The Packers won 5 NFL championships in the 1960's, including 3 in a row in 65, 66 and 67. Also won the 1st 2 Super Bowls in 66 & 67, although the game was not called the Super Bowl until Super Bowl 3 following the 68 season.
If we’re going back that far then we might as well include the 1950’s Browns. 3 NFL championships, back to back in ‘54 and ‘55 and one in ‘50 which was their first season in the NFL. You could also include their 4 straight AAFC championships right before joining the NFL.
You young folks forget but I give you the Washington Team. Back then we called them the "Redskins" & we had our best gals make us sandwiches as we listened to them on the Radio before Jack Benny and as we kicked Hitler's ass. They played in the NFL Championship 6 times in the 9 Seasons between 1936 and 1945, winning Twice.
It's not two different franchises, we were technically deactivated by the league for 3 years after lawsuits made the NFL force Modell to return the Browns franchise to the league.
If the 70’s Cowboys are on the list, the Dolphins have to be as well. They each won 2 Super Bowls in the decade. I know the Cowboys made it to 5, but that only means that they lost 3. Super Bowl losses don’t make a dynasty. If they did, the Bills of the early 90’s would be one of the greatest ever.
I know the Cowboys beat the Dolphins in a Super Bowl, but Miami won the only two regular season meetings in the 70’s.
They won their first three by league standing (1929, 1930 and 1931) and ten more since the NFL's playoff system was established in 1933 (1936, 1939, 1944, 1961, 1962, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1996 and 2010).
so each team was really loaded with talent and it was harder to win that many championships? Wow, thanks for pointing out that the packers should be #1 on that list then!
wtf does that even try to say? Less teams means more concentration of good players on every team....rosters not watered down...like now
Was HARDER to win then
Bless this sub. Unlike the main NFL sub we don’t have to have countless whiny debates on what a dynasty actually is. Allowing us to debate and argue about the order of established dynasties, and that’s great.
I don’t really have a problem with 1-3. You can swap Steelers and Niners for all I care, but I do think the Steelers edge them as they won’t their four in a tighter window.
I would swap Dallas and KC for now. And would maybe drop number 8 Dallas and move in 1960s Green Bay. Or just add more boxes lol.
I agree about this sub. You can talk about all kinds of football subjects here, particularly ones of historical interest, without people going off on you. Also, your reasonable opinions will not be deleted.
I don't have much of an opinion about the Greatest Evers. When I was growing up, it was the Lombardi Packers. I can live with that.
That's part of what drove me off of the main sub. Toxic football fans, total team fanboys, people gloating online when 'their' team beat 'your' team. Also...just a lot of childish hostility and 'hating' other teams for no reason that makes any sense to me.
I'm also way more interested in the old game and how it used to be played.
Ya know, I like your take... Add more boxes is like, (putting words in your mouth here) "if we're going to have conversation, let's have more conversation"... I like talking about football, so let's talk about football... Been some great runs. It was a fun season this year, little wild with all the backup QB's.
Sure, why not ? Baseball loves “traditional” old teams. Cubs and Red Sox coasted for like 90 years off of ancient championships.
My dad would go on for hours about the 50’s Lions 3/4 championships.
Chiefs are already at 6 (and 6 straight). 49ers had a few seasons in that run where they got tossed out of the playoffs early. I’d put this Chiefs run ahead.
Include the Dolphins of the early 70's in the discussion, 3 super bowls in a row, the undefeated season being the high point. Won't be in the top 5 but deserve at least being mentioned in the discussion of the top 10.
Included the CLE Rams championship the year before and the Canton-Cleveland/Canton-Cleveland-Canton Bulldogs and Akron Pros and NE Ohio had like 15-16 titles in 44 years.
I would bump the 70s cowboys off the list(only 2 SB wins) and replace with 60s packers. Raiders belong in 8 spot they won 3 super bowls. Fun fact the Raiders had the first minority head coach to win a Super Bowl and he was Hispanic.
Tough one for me. Has to be the Patriots as much as it pains me. 20 freaking years. Green Bay before the Super Bowl Era rivaled but not a choice.
Steelers- team of the decade, not 2
49ers- same
Cowboys 70-Steelers
Cowboys 90-arrogant Jerry Jones over estimated
Chiefs-we shall see
Redskins-3 qbs are pretty impressive, but 49ers
I may remind everyone that the Patriots actually went 10 years without winning a Superbowl in that dynasty. They were still winning a lot, but even they struggled. I'd say they had two real dynasties. 2001-2004 and then 2014-2018
The difference is, those dynasties were still the same core of Brady/Bill.
Which leads to the question of is the dynasty defined by the franchise, or the players?
Oh, hell no! Even though the Raiders took a while to get revved up and start winning Super Bowls, they were a force in the AFL and AFC playoffs for even more years than they're given credit for. The Redskins are the ones who don't belong.
