see anything like what the Patriots did. That kind of sustained dominance, stretching across multiple decades, felt like it would never happen again. It seemed like something that couldn’t be replicated.

 

Yet here we are, with Kansas City chasing a potential three-peat, which—again—has never been done before. The crazy thing is, it only took a single off-season for the Patriots’ dynasty to smoothly transition into Kansas City’s. And when I started thinking about that, as I bounced it around my normal Bills thoughts, it seems to fit. Honestly, I don’t think we’re all that great, but when you take a step back, the truth is nobody else really is either. McDermott, for all the criticism he gets from me and others, is a disciplined coach. Combine that with a top-tier QB, and you’re set to win a lot of games. That’s something most teams just don’t have. So, I started wondering—are these dynasties really as rare as we think, or is this just the new normal for the NFL?

 

Sure, Brady had Manning, Roethlisberger, and others, while Mahomes has Allen, Burrow, Lamar, and others to contend with, but as we’ve hashed out endlessly in these forums, they’re still a step behind. Once you look beyond those guys, who’s really challenging Mahomes and the Chiefs? The NFL is so firmly a quarterback-driven league now. Out of all the professional sports, I’d argue QB is by far the most impactful position, the one that dictates the outcome more than any other. The way the game is structured now, if you have an elite QB, you don’t have down years. You don’t rebuild—you’re always competitive.

 

And when you get a great QB paired with excellent coaching and roster management? That’s when you get dynasties like we’re seeing now. Even back in the old days, when free agency wasn’t a factor, the value of a team was spread out across all positions, with the QB still being the most important piece, but not to the extent it is today. Now, I’m starting to think these so-called dynasties may not be as special or rare as we once thought. They might just be what we can expect moving forward in the NFL. Meanwhile, the rest of the teams are like the Colts with Peyton Mannings, trying to catch up, but for the most part, they’ll just be outclassed.

 

 

First, two dynasties after 2000 is just about what you'd expect. It's rare at much the same as the historical rate. One every ten to twelve years or so, though it depends exactly how you define a dynasty.

 

Second, you say, "I didn’t think we’d ever see anything like what the Patriots did. That kind of sustained dominance, stretching across multiple decades, felt like it would never happen again. It seemed like something that couldn’t be replicated. Yet here we are, with Kansas City chasing a potential three-peat."

 

Um, here we aren't.They're way way short of what New England did. They're much more in line with most of the other dynasties. And after five years or so, many of those dynasties looked like they had a good chance to keep on going. Most of them didn't.

 

KC won't be ranked with NE until and unless they run off at least three or four more titles.

 

 

Edited Saturday at 02:48 PM by Thurman#1

[SoTier]

8 hours ago, 90sBills said:

For most, me included, a dynasty has to include 3 Super Bowl wins within 4-7yr span. Dolphins and Cowboys were great teams in the 70s but the true dynasty was the Steelers. Just like the ‘00 Steelers were not a dynasty even though they won 2 amidst the Patriots dynasty. 
 

The only one that was borderline on your list would be Washington. But their championships were too spread out while being book ended by 2 legitimate dynasties in the 49ers and Cowboys. 
 

70s Vikings? 90s Bills? C’mon. Making it to the big game 4 times is a major accomplishment. Not winning at least 1 is a major failure. Great teams but not even close to being a dynasty. 

 

Did you do a poll to support your claim that "most" define "a dynasty has to include 3 Super Bowl wins within a 4-7 yr span"?   A dynasty in sports is simply a team that dominates for a prolonged period of time.   What constitutes "domination" and "prolong period of time" is open to discussion.  Is winning a championship a requirement?  Yes.  Is winning multiple Super Bowls within a specified time period a a requirement?  I'm not sure.  Is a team that strings together 3 Super Bowl wins in 5 years but fails to make the playoffs for a decade before and after its SB run a "dynasty" while a team that wins a Super Bowl ever 3 years over 10 years with playoff wins in all of those non-SB seasons isn't?    I can't accept having a short, arbitrary time limit on SB wins, primarily because of the NFL's win-or-go home playoff format subjects teams to so much randomness.  

 

47 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

HOF Qb and HC aren't common.  There have been a handful of dynastic NFL teams over 60 years...so, still rare.  We just happen to see 2 back to back. 

 

New normal?  Yes, it's a QB driven league, but half the starting QBs are mediocre to awful.  Too many coming out of college without enough experience---or, worse, are basically option QBs who have no significant passing game, can't read Defenses, can't go through progressions.  It's one look, take off, get injured.  Or guys like Herbert--big arm, great passer, decent rosters, can't win a post season game.  Similar for Ravens.  MVP QB+great HC=playoff futility.

 

Recency bias clouds your post. Dynasties are as rare as we have seen.

