How do you define a sports dynasty and what does this current Chiefs team need to do

[ThaVirus]

Been considering this a bit lately. Generally speaking I’d have considered any sports team that wins three championships in a five-ish year period a true dynasty.

The Patriots have two, obviously, early 2000s and then the mid 2010s. Early 90s Cowboys. 49ers in the 80s and Steelers in the 70s, IIRC.

Then I was considering things and wondering what we’d need to accomplish in order to be labeled a dynasty. We’ve currently got the one Super Bowl win from the 2019 season. It’s now the 2022 season.

We’ve hosted four straight AFCCGs in that timespan as well. Does that factor in at all or is it solely based on Super Bowl wins?

I think it does a bit. For example, if we’re able to win the Super Bowl this year, I think I would consider us a dynasty.

But I don’t consider the 90s Bills a dynasty so clearly at least one or two actual Super Bowl wins is a requirement.

What are your thoughts?

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by tredadda

Yes I would. Winning a SB is tough. Now to win multiple is even harder. The Patriots were considered a dynasty in spite of the huge gap between their first two and the others.

I think "dynasty" is more about continuity than anything. I don't think there's a finite time limit on it.

Brady and Bill were both there for the entire 20-year run. No matter how apart their victories were, they're a dynasty.

As long as Patrick Mahomes is here, the story will be unfinished.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

Hmm. 3 championships in 10 years is news to me. I usually hear 3 in 5 and I think I prefer that because I think I’d need the core of the team to be largely the same in order to consider it a dynasty.

For example, what if the Packers had been able to win a Super Bowl with Favre and whoever their coach was in 2002 then they won the Super Bowl again in 2010 and 2011 with Aaron Rodgers and Mike McCarthy? Would that really be considered a dynasty? I don’t think I like that.

No, I wouldn't consider that a dynasty. Two different QB's, two different coaches.

[digger]

Clearly a Dynasty is in the cards for Mahomes and therefor the CHIEFS...

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

Hypothetical: what if the couple more rings come at the end of that 5-6 years you’ve laid out? So we’ve got Super Bowl wins from the 2019, 2027 and 2028 seasons?

Would we still be considered a dynasty in your eyes?

As long as Mahomes is still here in 2027 and 2028, the answer is yes. It's a dynasty.

[ThaVirus]

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

Hmm. 3 championships in 10 years is news to me. I usually hear 3 in 5 and I think I prefer that because I think I’d need the core of the team to be largely the same in order to consider it a dynasty.

For example, what if the Packers had been able to win a Super Bowl with Favre and whoever their coach was in 2002 then they won the Super Bowl again in 2010 and 2011 with Aaron Rodgers and Mike McCarthy? Would that really be considered a dynasty? I don’t think I like that.

Building on this, 10 years in the NFL may as well be an eon. What if your wins are separated by years of listless bottom feeding?

Example hypothetical:

What if the Seahawks had won the Super Bowl in 2013 and 2014, everything up til now went exactly the same and they won the Super Bowl this year with Geno at QB?

That’s not the best example because the Seahawks were generally competitive from 2015-2021, though they did have some bad years.

Would that still be considered a dynasty?

[htismaqe]

I would say this to support my opinion on continuity.

The term dynasty was originally used to describe royal families. A dynasty didn't end until the family died out. At the very least, the most prominent monarchs of that family.

So as long as Mahomes is here, the DNA of the team is intact, even without Andy. If he waits 8 years to win another SB, it's still a dynasty.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

Building on this, 10 years in the NFL may as well be an eon. What if your wins are separated by years of listless bottom feeding?

Example hypothetical:

What if the Seahawks had won the Super Bowl in 2013 and 2014, everything up til now went exactly the same and they won the Super Bowl this year with Geno at QB?

That’s not the best example because the Seahawks were generally competitive from 2015-2021, though they did have some bad years.

Would that still be considered a dynasty?

As long as Pete Carroll remains, the dynasty is alive, IMO.

[KChiefs1]

Modern Day NFL Dynasties:

60’s Packers: 5 Championship’s in 8 years.

70’s Steelers: 4 Super Bowl Championship’s in 6 years.

80’s 49ers: 4 Super Bowl Championship’s in 9 years.

90’s Cowboys: 3 Super Bowl Championship’s in 4 years.

00’s Patriots: 3 Super Bowl Championship’s in 4 years.

10’s Patriots: 3 Super Bowl Championship’s in 5 years.

[ThaVirus]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Absolutely.



4 Super Bowl appearances, 3 wins, and most likely 6 straight AFCCG's at Arrowhead.



That is the definition of dynasty.

I agree, that’s definitely a dynasty. But Scho said we’d need three or four more rings on top of the one we’ve got.

Those are some lofty goals.

Originally Posted by tredadda

Yes I would. Winning a SB is tough. Now to win multiple is even harder. The Patriots were considered a dynasty in spite of the huge gap between their first two and the others.

The Patriots won three Super Bowls in five years two different times so they’ve really got two dynasties ten years apart by basically any standards.

[DRM08]

Originally Posted by tredadda

Yes I would. Winning a SB is tough. Now to win multiple is even harder. The Patriots were considered a dynasty in spite of the huge gap between their first two and the others.

Patriots had 2 separate dynasties. One dynasty featured 3 rings in 4 seasons during the early 2000's and the other dynasty featured 3 rings in 5 seasons during the 2010's.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

The Patriots won three Super Bowls in five years two different times so they’ve really got two dynasties ten years apart by basically any standards.

Don't agree. Same head coach + same QB = one dynasty. JMO.

[KChiefs1]

Originally Posted by scho63

Patriots, Chicago Bulls, Pittsburgh Penguins, Edmonton Oilers, NY Yankees are the ones who come to mind of true dynasties.

Boston Celtics

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by KChiefs1

Boston Celtics

LA Lakers. I mean there's a lot if you start branching out to other sports.

[KChiefs1]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Absolutely.

4 Super Bowl appearances, 3 wins, and most likely 6 straight AFCCG's at Arrowhead.

That is the definition of dynasty.

Yes

[ThaVirus]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

As long as Pete Carroll remains, the dynasty is alive, IMO.

Agh. Don’t like that lol

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Don't agree. Same head coach + same QB = one dynasty. JMO.

Which is hilarious because I actually do like this. Technically you could argue that it’s two separate dynasties because they went 10 years between Super Bowl wins, but given the fact that the coach-QB that drove the success was still in place that entire time and they were wildly successful throughout that period makes me comfortable in just labeling them the Patriots dynasty.

You say Pats’ dynasty and I just think of 2000-2019. I don’t think of them as really separate.