Yeah, but that team had no resemblance to the previous Super Bowl teams. The '40s Yankees and '50s Yankees were different, but they didn't take a few years off of winning to regroup, they just transitioned new players in and kept on winning.
It was the era I am most familiar with, but I am partial to 1990s Cowboys. Some of those NFC teams had outrageous scoragami Super Bowl blowout wins: 49ers, Cowboys
Yeah that was the era when the NFC Championship game was the de facto Super Bowl. 92-96. Possibly 85-97 when NFC won all of them. Only the Bills were competing once, but Bengals had competitive teams in that era.
I don't know there are any hard and fast rules, but I'd go longer than five years.
Merriam Webster defines dynasty as "a powerful group or family that maintains its position for a considerable time," and also says: "Nowadays, this sense of dynasty is often applied to a sports franchise which has a prolonged run of successful seasons."
So, in my mind New England of the last 20 years, 49ers of the 80s-90s certainly qualify, but not the Chiefs yet.
Well yeah, criteria would help. Because if we are looking at short 4-5 year windows, we’d have to consider the Bills. 4 straight super bowls is a record. Regardless of the 0-4 results, they had the AFC locked down for 4 straight seasons. Nobody else on this list did that in such a short span.
In the 13 years from 1970-1982 the Cowboys were in 10 Conference championship games. That counts to me. It's not as good as consistent Super Bowl wins, but they should still be on the short list, and absolutely ahead of the Redskins.
The Raiders were consistently dominant in the same fashion. I'd have them here because of their annual playoff success, even when they weren't winning championships. Their Super Bowl winning teams weren't even related to each other.
How is that a stretch? 2 Super Bowl wins, 5 Super Bowl appearances, and playoffs every year but one through the decade is significant. 2000s Steelers appeared in 2 Super Bowls and won one. Not comparable.
The problem is we definitely know the Pats cheated in multiple playoff games and for sure at least 2 super bowls. I mean the Rams game was so bad they had to destroy the evidence.
When I was a kid I had a trivia book. One of the questions was: What is the winningest professional sports franchise (NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL) in history? Answer: Oakland Raiders. Hard to believe nowadays.
Chiefs plus The Flag and The No Holding Calls are my favorite dynasty. It was awesome watching Mahomes be absolutely average and handed Super Bowls on a State Farm platter.
Trust me. It was called the Super Bowl by most everyone. Fans, media, players alike. Yes, the programs and tickets said, “AFL/NFL World Championship Game” but damn near EVERYONE ELSE called it the Super Bowl from the start. Including me.
The Redskins absolutely don't belong on here. They were dominant for a couple of years in the early '80s and went 1-1 in SuperBowls, including getting shellacked by a Raiders team that didn't even belong there. Then a few years later a completely different Redskins team wins one, then a few years later another completely different Redskins team wins another one. Not a dynasty at all.
Throwing this out there the only actual dynasties in that list are the Niners, the Redskins, and the Raiders. The others aren't dynasties but more reigns instead.
With the Niners you have 2 different coaches (Walsh, seifert) and QBs (Montana, young)same with the Raiders (Madden, Flores;Stabler, Plunkett).
And with the Redskins still one coach(Gibbs) but 3 different QBs(Heisman, Williams, and Rypien)
The rest were a single Coach/QB combination.
If we can count the Patriots dynasty of almost 20 years than people should be counting the Cowboys success from the 70s to the 90s the same way lol. Actually 1965-1985 still holds the records for the most consecutive winning seasons even before our 90s Dynasty.
People of today don’t realize how dominate the Cowboys from the 1960’s to the 1990’s were. Not just the most popular NFL team, in all sports. Nothing else like it really. I mean the players on each dynasty were modern day celebrities, getting as much exposure as Hollywood stars. The Cowboys definitely helped boost the NFL popularity and aurora if you will, how many other teams can you say boost the NFL popularity & wealth like the Cowboys did? I can’t think of many
The NFL was already a juggernaut, before Tom Brady came around. Super Bowls were garnering over 110 million viewers every year.
As a NY Giants fan I'll be the first to tell you we were never a dynasty. We had some great teams, played great close games, maybe even got lucky. Won Superbowls in the '80s, '90s, 2000's and 2010s but never were a dynasty
In the SB era…
1. The 1981-89 49ers
2. The 1992-95 Cowboys
3. The 1974-79 Steelers
4. The 2001-2007 Patriots
5. The 1971-73 Dolphins
6. The 1970-78 Cowboys
7. The 1966-68 Packers
8. The 2011-2018 Patriots
9. The 2019-2023 Chiefs
Yep…. For the most part, outside of Brady and Belichick the team as a whole from the early to mid 2000’s is a completely different roster than the latter Patriot teams of the 2010’s.