 

I don't disagree that dynasties remain rare.  I think that creating a dynasty is infinitely more complicated in today's free agency/salary cap era than in the past, but not impossible.   The Pats and Chiefs have demonstrated that.  OTOH, there's no guarantee that another team will take up the torch from either of those two teams. 

 

I think that the actual talent levels between the best and worst teams isn't very large today because of FA and the salary cap.  I've seen estimates of the differences being like 15%.  The real differences are in the quality of the FO management and the coaching staff.   To create a dynasty, a team has to put together the right combination of management, coaching, and players, and that's really, really hard to do when promising talents are being plucked from the FOs and coaching staffs of winning teams at the same time as the player rosters are in continually flux because of FA and salary cap considerations. 

[90sBills]

4 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

Did you do a poll to support your claim that "most" define "a dynasty has to include 3 Super Bowl wins within a 4-7 yr span"?   A dynasty in sports is simply a team that dominates for a prolonged period of time.   What constitutes "domination" and "prolong period of time" is open to discussion.  Is winning a championship a requirement?  Yes.  Is winning multiple Super Bowls within a specified time period a a requirement?  I'm not sure.  Is a team that strings together 3 Super Bowl wins in 5 years but fails to make the playoffs for a decade before and after its SB run a "dynasty" while a team that wins a Super Bowl ever 3 years over 10 years with playoff wins in all of those non-SB seasons isn't?    I can't accept having a short, arbitrary time limit on SB wins, primarily because of the NFL's win-or-go home playoff format subjects teams to so much randomness.  

 

If you need a poll to tell you what a legitimate NFL dynasty is then you haven’t watch football long enough or simply haven’t paid enough attention. The current dynasty in KC was not considered that until they won their third Super Bowl last year. It was the coronation of them being an official dynasty. 

[Mikie2times]

58 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

First, two dynasties after 2000 is just about what you'd expect. It's rare at much the same as the historical rate. One every ten to twelve years or so, though it depends exactly how you define a dynasty.

 

Second, you say, "I didn’t think we’d ever see anything like what the Patriots did. That kind of sustained dominance, stretching across multiple decades, felt like it would never happen again. It seemed like something that couldn’t be replicated. Yet here we are, with Kansas City chasing a potential three-peat."

 

Um, here we aren't.They're way way short of what New England did. They're much more in line with most of the other dynasties. And after five years or so, many of those dynasties looked like they had a good chance to keep on going. Most of them didn't.

 

KC won't be ranked with NE until and unless they run off at least three or four more titles.

 

 

By all means, please tell me the team in NFL history who has been to 4 Super Bowls in 5 years and won 3 of them. 

[Mikie2times]

1 hour ago, djp14150 said:

 

in the era of the salary cap and free agency it is hard to create dynasties because you can’t afford to keep all your players.

 

Phase 1 riding the rookie QB paying for vets

phase 2 QB now needs to be paid, you can’t afford to keep all the other players so you need to choose wisely and draft well and then focus on talent that is hard to get if you aren’t drafting in the top 20.

 

during phase 2 you may take step backs where you might mis the playoffs or be a 6/7 seed

 

phase 3 this is when you need to plan on getting the next QB through the draft. Maybe the starting QB is willing to take less so the team can be better. Maybe they trade the QB to keep the other good players on the team and thrn draft a qb and pay less for a QB wanting a chance to start ( mayfield, Darnold, Seattle traded Wilson)

This is where I disagree. The Patriots Dynasty as it happened would not of happened without Free Agency. It allowed them to reload the roster quickly where in the old days those players would eventually retire and backfilling solely by the draft would have been unlikely. As long as the QB stays the same the rest of the parts can change. 

 

2 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

HOF Qb and HC aren't common.  There have been a handful of dynastic NFL teams over 60 years...so, still rare.  We just happen to see 2 back to back. 

 

New normal?  Yes, it's a QB driven league, but half the starting QBs are mediocre to awful.  Too many coming out of college without enough experience---or, worse, are basically option QBs who have no significant passing game, can't read Defenses, can't go through progressions.  It's one look, take off, get injured.  Or guys like Herbert--big arm, great passer, decent rosters, can't win a post season game.  Similar for Ravens.  MVP QB+great HC=playoff futility.

 

Recency bias clouds your post. Dynasties are as rare as we have seen.

The relationship between how big a role the coach plays and how big a role the QB plays is forever up for debate. Andy didn't do what he's doing until Mahomes came along. That was after a very long career. Same with Bill and it most certainly ended as soon as Brady left. We know these guys are great coaches, but they don't seem to hit this legendary status until they have the QB. So I think it's likely a bit more common than we would think. That QB is creating an environment that is fairly ideal for these HC's which allows them stability, tenure, growth. If they're good they become better as a result. 

