so if the pats win on february 7th do they lock up being the first multi-decade dynasty in the nfl?
Yes, and even if they don't they'd still be in the lead because only two teams made multiple Owls this decade (Pats/Seahawks) and Patriots never had fewer than 12 wins + they made the AFCCG 5 times in 6 seasons of this decade
Well for the '10s we have these super bowl winners:
so no team has really been dominant yet this decade. So if the Pats win #2 they are on their way unless any other team gets a second within the decade.
If you notice all the teams that have won the SB this decade are generally solid even if the Giants and Ravens had down years.
If Eli didn't exist, Tom Brady would be the GOAT sports player. Undefeated in Superbowl, Six owls, undefeated season and everything else he has achieved. Brady will still be arguably the best, but if not for Elit, he would have been the undisputed best.
>having a dynasty
>only 2 owls out of 3 played total
Lel nice try you fat cheese fuck
02 Bucs, 00 Ravens, and arguably the recent Giants championships were more about defense than the QB. Even when Peyote won his ring he played like shit and his defense bailed him out.
You have to give the NFL credit there. They make it really hard to get a Dynasty going. Only team with multiple Owl appearances are Hawks and Pats this decade. Both only have 1 win.
>winning an owl is literally all about QB play
that's an ex post facto observation. While rarely has their been champions with poor QBs there are many teams who have great QBs who don't even make the playoffs. Plus in some years a good running and defensive team with an average QB will win the SB. Examples of this include: Brad Johnson-2003, Joe Flacco- 2013, Trent Dilfer- 2001, Mark Rypen- 1992, Jeff Hostettler 1991
just tallied this up for reference to keep a running list since the team of the 10s isn't decided yet. 2010-2015 included only.
Patriots: 1 SB win, 2 CCG wins, 5 CCGs total
Seahawks: 1 SB win, 2 CCG wins, 2 CCGs total
Ravens: 1 SB win, 1 CCG win, 2 CCGs total
Packers: 1 SB win, 1 CCG win, 2 CCGs total
Giants: 1 SB win, 1 CCG win, 1 CCG total
49ers: 0 SB wins, 1 CCG win, 3 CCGs total
Broncos: 0 SB wins, 1 CCG win, 2 CCGs total
Steelers: 0 SB wins, 1 CCG win, 1 CCG total
Cardinals: 0 SB wins, 0 CCG wins, 1 CCG total
Panthers: 0 SB wins, 0 CCG wins, 1 CCG total
Falcons: 0 SB wins, 0 CCG wins, 1 CCG total
Bears: 0 SB wins, 0 CCG wins, 1 CCG total
Colts: 0 SB wins, 0 CCG wins, 1 CCG total
Jets: 0 SB wins, 0 CCG wins, 1 CCG total
>Mixing the championships to try and make the fudge packers look relevant
>Counting NFL chips but only including the 60's
Selective bullshit lmfao
Face it, owls are the ONLY thing that matters
>2 owl wins makes you a dynasty
holy shit you dumb fat cuck
>mfw the niners had a shot at taking the '10s
if only we knew how to convert 3rd downs.
no, being the definitive team of a decade makes you a dynasty. sbs just help cement that status.
so if you don't like the packers, gimmee another team that defines 60s football
If that's the case then the Patriots are already the dynasty of the 10's
Thanks everyone else for playing.
It's decided glad we're in agreement.
so the 80s niners aren't a dynasty
they hold it now, but tenuously unless they win this year. then they'll virtually be a lock. but if they don't take it and someone comes on strong in the back half of the decade they could take it. seahawks might have a shot if their payroll doesn't catch up. panthers join the race if they win this year, as could broncos if they win this year and brock lobster is any good.. packers could even steal it if rodgers quits channeling manning (the good one, not the autism one).
Shut up faggots. Patriots > your shit team and that's all there is to it.
This year's SB is locked up and there's nothing you can do about it.
No other team comes close, especially not the seacucks, nigthers, cuckos or cuckers.
>trying this hard
almost bit at the first line, but then you pushed it too far
(though i will concede that this year my team's shit. but at least we're on op's list)
The Packers definitely count as the 60s dynasty. Just because the championship turned from the NFL Championship to the Super Bowl in the middle doesn't mean the pre-Owl champs are magically invalidated.
2beeawnest senpaitachi, "dynasty" should be
a) 2 in three years or
b) 3 in five years (plus at least two back-to-back), without missing the playoffs for more than one of those years.
They won more after the accusations than before.
taping in the wrong box? implying. Taping opponents signals? No proof, but even so, record was better after and both offensive an defensive production were better.
So even if it all happened (taping in the wrong box definitely did), it had zero effect. Book it.
>Even when Peyote won his ring he played like shit and his defense bailed him out.
everyone always brings up peypey. no one ever mentions the rapist and his 22.6 rating.
that's how you spot the plebs
Eagles beat the Vince Lombardi packers to win an NFL championship
Eagles are the only team to ever do so
That's right, a fraction of every single one of your Lombardi trophies is owned by the eagles
>5 NFC championship games in one decade
Eagles could've been a dynasty, now they'll not even be remembered as well as the 90s Bills.
