More shocking dominant teams: 1981-98 49ers or 2001-19 Patriots

[7DnBrnc53]

Which of those team's success was more shocking?

[CSKreager]

Which of those team's success was more shocking?

49ers

NE to that point had made 2 SB’s and 2001 was only a few years removed from their decent 1994-1999 run

SF OTOH was basically bottom of the barrel at the end of the 70s and were further from their heyday of the early 70s

[74_75_78_79_]

Yes, the Pats prior to 2001 had more recent success than the Forty Niners had prior to '81. In fact, NE under Carroll & Bledsoe started 6-2 just two years prior. But whereas San Fran was still a contender 17 years later in 1998, NE won yet another SB 17 years after '01 as well as still having the same Head Coach and starting Quarterback! That makes the Pats' long run even more remarkable to me.

[Brian wolf]

I agree ... 49ers. To win a SB just four years removed from Joe Thomas was a miracle in itself.

[SeahawkFever]

Which of those team's success was more shocking?

49ers

NE to that point had made 2 SB’s and 2001 was only a few years removed from their decent 1994-1999 run

SF OTOH was basically bottom of the barrel at the end of the 70s and were further from their heyday of the early 70s

I could see that. Moreover, I'd also take the Patriots of 1998-2000 over the 49ers of 1978-1980.

[7DnBrnc53]

The Chargers spanked the 49ers 31-9 in 1979 (Week 5). The loss dropped SF to 0-5 (they would start 1-13 before beating the playoff-bound Bucs 23-7 in Week 14). At that point, if I had to guess, it looked like the Chargers had way better odds to be the team of the 80's.

[Mark]

One thing that seems to be missing in this conversation is that the Packers of the 60s, The Steelers of the 70s, The 49ers of the 1980s and the Cowboys of the 1990s all hit bottom before they started their dynasties. The Patriots were an exception unless you go all the way back to 1990. In that sense the Patriots seem the more shocking as they went against the previous norm.

[SeahawkFever]

One thing that seems to be missing in this conversation is that the Packers of the 60s, The Steelers of the 70s, The 49ers of the 1980s and the Cowboys of the 1990s all hit bottom before they started their dynasties. The Patriots were an exception unless you go all the way back to 1990. In that sense the Patriots seem the more shocking as they went against the previous norm.

How about Kansas City in that regard?

[Mark]

One thing that seems to be missing in this conversation is that the Packers of the 60s, The Steelers of the 70s, The 49ers of the 1980s and the Cowboys of the 1990s all hit bottom before they started their dynasties. The Patriots were an exception unless you go all the way back to 1990. In that sense the Patriots seem the more shocking as they went against the previous norm.

How about Kansas City in that regard?

Same thing as the Patriots. I just wonder if in the free agency era the path to a dynasty has changed, though I don't think the dynasties prior to the 60s Packers had hit rock bottom either.

[7DnBrnc53]

In 2017, the Eagles came close to starting their own dynasty.

They won that year (would have been changing of the guard), and if Jeffery doesn't drop that pass in NO in the 18 Div. Round, they may have won that game (they would have played the Rams, and they would have been one game away from having a chance to beat NE again).

Then, in 2022, they were ripped off by the officials before winning last year. It could have been four in eight years (and in two different decades) like Golden State.

Also, Seattle had a dynasty shot if they just ran the geekin' ball in SB 49.

As for the Pats, I don't consider them a legit dynasty because of Spygate and shenanigans with the NFL. The Colts, Rams, or Ravens should have been the 2000's dynasty.