Just What Would a Three-peat Mean to the Chiefs/NFL?

[GabyKeepsMeWarm]

I'm genuinely curious to hear some thoughts on this. One poster here referred to a potential Chiefs three-peat as a "Pat Trick". I really like the sound of that.

Just how much further into the highest annals of NFL history would a three-peat mean?

[PHOG]

Originally Posted by RedinTexas

And the KC Star would be apoplectic with outrage over the team name.

Spontaneous combustion comes to mind.

[JimNasium]

It immediately cements Mahomes as a Jordan level athlete (he’s already there, but increases the recognition), puts this team into that Jordan-era Bulls category, and probably elevates them collectively above every legendary sports dynasty with the possible exception of the 40s and 50s Yankees. Obviously, the modern era is harder to dominate, so I think it puts the alone on top, but I’m biased.

[SHOWTIME]

Originally Posted by Hammock Parties

I don't think we can get 4. We're going to lose too much on defense, OL and maybe Kelce.

Why it's so important to go all-in this year and get at least 3 in a row and shove it up NE's rear end.

[KC_Lee]

Florio's head if KC performs the Pat Trick.

via GIPHY

[gordonelloyd]

Originally Posted by JimNasium

It immediately cements Mahomes as a Jordan level athlete (he’s already there, but increases the recognition), puts this team into that Jordan-era Bulls category, and probably elevates them collectively above every legendary sports dynasty with the possible exception of the 40s and 50s Yankees. Obviously, the modern era is harder to dominate, so I think it puts the alone on top, but I’m biased.

Other exceptions would be Bob Cousy, Bill Russell‘s, Boston Celtics and several Montréal Canadiens dynasties in hockey.

[Bl00dyBizkitz]

Originally Posted by JimNasium

It immediately cements Mahomes as a Jordan level athlete (he’s already there, but increases the recognition), puts this team into that Jordan-era Bulls category, and probably elevates them collectively above every legendary sports dynasty with the possible exception of the 40s and 50s Yankees. Obviously, the modern era is harder to dominate, so I think it puts the alone on top, but I’m biased.

I think they already are comparable to the 90's Bulls.

[philfree]

Three peckered GOAT!

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Hammock Parties

I don't think we can get 4. We're going to lose too much on defense, OL and maybe Kelce.

yeah not even Veach or restructuring Mahomes contract is going to fix all our players that need new contracts next year.

[crazycoffey]

Well, once you (as a player) get one superbowl win there are quotes from coaches and pundits who say “no one can take this away from you”.

I feel like being apart of the team to be the first to win three in a row, the quote becomes even more poignant…. No one can take that away from the chiefs.

Thus, it’ll be even harder this year. Think we got everyone’s best last year……. No one on any other team wants to see the chiefs win a third in a row. They all want to be the reason the chiefs don’t make the playoffs. They all want to be the team who knocked the chiefs out, and I hope the team thinks like this, prepares for this.

Because they are at the cusp of a greatness no other team has ever achieved.

[kccrow]

It would cement them as the greatest dynasty in NFL history I'd think. 7 consecutive Conference Championship games would be 1 less than Pats, 5 Super Bowl appearances in 6 years would be the most ever, and would be the only team ever to win 3 consecutive Super Bowls.

The Pats, do you separate eras/dynasties into 2002-2007 and 2011-2018? I think you do.

[Fishels]

Originally Posted by Hammock Parties

I don't think we can get 4. We're going to lose too much on defense, OL and maybe Kelce.

In a row probably not. But in terms of ceiling I still feel like people under rate Mahomes. I’ve even seen people in the fanbase almost imply like if we don’t threepeat this year we’re never winning it again.

As long as Mahomes stays healthy and is built around I think he will be Brady esque in longevity. Yes he will have to change play style but he is an unbelievable talent. Getting to 6 AFCG in a row (and that’s his worst)is just not by accident.

I’m more excited to see Mahomes 30’s than his 20’s in all honesty

[alanm]

I can't speak for the Chiefs, but it would make me happy.


As far as "A Pat Trick" goes I could see some one like Rich Eisen rolling with that phrase all year.

[Coochie liquor]

Brady announcing as the Chiefs 3peat! Omg that will be as awesome as winning in Vegas with Failway handing us the trophy. That completes the circle.

