Would-Be Dynasties

[Oszuscik]

Here's a question: would you consider the 1982-1991 Redskins to be a dynasty? In each of their three championships during that span they had a different QB and a different leading rusher. Do you feel the personnel core needs to remain intact and win together to establish a dynasty?

[RichardBak]

Here's a question: would you consider the 1982-1991 Redskins to be a dynasty? In each of their three championships during that span they had a different QB and a different leading rusher. Do you feel the personnel core needs to remain intact and win together to establish a dynasty?

Not necessarily, though having a core group of veterans---especially stars---kind of cements the image of a dynasty in the public's mind. But maintaining that core across 8 or 10 years is almost impossible in today's NFL. But even back in the day when players didn't move around all that much, it was hard to keep the core group intact. The Lions won 3 titles in 6 seasons, making them at least a mini-dynasty in the '50s, but only 8 players from the '52 team (first championship) were around in '57 (third and last championship). Even the QB (Rote in place of Layne) and HC (George Wilson in place of Buddy Parker) were different.

[Oszuscik]

Here's a question: would you consider the 1982-1991 Redskins to be a dynasty? In each of their three championships during that span they had a different QB and a different leading rusher. Do you feel the personnel core needs to remain intact and win together to establish a dynasty?

Not necessarily, though having a core group of veterans---especially stars---kind of cements the image of a dynasty in the public's mind. But maintaining that core across 8 or 10 years is almost impossible in today's NFL. But even back in the day when players didn't move around all that much, it was hard to keep the core group intact. The Lions won 3 titles in 6 seasons, making them at least a mini-dynasty in the '50s, but only 8 players from the '52 team (first championship) were around in '57 (third and last championship). Even the QB (Rote in place of Layne) and HC (George Wilson in place of Buddy Parker) were different.

I'd agree with that. During the Super Bowl era it's common opinion that the five main dynasties have been the 60's Packers, 70's Steelers, 80's 49ers, 90's Cowboys, and 21st Century Patriots. However, during the span of 1976-83 the Raiders won 3 Super Bowls. From 1982-1991 the Redskins went to 4 Super Bowls, winning 3. For whatever reason they seem to get less recognition. Maybe because their runs span multiple decades and aren't easily categorized like the other dynasties? Or with Oakland maybe because of the coaching change, and with Washington change of personnel? I don't know, but it's interesting to me.

[RichardBak]

When it comes to dynasties, it seems to help a lot if there's a superstar HC/QB combo. You think of the 1946-55 Browns and you automatically think of Paul Brown/Otto Graham. Same with GB (Lombardi/Starr), NE (Belichick/Brady), Pitts (Noll/Bradshaw), some others. Can't use the same kind of shorthand with Oakland and Washington despite those 3 SB wins each.

[Oszuscik]

When it comes to dynasties, it seems to help a lot if there's a superstar HC/QB combo. You think of the 1946-55 Browns and you automatically think of Paul Brown/Otto Graham. Same with GB (Lombardi/Starr), NE (Belichick/Brady), Pitts (Noll/Bradshaw), some others. Can't use the same kind of shorthand with Oakland and Washington despite those 3 SB wins each.

That's a pretty solid point. The 1976 Raiders you think of John Madden and Ken Stabler. 1980 it was Tom Flores and Jim Plunkett's career comeback. 1983 you think of Marcus Allen running all over the Redskins. Not a whole lot of ties that bind those teams. Even more so with the Redskins and their three championships. It's hard to put a collective face on all of their Super Bowl wins.

[JohnH19]

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.

I thought of the 67-75 Raiders but they lost all six of their league/conference championship games after winning the AFL in 67. That doesn't match what the Vikings did. I did, however, list their run of consistent greatness from 67-83 among my dynasty teams.