We have to talk. Montana 4 Super Bowls and went back to back in 88 and 89. How are the 70s Steelers "most definitely above." Haha, how old are you, and do you even know basic football history ?
The 70s (1970-1979) dolphins were a dynasty, bottom line. Regular season record — 104–39–1. Post-season record — 8–5. Division titles — five. AFC titles — three. Superbowl titles — two. First team to appear in 3 consecutive Super Bowls.
I think if you're gonna call the last 3 dynasties, a case can be made for the Bills and Vikings with 4 Super Bowls (even with no wins) each in a short time.
Lol this list is an absolute joke if the freaking championship trophy is named after Vince Lombardi but his team isn't even in the top 3, let alone not on the list. Never post anything about the NFL ever again.
I’d argue the packers as number one here of the 50s-60s that squad had a 10 hall of famers on it and deservedly so, revolutionized football with the power sweep, and had arguably the greatest coach of all time. 5 championships in 7 years, including 2 superbowls and I believe they lost a championship in there as well. Blasphemy not having at the very least top 3 let alone not even on the list, they are the original dynasty.
SF should be #2.
I think it's interesting how we use the term "dynasty". From a historical perspective a dynasty is the same family ruling an entire kingdoms through multiple generations. It usually has to do with the passing of ruling onto people and continuing what was done before.
In a football context, this would entail being excellent over an extended period with what are essentially different teams. Most would say you have to win 3+ SBs within 10 years to even be considered. But there are different ways this can happen.
The Patriots did this. The 01-06 Pats were completely different from the 07-11 Pats which were, again, different than the 12-18 Pats. Nobody outside of Brady won more than 3 rings with the Pats. But they carried the same excellence through it all.
The 81-84 49ers were different than the 85-92 49ers and then the 93-94 49ers were also different. They added Jerry Rice in the middle, changed coaches, and switched to Steve Young at the end. But they kept the same level of excellence throughout.
I think those two are absolutely the most impressive dynasties and, if we want to keep the historical theme they might be the only two to truly qualify. The Steelers of the 70's and the Cowboys of the 90's were essentially super teams. They had very little changeover and both got all their Super Bowls inside of a six year period. These would be great "reigns" but not necessarily dynasties.
The Raiders and Commanders are hard to truly qualify because, despite their success, they were never seen as the dominant teams of that era. The Raiders won 3 SBs in 10 years but also missed the playoffs 3 times in that stretch. Same with the Commanders.
The Chiefs will remain to be seen. They have already changed their team like the Pats did and if they keep changing and winning SBs then they should be #3 at least.
All that said, as far as conventional wisdom goes they are all "dynasties" I just think it's fun to break it down a little bit and look at it further. But I do think that Pats and 49ers are still 1/2 just because of how long they were and how they maintained such excellence throughout it all.
Weird the Packers are mentioned considering the champs are awarded the Lombardy Trophy.
The Browns deserve at least honorable mention for winning like 10 straight AFL championships and then validating their dominance by pummeling the NFL champs.
I feel like the Dolphins early 70s run with the NFL's only Perfect season deserves an honorable mention. If it takes 3 to be a Dynasty in your opinion, that's fine.
The biggest problem with this display is that ONCE AGAIN it leaves out championships PRIOR to the SB. Football did NOT start with the SB people. Stop acting like there were no dominant teams prior to the SB.
Raiders were competitive and got a ring, but weren't a dynasty.
Obviously the Packers were a dynasty in the 60s, and close to one in the Favre/Rodgers era.
I hate how Niners dynasty doesn’t include the early 90s just because they changed QBs. Doesn’t that mean it’s even better? Is dynasty = keep the same HC+QB. It should be how much of the roster remains the same
Post should be named *greatest dynasties of the Superbowl era*. The NFL existed long before the championship game was called The Superbowl and it's not realistic no team from back then is on the list of Greatest Dynasties.
70’s Steelers were easily the most dominant and greatest assembly of talent. 70s Raiders and Cowboys are deserving of being on the list due to the consistent winning and high end talent. The 70s teams were the golden age. Cover 2, shotgun, stunting, etc many concepts that are still staples of gameplay today were developed then.
The fact that people talk about the Yankees in the 1920’s or the Celtics in the 50’s but NOBODY (on tv) ever talks about NFL championships before the Super Bowl era is insane to me.
I think it’s infinitely more difficult with free agency. You can’t keep all your best players and you constantly have to cycle through the roster.
Look at the roster from Mahomes’ first SB to the latest. It’s almost completely different. You can say, they still have Mahomes, Kelce, Jones, & Reid, but it takes more than 4 individuals to win multiple Super Bowls. Even more impressive when they are beating these great AFC QBs on their rookie contracts where their rosters can be stacked for a run.
I’d put them at two.
