[DJay23]

Originally Posted by RedinTexas

It raises some of the questions I posed in another thread about dynasties. When does a dynasty begin? When does it end? The Patriots missed the playoffs entirely in the 2008 season. They went 3 seasons without winning a playoff game from 2008-2010. They went 10 seasons without winning the Super Bowl with only 2 Super Bowl appearances in the middle of their run.

If we're supposed to think of the Patriots as having a single dynasty rather than 2 separate dynasties, then that would give credence to claims like Buffalo having a dynasty in the early 90s even though they never won the Super Bowl, or Minnesota in the late 60s and 70s.

The term "dynasty" is too loosely defined for these purposes.

Right about the dynasty definition. Since there is not an agreed upon metric for that, everyone has their own definition. But if you aggregate all of the conversations about dynasties over the years, you usually hear the 60s Packers (if you lump the NFL championships pre Super Bowl...which I think confuses things too much so I leave them out of Super Bowl dynasty talk), the 70s Steelers, the 80s Niners, the 90s Cowboys, the 00s Patriots (or if you prefer the 00s and 10s Patriots), and now the 20s Chiefs.

Early 70s Dolphins went to 3 straight, had an undefeated season and won back to back. They would be next on my list, just didn't run the success long enough.

I mostly lump the the Patriots 2 dynasties into one because it is the same coach and QB combo for that entire stretch. That's an unprecedented aspect to their run like winning 2 back to back for the Steelers, or 3 in a row would be for the Chiefs.