Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

SeahawkFever wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 5:41 pm

7DnBrnc53 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 5:33 pm

The Lakers get swept in the NBA Finals in both '83 and also '89. I think everyone sees 'Showtime' as a...Dynasty.

The Lakers ended up winning five titles, so they were a true dynasty. The Chiefs are still a soft dynasty as yet.

How do you define a "soft" dynasty?

A team that had sustained success, but won less than four world titles.

It isnt over for KC until someone can knock them off the hill in the AFC. As long as they have Spags and a top-notch defense, they will be back. Is Kelce done? With Worthy over the top, he can still be effective but the other receivers--Brown, Hopkins, Rice--are up in the air?

Three titles in 5 years in this era? Seems dynastic to me.

I guess the question is were the Dallas Cowboys a dynasty in early 1990s or not.

My lifetime --- Packers - 60s, Steelers 70s, 49ers 80s, Patriots - Brady/BB - kind of this century's dynasty, though Brady era anyway.

If Cowboys were then Chiefs are. And if Cowboys were not, Chiefs are not.

I always thought Cowboys were.

Since there is no firm definition of a sports dynasty this is basically a pointless thread. The Chiefs are whatever someone thinks they are.

7 straight AFC Championship appearances, 3-2 in SBs in a 6 yr span. An incredible run. Only the Bengals kept them from possibly 6 straight SB games. Mahomes isnt even 30 yet.

JohnTurney wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2025 7:11 pm Three titles in 5 years in this era? Seems dynastic to me.

I guess the question is were the Dallas Cowboys a dynasty in early 1990s or not.

My lifetime --- Packers - 60s, Steelers 70s, 49ers 80s, Patriots - Brady/BB - kind of this century's dynasty, though Brady era anyway.

If Cowboys were then Chiefs are. And if Cowboys were not, Chiefs are not.

I always thought Cowboys were.

Are the 1950's Lions a dynasty, with 3 titles in 6 years, and a 4th title game appearance sandwiched in there? Or is the final title too far away, especially since they had a different coach and quarterback? The bulk of Christiensen's Crew was there for all three titles.

conace21 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 14, 2025 7:38 pm

JohnTurney wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2025 7:11 pm Three titles in 5 years in this era? Seems dynastic to me.

I guess the question is were the Dallas Cowboys a dynasty in early 1990s or not.

My lifetime --- Packers - 60s, Steelers 70s, 49ers 80s, Patriots - Brady/BB - kind of this century's dynasty, though Brady era anyway.

If Cowboys were then Chiefs are. And if Cowboys were not, Chiefs are not.

I always thought Cowboys were.

Are the 1950's Lions a dynasty, with 3 titles in 6 years, and a 4th title game appearance sandwiched in there? Or is the final title too far away, especially since they had a different coach and quarterback? The bulk of Christiensen's Crew was there for all three titles.

Another question is can there be two "dynasties" within the same time frame.
Probably not by the strict definition but there have been "competing dynasties" in sports such as the Celtics/Lakers or 50's Lions/Browns.
Or Sparta and Athens, Rome and Carthage...

In the final analysis I think such subjective things as dynasties are probably a matter of opinion and open to interpretation.
Dynasty or not I think the Chiefs are/were a darn good team within their time frame and their accomplishments warrant recognition.

Now, about those 90's Cowboys...
Grrrrr
(49ers fan)

conace21 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 14, 2025 7:38 pm

JohnTurney wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2025 7:11 pm Three titles in 5 years in this era? Seems dynastic to me.

I guess the question is were the Dallas Cowboys a dynasty in early 1990s or not.

My lifetime --- Packers - 60s, Steelers 70s, 49ers 80s, Patriots - Brady/BB - kind of this century's dynasty, though Brady era anyway.

If Cowboys were then Chiefs are. And if Cowboys were not, Chiefs are not.

I always thought Cowboys were.

Are the 1950's Lions a dynasty, with 3 titles in 6 years, and a 4th title game appearance sandwiched in there? Or is the final title too far away, especially since they had a different coach and quarterback? The bulk of Christiensen's Crew was there for all three titles.