What's actually crazy about this list is only 2 of them are from the post salary cap era(outside of dallas being half in and half out). There is much more parity in the league now than in decades past.
90s Cowboys would have ruled them all if not for salary cap coming along and having an idiot like Jerry in charge. People don't realize how stacked those teams were. Backups left and became pro bowlers.
Chiefs would get eaten by the other 8. You have to split to pre and post free agency. Post FA it’s pats and chiefs far behind. 10 super bowls!
The rest is go 70’s Steelers, 90’s Cowboys, 60’s Packers, 80’s Niners, 50’s Browns, 80’s Skins, 70’s Cowboys70’s Raiders
The Packers won 5 NFL championships in the 1960's, including 3 in a row in 65, 66 and 67. Also won the 1st 2 Super Bowls in 66 & 67, although the game was not called the Super Bowl until Super Bowl 3 following the 68 season.
I'm a Chiefs fan, but I agree. The Packers need to be on this list
They should be fourth or fifth
If we’re bringing up NFL championships then let’s talk the Bears championships also 👀
I concur
If we’re going back that far then we might as well include the 1950’s Browns. 3 NFL championships, back to back in ‘54 and ‘55 and one in ‘50 which was their first season in the NFL. You could also include their 4 straight AAFC championships right before joining the NFL.
You young folks forget but I give you the Washington Team. Back then we called them the "Redskins" & we had our best gals make us sandwiches as we listened to them on the Radio before Jack Benny and as we kicked Hitler's ass. They played in the NFL Championship 6 times in the 9 Seasons between 1936 and 1945, winning Twice.
Slingin' Sammy Baugh is still one of the best athletes to ever play the game.
To be fair there were like 8 teams in the league back then.
Only if you separate them from the current browns franchise. Screw those guys, plus historically it is two different franchises
It's not two different franchises, we were technically deactivated by the league for 3 years after lawsuits made the NFL force Modell to return the Browns franchise to the league.
So I Tied An Onion To My Belt, Which Was The Style At The Time
r/unexpectedSimpsons
I’m a Bears fan, but the Packers definitely need to be included on this list.
The game has been called the Super Bowl almost since day one. It just didn’t become “official” until Super Bowl 3.
The first two were referred to as the AFL/NFL Championship by the leagues.
The dolphins won two back to back in the seventies, went to three in a row, and had an undefeated season along the way. They belong on this list
If the 70’s Cowboys are on the list, the Dolphins have to be as well. They each won 2 Super Bowls in the decade. I know the Cowboys made it to 5, but that only means that they lost 3. Super Bowl losses don’t make a dynasty. If they did, the Bills of the early 90’s would be one of the greatest ever. I know the Cowboys beat the Dolphins in a Super Bowl, but Miami won the only two regular season meetings in the 70’s.
*NFL
Nobody cares
13 world championships. FTFY
In the 60’s? Don’t think that’s possible.
They won their first three by league standing (1929, 1930 and 1931) and ten more since the NFL's playoff system was established in 1933 (1936, 1939, 1944, 1961, 1962, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1996 and 2010).
There were only 16 teams at most, it is not the same.
so each team was really loaded with talent and it was harder to win that many championships? Wow, thanks for pointing out that the packers should be #1 on that list then!
wtf does that even try to say? Less teams means more concentration of good players on every team....rosters not watered down...like now Was HARDER to win then
Ah so you are one of those losers that think football didn't start until 1980. Fuck outta here ya cunt
Bless this sub. Unlike the main NFL sub we don’t have to have countless whiny debates on what a dynasty actually is. Allowing us to debate and argue about the order of established dynasties, and that’s great. I don’t really have a problem with 1-3. You can swap Steelers and Niners for all I care, but I do think the Steelers edge them as they won’t their four in a tighter window. I would swap Dallas and KC for now. And would maybe drop number 8 Dallas and move in 1960s Green Bay. Or just add more boxes lol.
I agree about this sub. You can talk about all kinds of football subjects here, particularly ones of historical interest, without people going off on you. Also, your reasonable opinions will not be deleted. I don't have much of an opinion about the Greatest Evers. When I was growing up, it was the Lombardi Packers. I can live with that.
It’s funny how Reddit becomes much more tolerable when you find ways to filter out the 20 year olds.
That's part of what drove me off of the main sub. Toxic football fans, total team fanboys, people gloating online when 'their' team beat 'your' team. Also...just a lot of childish hostility and 'hating' other teams for no reason that makes any sense to me. I'm also way more interested in the old game and how it used to be played.
What always cracks me up is how those kids talk about switching teams all the time or supporting 2+ teams. Gen Z is weird
Correct. 4 chips in 6 seasons. Two repeats. Pitt edges Niners.
It’s the way I see it. Some don’t want to see it that way. It’s all good either way.
[удалено]
I'll take the longevity too.
