If they win another SB (and I think they will,) then this could be considered a dynasty. I'd prefer them to win two more, (and I think they can) before we start throwing the D-word around, but with another SB, one could make the case.

Look at all the GMs around the league, from the Ted GM tree. That's part of it, imo.

Keep in mind, we were also robbed of the playoffs in '09.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 

It is not a dynasty if you compare this team to the 60's version. Much like Bart Starr's numbers pale in comparison to even today's average QB's. But he excelled in his era. This is a different era.

I consider this team to be a dynasty. They have won a Super Bowl. They have made the playoff's consistently. They have the required MVP QB. They are consistently a threat to win it all (Unless you're a Packer fan...).

How many teams have been as consistently good as the Ted Thompson Packers over the last 10 years? Patriots, for sure. Steelers and Giants are the only teams to win multiple Super Bowls in that time. Giants have had as many abysmal years as good. Steelers are too often average, in my opinion. There have been 8 different NFC teams in the Super Bowl in the last 10 years. Seahawks went 8 years between appearances and some of those years were bad. Even if Seattle wins this year, I wouldn't call them a dynasty. This is only their 3rd winning season in a row after 4 losing years.

I don't define a dynasty by winning it all. I define a dynasty by continued excellence. They qualify in today's league. In my opinion.

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan 

It is not a dynasty if you compare this team to the 60's version. Much like Bart Starr's numbers pale in comparison to even today's average QB's. But he excelled in his era. This is a different era.

I consider this team to be a dynasty. They have won a Super Bowl. They have made the playoff's consistently. They have the required MVP QB. They are consistently a threat to win it all (Unless you're a Packer fan...).

How many teams have been as consistently good as the Ted Thompson Packers over the last 10 years? Patriots, for sure. Steelers and Giants are the only teams to win multiple Super Bowls in that time. Giants have had as many abysmal years as good. Steelers are too often average, in my opinion. There have been 8 different NFC teams in the Super Bowl in the last 10 years. Seahawks went 8 years between appearances and some of those years were bad. Even if Seattle wins this year, I wouldn't call them a dynasty. This is only their 3rd winning season in a row after 4 losing years.

I don't define a dynasty by winning it all. I define a dynasty by continued excellence. They qualify in today's league. In my opinion.

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan 

No. Thanks for asking. You actually have to win championships not just get participation ribbons to be considered a DYNASTY.

2013 lose Wild Card game.
2012 win Wild Card game, lose Divisional Playoff game.
2011 lose Divisional Playoff game.
2010 win Wild Card game, win Divisional Playoff game, win NFC Championship game WIN SUPER BOWL!!!!!
2009 lose Wild Card game.
2008 Did not qualify.
2007 win Divisional Playoff game, lose NFC Championship game.
2006 Did not qualify.
2005 Did not qualify.
2004 lose Wild Card game.

A 6-6 record with 4 of the wins coming in the same year is not a dynasty.
Failing to achieve your goal 9 times out of ten is not a dynasty. (If you throw in the extra NFC CG then failing 8 out of ten times.)
Yes they made the playoffs 7 times in the last ten seasons but that is not special. 6 teams have made the play offs 7 times or more. Another 5 teams have made it 5 times.

Pitt, New England, Indy and NYG have all won more Super Bowls.
Seattle has appeared in more SB.
SF, Philly and Baltimore have appeared in more NFC or AFC CG
Denver, Atlanta, Chicago and NYJ have appeared in as many NFC CG.

Nothing here looks like a dynasty. Just a team like many others who makes the playoffs on a regular basis.

Originally Posted by: wpr 

I think the only team that can be labeled a dynasty in the loosest sense since the Cowpokes of the early 90s are the Patriots from 01-07.

Originally Posted by: Mucky Tundra 

I went through all NFL Championships quickly and here is my list of dynasties.


The year is probably off because I listed the year of the championship game, not the season.

Chicago Bears 1940 + 1941 + 1943 = Dynasty
Cleveland Browns 1950 + 1954 + 1955 = Dynasty
Green Bay Packers 1966 + 1967 + 1968 = Dynasty
Pittsburgh Steelers 1975 + 1976 + 1979 + 1980 = Dynasty
San Francisco 1985 + 1989 + 1990 = Dynasty
Dallas Cowboys 1992 + 1993 + 1995 = Dynasty
New England Patriots 2002 + 2004 + 2005 = Dynasty

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

No first Packers threepeat (I think it's 29-31 or around that time frame off the top of my head)?

And what's the cut off for the 49ers and not listing all five of their titles?

Originally Posted by: Mucky Tundra 

Dynasty is defined by yours truly as winning 3 of 5 NFL Championships during a five year period.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

I suppose that should be added too, but wasn't listed from the 1933-1969 list I was going off from and then the Super Bowl list I was using.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool