Would-Be Dynasties

[Oszuscik]

We’ve seen great dynasties throughout the course of NFL history: the 60’s Packers, 70’s Steelers, 80’s 49ers, 90’s Cowboys... A few others I’d include, the 70’s-80’s Raiders, 80’s Redskins, and 70’s Dolphins.

Now, what are some of the best would-be dynasties? Teams that were so good they made you think it was for sure the start of something special, only for that dynasty to never materialize. I thought for sure the 2010-11 Packers were the beginning of a dynasty, only to watch that fizzle out. Dan Marino’s ‘84 Dolphins I’d list as well. The Greatest Show on Turf had a dominating three year window but fell short of dynasty status. What dynasties would you guys list as flaming out on the launchpad?

As a side question, can we consider the early 90’s Bills a dynasty? Are they a special case? Four Super Bowls in a row is just too impressive to brush aside, even if they didn’t win any of them.

[rebelx24]

I’d say the late ‘90’s Broncos, for one. Losing a RB of Davis’ caliber to injury was a big blow, but it wasn’t fatal, considering Shanahan’s run-heavy system that ended up producing a parade of 1000-yarders. The bigger problem was Elway’s retirement. Although successors Griese and Plummer had periods of effectiveness, it was clear that neither one was up to the task of filling Elway’s shoes. Not until Manning’s arrival 14 years later would the Broncos find a QB of comparable steadiness and reliability.

[JohnH19]

The 68-78 Vikings were an NFL/NFC dynasty.
I don’t consider the 90s Cowboys a dynasty. Their window of dominance wasn’t long enough to fit my definition.

[Oszuscik]

The 68-78 Vikings were an NFL/NFC dynasty.
I don’t consider the 90s Cowboys a dynasty. Their window of dominance wasn’t long enough to fit my definition.

What is your definition for a dynasty? That’s something I was trying to decide on, and ultimately I decided if a team had won three championships or more together, they were a dynasty.

[RichardBak]

I don’t consider the 90s Cowboys a dynasty. Their window of dominance wasn’t long enough to fit my definition.

I don't know about that. Four straight NFC title game appearances and 3 Super Bowls in 4 years sounds pretty good to me. Of course I'm in Detroit Here in Motown we consider the Lions' 4 conference titles and 3 NFL championships in a span of six years a dynasty.

[lastcat3]

The 90's Cowboys would still be considered a dynasty by salary cap era terms. Their team really was broken up because of the salary cap and if they played in the same era as all the previous dynasties they likely would have reigned for a decade as well.

[7DnBrnc53]

The 68-78 Vikings were an NFL/NFC dynasty.
I don’t consider the 90s Cowboys a dynasty. Their window of dominance wasn’t long enough to fit my definition.

I agree with you. I divide dynasties into two categories: True & Soft. The 90's Cowboys were a soft dynasty. You have to win at least four titles to be a true dynasty, and the last has to come within five years of your next to last, unless there are special circumstances (like the Pats of the last 20 years).

[JohnH19]

The 68-78 Vikings were an NFL/NFC dynasty.
I don’t consider the 90s Cowboys a dynasty. Their window of dominance wasn’t long enough to fit my definition.

What is your definition for a dynasty? That’s something I was trying to decide on, and ultimately I decided if a team had won three championships or more together, they were a dynasty.

I think a dynasty is a team that's consistently excellent and a serious threat to win the championship for an extended period of time. Off years are acceptable if there's a quick bounce back.

The Pats from 01 to today are the greatest dynasty in NFL history. The Browns from 46-69. The Cowboys from 66-85. The Steelers from 92 to today, as incredible as that sounds. The Raiders from 67 to 83. The Bears from 1920-50. The Lombardi Packers. The 29-44 Packers. The 72-79 Steelers. The 49ers from 81-98. Washington from 82-91.

Which brings me back to the Vikings. In my previous post I included 1968, 77 and 78 because they won the Central but they weren't actually a serious threat to win it all. Fran Tarkenton was injured in Week 10 and missed the 1977 playoffs but they still won the Mud Bowl against the Rams with Bob Lee at the helm.

From 1969-76, however, they went 87-24-1, 80-17-1 if you take out the disastrous 7-7 1972 season. They never won the SB but they went to four in those eight seasons and what may have been their best overall team lost the Hail Mary game. They played poorly in the SB games but they regularly beat other powerhouse teams in the regular season and playoffs. The 69-76 Vikings are, without a doubt, the greatest team that didn't win a championship.

[Citizen]

The 69-76 Vikings are, without a doubt, the greatest team that didn't win a championship.

The 1967-75 Raiders might have something to say about that, unless their subsequent title takes them out of the running.

~.780 win percentage; seven league/conference championship appearances -- and in all seven cases, the team that eliminated them won the Super Bowl.

[RichardBak]

[/quote]

The 1967-75 Raiders might have something to say about that, unless their subsequent title takes them out of the running.

~.780 win percentage; seven league/conference championship appearances -- and in all seven cases, the team that eliminated them won the Super Bowl.[/quote]


You beat me to the punch. I'm still pissed the AFL had that contrived playoff system in 1969 (for the sake of more TV revenue). Instead of a title game rematch of Oakland-NYJ, Broadway Joe vs. the Mad Bomber, we saw a second-place team, KC, who had already been beaten twice by the Raiders, advance to the AFL championship and the Super Bowl.