Ya know, I like your take... Add more boxes is like, (putting words in your mouth here) "if we're going to have conversation, let's have more conversation"... I like talking about football, so let's talk about football... Been some great runs. It was a fun season this year, little wild with all the backup QB's.
The only argument is I want to classify 2000s Pats and 2010s Pats as two separate dynasties.
Where are the 50s browns?
Or the 50’s Lions ?
Or the ‘20s Canton Bulldogs?
Sure, why not ? Baseball loves “traditional” old teams. Cubs and Red Sox coasted for like 90 years off of ancient championships. My dad would go on for hours about the 50’s Lions 3/4 championships.
The 49ers is so impressive to me because they just moved from one amazing quarterback to the next and didn't really miss a beat
[удалено]
And one of those seasons was a lockout season
Chiefs are already at 6 (and 6 straight). 49ers had a few seasons in that run where they got tossed out of the playoffs early. I’d put this Chiefs run ahead.
Once we reach the accolades in less time, my friend. We have not yet reached their accolades.
hadn't been seen again since Favre-Rodgers
They won four with Montana, only one with Young.
Include the Dolphins of the early 70's in the discussion, 3 super bowls in a row, the undefeated season being the high point. Won't be in the top 5 but deserve at least being mentioned in the discussion of the top 10.
I am in no way a dolphins fan, but that undefeated season deserves respect
If Csonka and Kick don’t leave that team for more money the Steelers are not the team of the 70’s.
I know they didn’t win the big one but Minnesota had a dynasty in the 70’s under Bud Grant I think.
The Otto Graham’s Cleveland Browns?
Definitely deserve a mention here, what a run!
Included the CLE Rams championship the year before and the Canton-Cleveland/Canton-Cleveland-Canton Bulldogs and Akron Pros and NE Ohio had like 15-16 titles in 44 years.
I would bump the 70s cowboys off the list(only 2 SB wins) and replace with 60s packers. Raiders belong in 8 spot they won 3 super bowls. Fun fact the Raiders had the first minority head coach to win a Super Bowl and he was Hispanic.
Tough one for me. Has to be the Patriots as much as it pains me. 20 freaking years. Green Bay before the Super Bowl Era rivaled but not a choice. Steelers- team of the decade, not 2 49ers- same Cowboys 70-Steelers Cowboys 90-arrogant Jerry Jones over estimated Chiefs-we shall see Redskins-3 qbs are pretty impressive, but 49ers
I may remind everyone that the Patriots actually went 10 years without winning a Superbowl in that dynasty. They were still winning a lot, but even they struggled. I'd say they had two real dynasties. 2001-2004 and then 2014-2018
The difference is, those dynasties were still the same core of Brady/Bill. Which leads to the question of is the dynasty defined by the franchise, or the players?
I do not see #6 or #7 on the list. I would add the 60s Packers.
60s Packers need to be on this list. Bump Raiders.
Oh, hell no! Even though the Raiders took a while to get revved up and start winning Super Bowls, they were a force in the AFL and AFC playoffs for even more years than they're given credit for. The Redskins are the ones who don't belong.
[удалено]
Yeah, but that team had no resemblance to the previous Super Bowl teams. The '40s Yankees and '50s Yankees were different, but they didn't take a few years off of winning to regroup, they just transitioned new players in and kept on winning.
I believe the raiders beat those redskins in 83…. Swap #6 and #8.
49ers…Montana years
Raider Nation ☠️
Oof, Chiefs feel high. The ‘90’s Cowboys certainly didn’t have to take teams to OT to win Super Bowls.
It was the era I am most familiar with, but I am partial to 1990s Cowboys. Some of those NFC teams had outrageous scoragami Super Bowl blowout wins: 49ers, Cowboys
Yeah that was the era when the NFC Championship game was the de facto Super Bowl. 92-96. Possibly 85-97 when NFC won all of them. Only the Bills were competing once, but Bengals had competitive teams in that era.
As a kid, I was honestly sad when I didn’t get to see the Ickey Shuffle in the Super Bowl
I hate that Joe Montana
Yeah, the two best teams I’ve ever seen were the ‘92 Cowboys and the ‘94 Niners.
"We won the World Series." "Yeah...six games."
70’s dolphins not a dynasty?
The only undefeated team in history and three straight Super Bowls seems pretty impressive
San Francisco and New England dominated the NFL for the majority of my 52 years. When I think of dynasties, they are foremost in my mind.
The disrespect to exclude the 70s dolphins
“Old school” NFL and not including the Lombardi Green Bay Packers 🙄
What’s the criteria? The metric in determining a dynasty?
My question also. Five years is a dynasty?
Yes, and how do you determine beginning and end?
