themunn":1lol0kzm said:
(quote="ZagHawk")I think with the salary cap, the definition of dynasty must change to be that a group of Core players staying together can manage to win 2-3 SBs and multiple playoff runs in a 8-10 year period. I think the only dynasty that has come out of the salary cap era are the Patriots. The Giants had they had more playoffs run and/or much less lows, but it is hard to ignore their 2 SB wins in I think 6 years?
Edit: Talked with a friend. I'm changing my definition of dynasty
Span 5-6 years
Minimum requirement 3 SB wins.
Only team to do it recently Patriots. Team that came close Steelers. Anything less would mean great team and franchise, just not "dynasty". That seems fair.
Disagree. I'd say if you had 2 wins and 3 further superbowl appearances over a 5 year period you'd definitely be considered in the bracket.
3 wins in say a 10 year period might not be in your definition either, but again, if we made it to the NFCCG in 7 or 8 of those seasons you'd be looking at one of the most consistently successful periods in NFL history.
That's basically what the Raiders did in the 70s, with 8 appearances and 3 wins over an 11 year period (1st and last superbowl were 8 years apart). There's no debating that they were a dynasty alongside the Steelers at the time(/quote)
Sorry, but dynasty is a minimum of 3 SB's in a 5-7 year period tops.
No team that won even 2 consecutive SB's was considered a dynasty, and there are only 5 widely recognized SB dynasty teams ever;
1960's Packers
1970's Steelers
1980's Niners
1990's Cowboys
2000's Patriots
No one calls the Broncos a "Dynasty," and they won two years in row.