Friday, February 06, 2009


Currently I am working on a follow up to the last post I made about dynasties in the NFL, addressing questions like how long of a time span should we look at at one time, can there be two dynasties at the same time, does more than playoff performance matter, and other ponderables. If you have any thoughts about what defines a dynasty, and it doesn't just have to be in the NFL, I would like to hear them.


B.E. Earl said...

For me, a dynasty involves 3 or more championships in a 5 or 6 year period. The Yankees from 1996-2000. The Patriots from 2001-2004. The Lakers from 2000-2002. The Spurs from 2003-2007. The Red Wings from 1997-2002...barely.

Two championships is awesome. The Steelers are on their way to a dynasty, like their brothers from the 70's. Just not yet.

Ookami Snow said...

What about the Bills of the 90s? 4 Super Bowl appearances in a row, that is dominant AFC football.

B.E. Earl said...

Dominant, yes.

Dynastic, no.

You gotta win to be a dynasty.

(I just realized that I heart the word "dynastic", if it is a word. Screw it, I'm using it every day from know on)

Ookami Snow said...

I just learned about the word dynastic today from looking at the Wiki article on Dynasties.

So would a team that won the super bowl 3 out of 6 years still be a dynasty is they failed to make the playoffs the other years in between?

B.E. Earl said...

I would say "yes".

3 championships out of 6 years is a dynasty regardless of what happened in the other three years. My opinion.