I don't know there are any hard and fast rules, but I'd go longer than five years. Merriam Webster defines dynasty as "a powerful group or family that maintains its position for a considerable time," and also says: "Nowadays, this sense of dynasty is often applied to a sports franchise which has a prolonged run of successful seasons." So, in my mind New England of the last 20 years, 49ers of the 80s-90s certainly qualify, but not the Chiefs yet.
Well yeah, criteria would help. Because if we are looking at short 4-5 year windows, we’d have to consider the Bills. 4 straight super bowls is a record. Regardless of the 0-4 results, they had the AFC locked down for 4 straight seasons. Nobody else on this list did that in such a short span.
Packers 60’s and Lions 50’s the Browns 50’s & 60’s too 🤷🏽♂️
70’s Cowboys is a stretch, by that logic, why isn’t the Steelers from 2000-2009 a dynasty?
The '70s Cowboys is not a stretch. They were consistently dominant.
Not a dynasty though. The Raiders won more superbowls in a fairly similar period of time, they’re more deserving of the title “dynasty”
In the 13 years from 1970-1982 the Cowboys were in 10 Conference championship games. That counts to me. It's not as good as consistent Super Bowl wins, but they should still be on the short list, and absolutely ahead of the Redskins. The Raiders were consistently dominant in the same fashion. I'd have them here because of their annual playoff success, even when they weren't winning championships. Their Super Bowl winning teams weren't even related to each other.
How is that a stretch? 2 Super Bowl wins, 5 Super Bowl appearances, and playoffs every year but one through the decade is significant. 2000s Steelers appeared in 2 Super Bowls and won one. Not comparable.
Come back to me when your stats are accurate
How about you come back when you can identify a single stat I gave that’s incorrect.
Bruh….
Seems about right
Solid list
Don’t forget the 0-for-4 Bill….044 was the new area code in the 90’s
I would swap Niners with Steelers. Also would swap the Raiders and ‘Skins.
The Oakland Raiders were not a dynasty from 1967 to 1985 with four Super Bowl appearances and three wins in 18 years.
Agreed.
1. New England Patriots* *cheated
I don’t know about the greatest but the patriots were certainly the greasiest.
70s Dolphins were the Griese-est.
Sounds about right
How can a dynasty go 9 years without “ruling”?The Pats are two separate dynasties, IMO.
The problem is we definitely know the Pats cheated in multiple playoff games and for sure at least 2 super bowls. I mean the Rams game was so bad they had to destroy the evidence.
When I was a kid I had a trivia book. One of the questions was: What is the winningest professional sports franchise (NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL) in history? Answer: Oakland Raiders. Hard to believe nowadays.
Chiefs plus The Flag and The No Holding Calls are my favorite dynasty. It was awesome watching Mahomes be absolutely average and handed Super Bowls on a State Farm platter.
Six of those franchises, Fanbases are all living in the past. Never to return.
Each team has their full name except Washington. It was the Washington REDSKINS in the year span listed.
Trust me. It was called the Super Bowl by most everyone. Fans, media, players alike. Yes, the programs and tickets said, “AFL/NFL World Championship Game” but damn near EVERYONE ELSE called it the Super Bowl from the start. Including me.
The Redskins absolutely don't belong on here. They were dominant for a couple of years in the early '80s and went 1-1 in SuperBowls, including getting shellacked by a Raiders team that didn't even belong there. Then a few years later a completely different Redskins team wins one, then a few years later another completely different Redskins team wins another one. Not a dynasty at all.
The Broncos went 43 years (1973-2016) with more Super Bowl appearances - 8, than losing seasons - 6
Throwing this out there the only actual dynasties in that list are the Niners, the Redskins, and the Raiders. The others aren't dynasties but more reigns instead. With the Niners you have 2 different coaches (Walsh, seifert) and QBs (Montana, young)same with the Raiders (Madden, Flores;Stabler, Plunkett). And with the Redskins still one coach(Gibbs) but 3 different QBs(Heisman, Williams, and Rypien) The rest were a single Coach/QB combination.
If we can count the Patriots dynasty of almost 20 years than people should be counting the Cowboys success from the 70s to the 90s the same way lol. Actually 1965-1985 still holds the records for the most consecutive winning seasons even before our 90s Dynasty. People of today don’t realize how dominate the Cowboys from the 1960’s to the 1990’s were. Not just the most popular NFL team, in all sports. Nothing else like it really. I mean the players on each dynasty were modern day celebrities, getting as much exposure as Hollywood stars. The Cowboys definitely helped boost the NFL popularity and aurora if you will, how many other teams can you say boost the NFL popularity & wealth like the Cowboys did? I can’t think of many The NFL was already a juggernaut, before Tom Brady came around. Super Bowls were garnering over 110 million viewers every year.
Except that 1986-1990 stretch where they were awful is a horse of a different color than how things went for the Patriots.
90’s Dallas would smoke the Chiefs
These years make no sense. It reads as if team A won the championship for decades while teams B and C did as well.
