Quote:
Originally Posted by SFREDSKIN
I believe they go by the # of wins during the decade. 49ers had 4 SB wins in the 80's, Skins 2 and Giants 1. NE 3 wins, that's what they look at.
|
Honestly, I agree with you. But, I just wonder if a team won the Super Bowl in the last two years of a decade, and won it again in say, year two and four of the next decade - I wonder if they would be considered a dynasty? Especially if it's the same coaching staff, virtually the same players in the skilled positions, etc...?
In the end, I think it's just whatever the media crowns them to be. I don't think they really have a certain set of rules or some chart to go by in determining a dynasty. For me, I tend to support the idea that it's numerous aspects: Multiple Super Bowl wins in a short amount of time (at least 3 SB wins in10 years), being consistent Super Bowl / playoff contenders for at least 80% of that 10 year stretch, virtually the same coaching staff or same group of players. I think strictly going by timeline decades is a cop out, personally. I'm sure some disagree and that's OK, but I'd much rather look at the accomplishments of a coaching staff rather than to divide it into separate regimes based on decades alone.