[DJay23]

Originally Posted by RedinTexas

The 70s Steelers really stand out to me as the greatest of all the dynasties. They went back-to-back twice in the span of 6 years. With a couple of breaks they could have won 6 in a row, but they didn't. Three in a row was beyond the capability of the mighty Steelers and they were competing before the salary cap and free agency.

Winning three in a row would elevate the Chiefs dynasty to the level of those Steelers because we are doing it at a time when it is far more difficult to sustain success. In my mind, three in a row would make the Chiefs the greatest of all the dynasties.

I agree with everything you said and I think there are more tiers to this.

If we win 3 in a row it puts us just ahead of the Steelers as you said. We would both have 4 in 6. The Steelers winning 2 back to back in that time frame, which has only been done by them (Damn Eric Fisher and his Achilles!) Then we would have 3 in a row (which is harder) having only been done by us.

But also like you said, winning back to back used to be easier. 8 of the first 14 (57%) Super Bowls were won by teams going back to back. Then it was 10 of 23 (43%), 12 of 28 (43%), 14 of 33 (42%) and 16 of 39 (41%). Now it stands at 18 of 58 ....(31%). If we win 3 in a row then 3 of the 59 Super Bowls have been won by a team going 3 straight (5%).

The Chiefs are only the 3rd team to accomplish back to back Super Bowls in the Salary Cap Era (Denver XXXII, XXXIII; Patriots XXXVIII, XXXIX) The Cowboys 2nd in XXVIII was the last year before the salary cap started in the 94 season. By the way, in looking that up, the first salary cap was $34.6 million)

I would still put the Super Bowl dynasties (which I consider 3 wins in 5 years, but extending beyond that if the QB/Coaches keep winning) in this order IF we win a 3rd straight...

Belichick/Brady
Reid/Mahomes
Noll/Bradshaw
Walsh/Siefert/Montana
Johnson/Switzer/Aikman

Belichick and Brady are an interesting study to me. By my own definition, they really had 2 dynasties 10 years apart. However, in those 10 years they lost 2 Super Bowls and went to a lot of AFCCG. Had Brady and Belichick not stayed together through those 10 years, or had a few years where they didn't win the division or make the playoffs, it might be 2 separate dynasties, but since they didn't I would consider it 1 long dynasty.

So we would have a long way to go to match the dynasty of Belichick and Brady. Probably not possible with Reid/Mahomes given Reid's age. But 3 in a row would give us, in my opinion the best TEAM ever, if not the longest tenured DYNASTY.

[RedinTexas]

Originally Posted by DJay23

I agree with everything you said and I think there are more tiers to this.

If we win 3 in a row it puts us just ahead of the Steelers as you said. We would both have 4 in 6. The Steelers winning 2 back to back in that time frame, which has only been done by them (Damn Eric Fisher and his Achilles!) Then we would have 3 in a row (which is harder) having only been done by us.

But also like you said, winning back to back used to be easier. 8 of the first 14 (57%) Super Bowls were won by teams going back to back. Then it was 10 of 23 (43%), 12 of 28 (43%), 14 of 33 (42%) and 16 of 39 (41%). Now it stands at 18 of 58 ....(31%). If we win 3 in a row then 3 of the 59 Super Bowls have been won by a team going 3 straight (5%).

The Chiefs are only the 3rd team to accomplish back to back Super Bowls in the Salary Cap Era (Denver XXXII, XXXIII; Patriots XXXVIII, XXXIX) The Cowboys 2nd in XXVIII was the last year before the salary cap started in the 94 season. By the way, in looking that up, the first salary cap was $34.6 million)

I would still put the Super Bowl dynasties (which I consider 3 wins in 5 years, but extending beyond that if the QB/Coaches keep winning) in this order IF we win a 3rd straight...

Belichick/Brady
Reid/Mahomes
Noll/Bradshaw
Walsh/Siefert/Montana
Johnson/Switzer/Aikman

Belichick and Brady are an interesting study to me. By my own definition, they really had 2 dynasties 10 years apart. However, in those 10 years they lost 2 Super Bowls and went to a lot of AFCCG. Had Brady and Belichick not stayed together through those 10 years, or had a few years where they didn't win the division or make the playoffs, it might be 2 separate dynasties, but since they didn't I would consider it 1 long dynasty.

So we would have a long way to go to match the dynasty of Belichick and Brady. Probably not possible with Reid/Mahomes given Reid's age. But 3 in a row would give us, in my opinion the best TEAM ever, if not the longest tenured DYNASTY.

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.