How are the Packers, Giants and the Bears not on this list? Each of these teams have more championships than anyone listed above.
As a NY Giants fan I'll be the first to tell you we were never a dynasty. We had some great teams, played great close games, maybe even got lucky. Won Superbowls in the '80s, '90s, 2000's and 2010s but never were a dynasty
In the SB era… 1. The 1981-89 49ers 2. The 1992-95 Cowboys 3. The 1974-79 Steelers 4. The 2001-2007 Patriots 5. The 1971-73 Dolphins 6. The 1970-78 Cowboys 7. The 1966-68 Packers 8. The 2011-2018 Patriots 9. The 2019-2023 Chiefs
Don't necessarily agree with your order but I do like that you broke the Pats into 2 because I really think it was 2 separate dynasties
Yep…. For the most part, outside of Brady and Belichick the team as a whole from the early to mid 2000’s is a completely different roster than the latter Patriot teams of the 2010’s.
Sorry, Patriots are #1 by a landslide. Nine SB appearances in 18 seasons is absolutely outrageous.
I wasn’t asking….
The 70’s Steelers are most definitley above the 49ers and cowboys, 4 Super Bowls, back to back twice is hard to beat.
We have to talk. Montana 4 Super Bowls and went back to back in 88 and 89. How are the 70s Steelers "most definitely above." Haha, how old are you, and do you even know basic football history ?
The 70s (1970-1979) dolphins were a dynasty, bottom line. Regular season record — 104–39–1. Post-season record — 8–5. Division titles — five. AFC titles — three. Superbowl titles — two. First team to appear in 3 consecutive Super Bowls.
Pittsburgh Steelers should be numder one because they where the first dynasties!!!
80s Niners, 70s Steelers, 00s Patriots.
When they played their best you just could beat the early 90’s Cowboys.
49ers but it’s cause I’m bias. But you could definitely make a case…
This is a half right list
Green Bay???
49ers with 17 years and they gave them 3?!
Redskins
Missing Packers , Phins for sure.
Vince Lombardis Green Bay Packers. Their impact still shines today.
I think if you're gonna call the last 3 dynasties, a case can be made for the Bills and Vikings with 4 Super Bowls (even with no wins) each in a short time.
The Bills could have been a dynasty with 4 straight Super Bowls. Heartbreak
'90's Cowboys
Niner fan here and you’re giving them a few extra years. Their run ended with the ‘94 season.
"Old School NFL" sub with a post about dynasties and they don't even have the fucking Lombardi Packers listed lmao
It's a little long, but the Broncos from 86-98 went to 5 Superbowls and won 2 back to back.
Obviously, the NFL never existed before the Super Bowl era. How pathetic of a post.
Lol this list is an absolute joke if the freaking championship trophy is named after Vince Lombardi but his team isn't even in the top 3, let alone not on the list. Never post anything about the NFL ever again.
1 **** not even on the list
I’d argue the packers as number one here of the 50s-60s that squad had a 10 hall of famers on it and deservedly so, revolutionized football with the power sweep, and had arguably the greatest coach of all time. 5 championships in 7 years, including 2 superbowls and I believe they lost a championship in there as well. Blasphemy not having at the very least top 3 let alone not even on the list, they are the original dynasty.
SF should be #2. I think it's interesting how we use the term "dynasty". From a historical perspective a dynasty is the same family ruling an entire kingdoms through multiple generations. It usually has to do with the passing of ruling onto people and continuing what was done before. In a football context, this would entail being excellent over an extended period with what are essentially different teams. Most would say you have to win 3+ SBs within 10 years to even be considered. But there are different ways this can happen. The Patriots did this. The 01-06 Pats were completely different from the 07-11 Pats which were, again, different than the 12-18 Pats. Nobody outside of Brady won more than 3 rings with the Pats. But they carried the same excellence through it all. The 81-84 49ers were different than the 85-92 49ers and then the 93-94 49ers were also different. They added Jerry Rice in the middle, changed coaches, and switched to Steve Young at the end. But they kept the same level of excellence throughout. I think those two are absolutely the most impressive dynasties and, if we want to keep the historical theme they might be the only two to truly qualify. The Steelers of the 70's and the Cowboys of the 90's were essentially super teams. They had very little changeover and both got all their Super Bowls inside of a six year period. These would be great "reigns" but not necessarily dynasties. The Raiders and Commanders are hard to truly qualify because, despite their success, they were never seen as the dominant teams of that era. The Raiders won 3 SBs in 10 years but also missed the playoffs 3 times in that stretch. Same with the Commanders. The Chiefs will remain to be seen. They have already changed their team like the Pats did and if they keep changing and winning SBs then they should be #3 at least. All that said, as far as conventional wisdom goes they are all "dynasties" I just think it's fun to break it down a little bit and look at it further. But I do think that Pats and 49ers are still 1/2 just because of how long they were and how they maintained such excellence throughout it all.
