NFL Dynasty....
 

67-68 Packers (2 super bowl wins, back to back).

72-74 Dolphins (2 super bowl wins in 2 years, back to back, one appearance loss and an undefeated season).

75-80 Steelers (4 super bowl appearances and wins in 6 years, and twice back to back).

77-84 Raiders (3 super bowl wins in 8yrs).

82-90 49ers (4 super bowl wins in 9years, once back to back).

83-92 Redskins (3 super bowl wins in 10yrs).

93-96 Cowboys (3 super bowl wins in 4 years, once back to back).

02-05 Patriots (3 super bowl wins in 4 years, once back to back).

Ok, the criteria I used to be on the list were 3 super bowl wins in 10 years or less.

The two exceptions are the 72-74 Dolphins who appeared in the 72 super bowl and lost, but then also had an undefeated season.

The other exception the 67-68 Packers, they won the first two "Super Bowls" after the NFL and AFC merged. Before that the Packers had won the 65 "NFL Championship" giving them 3 in a row, and they also won in 62 and 61, giving them 5 in 9 years.

Wait for poll. (I type slowly) :)

This is a tough call.

I'm taking the 93-96 Cowboys.

Reason is while both them and the Pats won 3 in 4 years and back to back. The Cowboys destroyed the Bills in 93, beat the pretty easy in 94 and didn't get much of a game from the Steelers in 96, where the Pats won my 3 points all 3 times.

If the Pats win next year and become the only team to 3peat, and one of 3 teams to appear 3 times in a row (dolphins 2-1, and bills 0-4 are the only two to appear 3 times in a row).

Then I'd change my vote to the Pats.

After the Cowboys and Pats, I'd have to look to the Phins, Steelers and I really don't know much about the 60's packers (insert senrab age joke here) but the game has changed a lot in 40 years.

Eagles... 2000-2005 DYNASTY OF LOSERS :rofl:

We could start that with the Bills and Broncos.

How would the Broncos be in there? I mean I know they lost a few Super Bowls but they still ended the Elway era 2-3.

49ers!!!!!!!!! :y:

70s Steelers

83-92 Redskins

:shifty:

But seriously, Cowboys.

I put the Steelers, just because based on what I've heard they are pretty much the definition of what a dynasty is. I've heard people say before that the Packers who won Super Bowl 1 etc. weren't actually that great, the whole league just wasn't very good or something. Also, personally I don't buy into that whole "Having a dynasty in this day and age is impossible due to the salary cap" argument. I will go more into that later, but in my opinion they are making it into a giant factor when it is really only a big factor.

1) Only 2 wins.

2) There last loss was 8yrs before they won, it was a tottaly different team.

I know, some like the 77-84 Raiders & 83-92 Skins had varried teams and were a stretch, but still had 3 wins.

I don't see how you could consider the Broncos the "best dynasty" cause if you're taking into account their losses, then the 0-4 Bills, only team to appear 4 in a row would win over them.

You have to factor free agency and the salary cap... but just to be silly, say for moment we don't, wouldn't the Cowboys and Pats who each won 3 in 4 years, vs. the Steelers who never had more then 2 wins over 4 years, top them?

the steelers won two, weren't in it twice, and then won two.

That being said, only team to win back to back twice. (I think, I may need to double check).

I still think that the Pats will go down in history as one of the best teams ever, but I think its kind of stupid to be having a big discussion about a current team..."Are they a dynasty?" In a few years when they are no longer good, we will look back and say "God damn, the Pats were really good", but right now its just stupid to debate their legacy.

huh?

So, if a team wins the superbowl, goes undefeated the next 2 seasons, meaning 3 superbowl wins in a row including back 2 back undefeated seasons you can't discuss their place in history?

Now that's silly, Bradys secured his spot in the hall of fame, if he retired today he's in.

I'm not arguing against your choice, I just don't understand you're reasoning.

1) Salary cap and Free agency has a major effect on teams that it didn't in the 70's.

2) The Steelers never won more then 2 in 4 years, both the Cowboys and Pats won 3 in 4 years.

again, I picked the cowboys, because they destroyed teams, where while the pats make a lot of good teams look silly, all 3 superbowl wins have been by 3pts.

Joe Montana + Jerry Rice = yes

Its just that the Patriots clearly aren't done being good, and I would rather talk about how good they are now then what we might be thinking of them in 10 years. Personally I don't really consider anything a dynasty until its done, but that is just me. To me everything looks completely different in the future, and when I am looking back in 10 years I will realize how good the Pats were, its just hard to comprehend it while its still going on. Just me though.

Yea actually the Patriots have a real good chance of a 3-peat i think. Also another reason the Cowboys should be above the Patriots for now, is because in the other year they didn't win the superbowl they barely lost to the Niners in the championship game...the Pats missed the playoffs.

Yeah what was up with that? Randomly missing the playoffs inbetween two Super Bowls. WTF

Cowboys for sure

If the Patriots can win this next season, then there will be no question. Losing your offensive and defensive coordinators though, that can be a problem.

<font color=goldenrod>Hard choice here but I had to give the nod to the Niners.</font>