 

I mean, maybe, but we are seeing something that hasn't occurred before. So you can either take on the perspective that it's random or you can take on the perspective that its not random. It's logical to me why this is occurring after a prolonged run by the Patriots.  I expect it will keep occurring (extreme or prolonged dynasties). We will see over the coming years. Appreciate your post. 

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

What's strange is that the NFC hasn't come close to having a dynasty despite 4 time league MVP Aaron Rodgers playing there for 15 seasons and having multiple first round byes including the overall 1 seed. One Super Bowl appearance for the Packers and Rodgers is one of the biggest failures in sports. The NFC did not have consistent dominant QB's outside of Rodgers. The conference was ripe for the Packers to at least have a 90's Bills type dynasty of domination in the conference. 

 

The NFC has had a string of very good teams that have been close to a dynasty, most notably the Seahawks lead by the Legion of Boom and a young Russell Wilson  and the 49ers with Shanahan and John Lynch seemingly able to to hit on pick after pick and plug and play players without missing a beat. 

 

The inability of Rodgers and the Packers (generally considered a well run organization with a home field advantage) to dominate their own conference still suggests dynasty's are hard to come by. It could simply be coincidence that we are seeing two back to back in the AFC. As great as Mahomes is as an individual player, and he is fantastic, KC has had an embarrassment of riches on that team since 2018. And exactly when the offense starts to age and lose key pieces, Chris Jones turns into the leagues best defensive player the defense becomes dominant and Butker takes over the mantle of leagues best kicker. All of the forementioned is a great achievement for the Chiefs front office and organization but would you want to bet on those things all happening again for another team after the current Chiefs dynasty finishes?

 

I guess KC is what the current 49ers team and the 2012 - 2016 Seahawks teams would have been if they had the best QB in the league instead of just a top 5 - 10 QB. 

Edited Saturday at 07:07 PM by Sammy Watkins' Rib

[djp14150]

3 hours ago, Mikie2times said:

This is where I disagree. The Patriots Dynasty as it happened would not of happened without Free Agency. It allowed them to reload the roster quickly where in the old days those players would eventually retire and backfilling solely by the draft would have been unlikely. As long as the QB stays the same the rest of the parts can change. 

 

The relationship between how big a role the coach plays and how big a role the QB plays is forever up for debate. Andy didn't do what he's doing until Mahomes came along. That was after a very long career. Same with Bill and it most certainly ended as soon as Brady left. We know these guys are great coaches, but they don't seem to hit this legendary status until they have the QB. So I think it's likely a bit more common than we would think. That QB is creating an environment that is fairly ideal for these HC's which allows them stability, tenure, growth. If they're good they become better as a result. 

 

I mean, maybe, but we are seeing something that hasn't occurred before. So you can either take on the perspective that it's random or you can take on the perspective that its not random. It's logical to me why this is occurring after a prolonged run by the Patriots.  I expect it will keep occurring (extreme or prolonged dynasties). We will see over the coming years. Appreciate your post. 

in free agency you can’t keep your good draft picks so you need to constantly succeed at drafting players.

 

in the Patriots situation you are a regular good team you can get good players on discounts because they want a ring. You are cap strapped where you can’t go and buy players.  In Cincy they will not be able to keep chase and Higgins one has to go.

 

i don’t rate Belicheat high because he got lucky with Brady and rode him. A coach going to different teams or changing over at QB mean a lot more. The year Brady went down for the year in game one on a turn ACL in 2008 thry missed the playoffs but would have made it with a 7th WC. They benefited from a super weak schedule.  That same year bills were 7-3 outside the division, easily could have been 9-1 in two close losses. They went 0-6 in division. 

 

you don’t measure coaches by Super Bowl championships. You measure them by playoffs. Playoffs is a lot of luck involved, needing a healthy team.Reid was a very good coach in Philadelphia. Harbaugh did something in SF, now he seems to be doing something with the chargers.  His brother in baltimore changed starting QB

 

 

 

 

[Mr. WEO]

3 hours ago, Mikie2times said:

This is where I disagree. The Patriots Dynasty as it happened would not of happened without Free Agency. It allowed them to reload the roster quickly where in the old days those players would eventually retire and backfilling solely by the draft would have been unlikely. As long as the QB stays the same the rest of the parts can change. 

 

The relationship between how big a role the coach plays and how big a role the QB plays is forever up for debate. Andy didn't do what he's doing until Mahomes came along. That was after a very long career. Same with Bill and it most certainly ended as soon as Brady left. We know these guys are great coaches, but they don't seem to hit this legendary status until they have the QB. So I think it's likely a bit more common than we would think. That QB is creating an environment that is fairly ideal for these HC's which allows them stability, tenure, growth. If they're good they become better as a result. 

 

I mean, maybe, but we are seeing something that hasn't occurred before. So you can either take on the perspective that it's random or you can take on the perspective that its not random. It's logical to me why this is occurring after a prolonged run by the Patriots.  I expect it will keep occurring (extreme or prolonged dynasties). We will see over the coming years. Appreciate your post. 