I think the Lions qualify---but barely. My yardstick generally is 3 titles in a 5-6 year span, with overall excellence throughout. But in the middle of that nice '50s run the Lions also finished last one season (3-9 in 1955) and suffered one of the worst title game blowouts ever (56-10 beatdown to Cleveland in '54 championship game). And as you point out, that 1957 team had a new HC and Tobin Rote doing the QBing in the postseason instead of Layne. But the 1950s Lions still qualify as a dynasty. The things that cement it in my mind is that, No. 1, they were almost unbeatable in the postseason (5-1) and, No. 2 they absolutely owned the team that most consider the top pro team of the era, the postwar Browns. And except for that hiccup in 1955, the Lions were a dominant force for most of the decade. They could have won 6 division titles in 7 years: in 1951 and 1956 they went into the last game of the season needing just a tie to clinch the division. They lost both times; ironically, both games were played on Buddy Parker's birthday. Otherwise Detroit might have gone on to win a 4th or even 5th championship in that 7-season run of 1951-57.

IIRC half of that 1957 Detroit team hadn't been around 3 seasons earlier when the Lions last played in the postseason.

All Dynasties in NFL history have been separated by at least a few years; or maybe a little longer as the case with Browns/Packers and Cowboys/Patriots each at roughly 5 years - and even longer between NE's first and second Dynasty!

Yes, I said/opine, two NE Dynasties instead of one! Now when does one 'end' and the other 'begin'? I'll leave it to debate though 2007 obviously comes to mind for when the first one ended. Maybe you can say that it ended a little earlier. But the second one obviously begins in 2014 with me. Hey...a NINE-year donut-hole of no Lombardis! I feel that it should be seen as two Dynasties; 3 World Titles apiece.

Just two years separate the Steelers & Forty Niners with that Wk #9 match in '81 hardly being less, if less at all, a 'change-of-guard' affair than "the Catch" the following January.

And then there's the ZERO years separating the second Pats Dynasty and this current Chiefs one! Patrick Mahomes, in his first year playing (2018), led KC to home-field and the AFCCG bringing Tom Brady into OT. Pats win the coin-toss, Brady drives his team to victory and then their final Lombardi two weeks later, and then in 2019 the Chiefs win their first of this current Dynasty of theirs!

I remember shortly after that campaign, Rupert Patrick opining that the 2018 Chiefs were already, so far, the best KC team ever - even better than '69! I respectfully disagreed. But without starting another thread, could the 2018 Kansas City Chiefs actually be, at least, better than all KC teams that have come since? This despite no SB-appearance?

I'd think so. First, I just remembered, after forgetting yet again, that they "only" finished 12-4. Of course the '79 Steelers are King with me but perhaps they can be seen as one of the very best 12-4 teams ever. If Brady en route to his last ever World Champ with NE is the reason why you didn't advance, whilst bringing his team into OT, with Pats getting the ball/coin-toss...'Exhibit A' of "ain't no crime" as can possibly be! Yes, no SB-appearance, but IMHO I consider 2018 a part of their Dynasty and even go as far as to say that they're the very best Mahomes installment thus far (17-3 two years ago their best otherwise, IMO)!


"You must win at least 3 Titles to be a Dynasty (and within a short-enough period of time)"...I'll add, which I think I have previously, that you should also have at least one...back-to-back. This, very sadly with me, disqualifies Gibbs' Redskins and Gregg Popovich's Spurs. Two of Washington's wins being in strike years, fair or not (not), doesn't help legacy-wise along with SA starting their run 'Year One after Jordan' (yes, also strike-shortened) whilst failing to interrupt Kobe/Shaq's three-peat, also fair or not (not, as well), doesn't help either.

Perhaps they're as close to being a Dynasty without actually being one. Should they be termed as...'near'-Dynasties?? Just a simple Washington beating the Raiders and SA beating the Heat in '13, as they would do in 2014 (and decisively), it likely ends up a different story for each.