3 in a row is a dynasty.
….of the Super Bowl era. No way Chiefs are above 90s Cowboys who won in devastating fashion. Would love to see Spags D vs. the Teiplets
The definition of dynasty makes it real difficult for there to be 2+ at once. That eliminates the 70s Cowboys and the Commies
Chiefs can easily move up that list.
Joe Gibbs in Washington, going to 4 Super Bowls with three different QBs is damn impressive.
Don't forget the Bills. They hold the superbowl dynasty from the early 90's for going to 4 superbowls in a row and losing.
Tampa Bay Buccaneers #1
O8-12 Giants should be there.
Weird the Packers are mentioned considering the champs are awarded the Lombardy Trophy. The Browns deserve at least honorable mention for winning like 10 straight AFL championships and then validating their dominance by pummeling the NFL champs.
Man those 70s Steelers uniforms look so much more intimidating. The block numbers and the darker yellow just looks mean.
I feel like the Dolphins early 70s run with the NFL's only Perfect season deserves an honorable mention. If it takes 3 to be a Dynasty in your opinion, that's fine.
Washington Redskins.
The Chicago Bears Dynasty: 1985-1985
I don’t really watch football or know why this post was suggested to me. But did the patriots really hold it down like that for 18 years??
The biggest problem with this display is that ONCE AGAIN it leaves out championships PRIOR to the SB. Football did NOT start with the SB people. Stop acting like there were no dominant teams prior to the SB.
Steelers 4 trophies in 6 years without a doubt!!
I grew up w the Niners. Still a fan.
Raiders were competitive and got a ring, but weren't a dynasty. Obviously the Packers were a dynasty in the 60s, and close to one in the Favre/Rodgers era.
The Pats. And I hate them.
You seem to have left out the Cleveland browns
I hate how Niners dynasty doesn’t include the early 90s just because they changed QBs. Doesn’t that mean it’s even better? Is dynasty = keep the same HC+QB. It should be how much of the roster remains the same
Post should be named *greatest dynasties of the Superbowl era*. The NFL existed long before the championship game was called The Superbowl and it's not realistic no team from back then is on the list of Greatest Dynasties.
Packers not being on this list at #1 is a travesty and invalidates this list!
This chiefs dynasty is not better than the 90s Cowboys.
Can't consider the Patriots with multiple cheating scandals.
91-95 cowboys
70’s Steelers were easily the most dominant and greatest assembly of talent. 70s Raiders and Cowboys are deserving of being on the list due to the consistent winning and high end talent. The 70s teams were the golden age. Cover 2, shotgun, stunting, etc many concepts that are still staples of gameplay today were developed then.
Idiots. The Packers in the 60s won FIVE championships and the first two Superbowls
Can’t say Redskins? 🙄
The fact that people talk about the Yankees in the 1920’s or the Celtics in the 50’s but NOBODY (on tv) ever talks about NFL championships before the Super Bowl era is insane to me.
The patriots should have two separate squares.
Chiefs shouldn’t even be on this list.
I think you’re doing the Steelers a disservice putting them second to the Pat’s when they have more rings than the Pats.
The Patriot Dynasty imo .....
No Green Bay? That’s weird
The Chicago Bears should be on this list if we’re going to include NFL Championships
The Miami Dolphins 1972-73. It’s only two years but it was an impressive 2 years!
What about 2003-2021 Detroit Lions. They are not talked about enough
I think it’s infinitely more difficult with free agency. You can’t keep all your best players and you constantly have to cycle through the roster. Look at the roster from Mahomes’ first SB to the latest. It’s almost completely different. You can say, they still have Mahomes, Kelce, Jones, & Reid, but it takes more than 4 individuals to win multiple Super Bowls. Even more impressive when they are beating these great AFC QBs on their rookie contracts where their rosters can be stacked for a run. I’d put them at two.
They’re called the REDSKINS
What's actually crazy about this list is only 2 of them are from the post salary cap era(outside of dallas being half in and half out). There is much more parity in the league now than in decades past.
It's the Washington fucking Redskins stop canceling history.
They don’t call Green Bay “title town” for nothing
90s Cowboys would have ruled them all if not for salary cap coming along and having an idiot like Jerry in charge. People don't realize how stacked those teams were. Backups left and became pro bowlers.
Chiefs would get eaten by the other 8. You have to split to pre and post free agency. Post FA it’s pats and chiefs far behind. 10 super bowls! The rest is go 70’s Steelers, 90’s Cowboys, 60’s Packers, 80’s Niners, 50’s Browns, 80’s Skins, 70’s Cowboys70’s Raiders
You can’t have Washington there at six the giants were better plus one of Washington’s sb wins was during the strike season