 

Yes great HC/QB combos are hard to beat.  Several HOF combos come to mind. BB was a great coordinator/coach for the Giants.  Brady was not a sure thing, and how many future HOFers were on that roster over that 20 year run?  They have had no long term feature back, they had one great (or even very good) WR briefly.  A couple of very good long term Defensive players.  That's it.  yet they went on a run that will not be repeated--2 decades, 7 SB's, 6 Lombardies.  Once Brady left, no HC was going anywhere with that team. 

 

 

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

18 hours ago, Mikie2times said:

The Patriots won 6 Super Bowls in 9 appearances

The Chiefs have won 3 Super Bowls in 4 appearances with no end in sight

 

 

Yep those two runs were / are mostly unprecedented. The Patriots run was 19 consecutive years. Winning 18 out of 19 division titles. And shockingly they had an 8 year title drought but they were still dominant all 8 of those years and in fact 2007 was probably their best team ever and they didn't even win it all. Brady basically had three HOF careers. One with three titles early as young QB, one that spanned 8 years in his prime and no titles won and the final one being one that started at the age of 37 and saw him one four titles during that time. The Patriots played in 8 straight AFC title games from 2011 to 2018 that saw them play in 5 super bowls and win 3 of them during those 8 years.

 

The Chiefs have won 8 straight AFC West titles, Patriots longest streak during their 19 year run was 11 (likely would have been a 19 year streak if Brady doesn't go down in 2008). The Chiefs have played in six consecutive AFC titles games and counting and are on track to make that seven. Patriots longest streak was 8 so they are close to their heals if they achieve it again this year.

 

It does feel like the competition in the AFC is heating up. Ravens are arguably the best team on paper this year and possibly have the back to back MVP. Allen is still Allen and the Bills are dominate as usual as a league leader in point differential as we have become accustomed too. Even the Steelers are becoming intriguing again. To me Tomlin and McDermott are very similar coaches. And true team leaders. If the Steelers finally have a QB again that is competent they could be a treat to anyone. 

[djp14150]

13 minutes ago, Sammy Watkins' Rib said:

What's strange is that the NFC hasn't come close to having a dynasty despite 4 time league MVP Aaron Rodgers playing there for 15 seasons and having multiple first round byes including the overall 1 seed. One Super Bowl appearance for the Packers and Rodgers is one of the biggest failures in sports. The NFC did not have consistent dominant QB's outside of Rodgers. The conference was ripe for the Packers to at least have a 90's Bills type dynasty of domination in the conference. 

 

The NFC has had a string of very good teams that have been close to a dynasty, most notably the Seahawks lead by the Legion of Boom and a young Russell Wilson  and the 49ers with Shanahan and John Lynch seemingly able to to hit on pick after pick and plug and play players without missing a beat. 

 

The inability of Rodgers and the Packers (generally considered a well run organization with a home field advantage) to dominate their own conference still suggests dynasty's are hard to come by. It could simply be coincidence that we are seeing two back to back in the AFC. As great as Mahomes is as an individual player, and he is fantastic, KC has had an embarrassment of riches on that team since 2018. And exactly when the offense starts to age and lose key pieces, Chris Jones turns into the leagues best defensive player the defense becomes dominant and Butker takes over the mantle of leagues best kicker. All of the forementioned is a great achievement for the Chiefs front office and organization but would you want to bet on those things all happening again for another team after the current Chiefs dynasty finishes?

 

I guess KC is what the current 49ers team and the 2012 - 2016 Seahawks teams would have been if they had the best QB in the league instead of just a top 5 - 10 QB. 

 

NFC has been more balanced in SB appearances since Rodgers won. SEA, SF, Rams, Eagles have had 2 appearances

GB has made the playoffs the most. DAL and NO had the second most since without making the SB but SEA and SF have had more playoff appearances.

 

both Patriots and Packers benefited from weaker divisions which made it easier to regularly make the playoffs. If you go 5-2 in div and 7+ wins outside division you are likely a 1or 2 seed.

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

14 hours ago, Mikie2times said:

The league always has one QB who is a notch better. Perhaps it’s only in the biggest games and brightest moments. Brady and Mahomes have been those guys (as was Montana). Peyton was not. Allen has been great, but I wouldn’t say he is one of those guy yet (please for the love of god don’t make this thread about that statement). Point is, we know Brady and Mahomes have been. The performance they have deep in the playoffs stands by itself. 
 

 

What's your take on Rodgers, Mikie?  Well run organization, strong home field advantage and Rodgers was undoubtably one of the best if not the best QB in the league for most of his tenure in Green Bay by evidence of 4 league MVP's. Yet only one ring and even worse only one conference title.