4-time NBA champ/arguable GOAT with some (though I got Jordan, and then Kobe, above him), Lebron James, has never played on an NBA Dynasty. Miami doesn't cut it, sadly. Either add one over Dirk in '11, or another over Pop/Duncan in '14. Take your pick.

I've already heavily opined on other threads that BEARS/REDSKINS from '37-thru-'43 (2-2 in LCGs, 4-4 overall) are the Greatest inter-conference rivalry ever. But could it, possibly, be argued that even the Bears in that stretch are actually a Dynasty? Now Washington in that stretch, sadly, isn't one; or at least in my opinion. Just two Titles, and even had..."the goal-post not gotten in the way" in '45, does that hypo third Title, fair or not, possibly get 'tainted' due to the War still having an effect? Which then leads directly to if the Bears' Title in '43 is seen as such as well? Or does 1946, despite years away, nicely tie things all up? I'll say yes to that. Maybe I'm wrong to even entertain any of this logic at all, and am very open to suddenly seeing it that way, but it couldn't help but to at least enter the mind.

RichardBak wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2025 7:47 am

conace21 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 14, 2025 7:38 pm

JohnTurney wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2025 7:11 pm Three titles in 5 years in this era? Seems dynastic to me.

I guess the question is were the Dallas Cowboys a dynasty in early 1990s or not.

My lifetime --- Packers - 60s, Steelers 70s, 49ers 80s, Patriots - Brady/BB - kind of this century's dynasty, though Brady era anyway.

If Cowboys were then Chiefs are. And if Cowboys were not, Chiefs are not.

I always thought Cowboys were.

Are the 1950's Lions a dynasty, with 3 titles in 6 years, and a 4th title game appearance sandwiched in there? Or is the final title too far away, especially since they had a different coach and quarterback? The bulk of Christiensen's Crew was there for all three titles.

I think the Lions qualify---but barely. My yardstick generally is 3 titles in a 5-6 year span, with overall excellence throughout. But in the middle of that nice '50s run the Lions also finished last one season (3-9 in 1955) and suffered one of the worst title game blowouts ever (56-10 beatdown to Cleveland in '54 championship game). And as you point out, that 1957 team had a new HC and Tobin Rote doing the QBing in the postseason instead of Layne. But the 1950s Lions still qualify as a dynasty. The things that cement it in my mind is that, No. 1, they were almost unbeatable in the postseason (5-1) and, No. 2 they absolutely owned the team that most consider the top pro team of the era, the postwar Browns. And except for that hiccup in 1955, the Lions were a dominant force for most of the decade. They could have won 6 division titles in 7 years: in 1951 and 1956 they went into the last game of the season needing just a tie to clinch the division. They lost both times; ironically, both games were played on Buddy Parker's birthday. Otherwise Detroit might have gone on to win a 4th or even 5th championship in that 7-season run of 1951-57.

IIRC half of that 1957 Detroit team hadn't been around 3 seasons earlier when the Lions last played in the postseason.

Very strong agreement on the Lions! And, yes, of course early-'90s Cowboys are a Dynasty! A super-strong, compact 3-in-4 year run. 1994 and even '96 (beat NE & GB, the latter still ISO their first win over them since Holmgren arrived, crushed Vikings 1st Rd, etc) are legit extra additives to make it the case. Back to Detroit, I was thinking of '56 reeking of "coulda-been" (Layne knocked out in the finale). They were very championship-caliber as well. But I also should have thought about '51. Despite "just" being 7-3-1 going into the finale, as pointed out recently by Bryan I believe, that conference was so darn tough as evidenced in the 8-4 Rams beating Cleveland, along with being favored, in the League Championship Game.

From 1988-1997, couldnt some people consider the 49ers a dynasty? They did change head coaches and quartebacks but in that 10 yr-span they went to 7 NFC Championship games with 3 SB wins. Maybe the championship game losses and gap between SB wins subdued the "dynasty" thinking despite consistent success?