And Chip Kelly ruined the team for the rest of the decade.
I think I'm done
>yfw the Burrs end up being the 2010s dynasty for the years 2018, 2019 and 2020
As much as I'd love this I don't think the Gnats can be labeled a Dynasty for three reasons:
1) no consistent playoff push
2) Superbowls are won on hotstreaks
3) Even if they get more, the first two will always be massive upsets
It's more about domination in an era. Giants fan here, they certainly have not been dominate, even in years they won the super bowl they were big underdogs. But the Pats stopped cheating then so the Giants could actually win.
It technically is, but every other dynasty was just made of stronger teams
They were always there contending and generally had multiple chances in the playoffs.
No team has two huge upsets in that short of a span either.
70s-80s raiders and 80s skins both have those, and the eary 70s the dolphins went to 3 in a row, winning 2 consecutive and having the only perfect season, but all three of those near-dynasties were overshadowed by even more dominant teams.
Why can't dynasty just mean a period of great success? Why can't there be more than one at a time? 60's Packers, 70's Steelers, 80's-90's 49ers, 90's Cowboys, 00's-10's Patriots, plus some smaller maybe-dynasties in the 70's Cowboys (2-3 in Super Bowls), 70's Dolphins (2-1 in Super Bowls), 70's-80's Raiders (3-0 in Super Bowls), 80's-90's Redskins (3-1 in Super Bowls), and the 00's-10's Steelers (2-1 in Super Bowls). The 70's for example had only a handful of teams who were successful, but those few teams won a lot and deserve more recognition for it.
This is just the NFL/AFL and Super Bowl eras right now, since I'm not too familiar with the pre-1960 NFL.
because "dynasty" is superior to "great success". that's part of the reason it isn't easily quantifiable by a formula like x wins in y years. you have to be THE team of your era. otherwise you're just really good.
This is the longest into a decade that we have been where 1 team has not won the Owl twice.
But no, that would only make it 2, alot of other teams have a very realistic chance to beat them and Brady won't make it out the decade, so why could be the league's boi pucci for 2 years.
it makes it way more fun to watch. Nobody knows who's going to come out on top and the playoff games are actually exciting. Compare that to the NBA where the warriors-spurs matchup is basically the championship game
sadly many people think he's better than God Brady
They'd need to win two more to be the first double-dynasty, but the run of success they've had is already unheard-of in the history of pro sports. Only the ultra-early Lombardi-era Packers and the old-school Celtics really compare, and those were in much smaller and less hyper-competitive leagues. I can die happy knowing that I witnessed the Brady-Belichick era of football.
>minimum number of rings to be a dynasty
nah, they just need to at least have a tie for the most and the success they had in the 00s will keep them as "the team to beat", i.e. the team of the decade, i.e. the '10s dynasty
'50s are theirs. no way they take the '60s from the packers
>Just as many playoff wins as the Jaguars
>And the Bengals went to a Super Bowl meaning 2 or 3 of those wins came from a single season
Holy shit Bengals fans, kill yourselves.
first one was with smeff. against the giants in the nfccg (at home!) we went 1-13 on 3rd downs, with the only conversion coming near the end of the game when the defense opened up the middle of the field a bit so we'd burn up more time trying to get downfield.
dunno why harbaugh always had such a hard time on 3rd down and in the redzone.
I hate to admit it, but yea.
If the Hawks can keep getting into the playoffs and win another one over the next 3 years while the Patriots don't win another SB, there could be an argument, but outside of that unlikely scenario, the fucking Cheatriots will be the '10's dynasty
i'd rather have the patriots double up than see the fucking seahawks have sustained success
carolina has the youth and media-friendly nature to become the team of the decade, both in success and attention, even if they only get 2 rings to close it out, especially if they get one beating the pats (you have to beat the champ to be the champ). that's where seattle really blew it, effectively putting them a half game down to new england, if you'll pardon the metaphor.
seahawks are other top contender, assuming their salary cap and retard luck don't run out.
arizona's too old, regardless of what they do this year. green bay's boring and chokes, would need to get back-to-back, and even that might be too late. broncos fail to at least advance to the sb this year and they're out. anything else is going to require out of nowhere 3 out of 4.
*and to clarify, by "media friendly nature" i don't mean the media LIKE likes them, i mean the media likes to TALK about them. no press is basd press, as they say. applies to several teams, i think we all know which ones.
he's a shit motivator who's just there to collect a paycheck. raiders are way more talented than their performance this year. a decent coach would have had at least 4 more wins this year. you'll be lucky to ever hit 9-7 with him in charge.
del rio's a good coordinator. he's just not a hc guy.
>thinking tainted titles count as a dynasty
You're fucking retarded if you believe that. The Raiders have no money, no chance at getting a new stadium in the Bay Area, have had only 3 over .500 seasons in the 21 seasons since they moved back from L.A., have pretty consistently terrible drafts (only rare exceptions), are dead last in local revenue, have to tarp off a large section of seats just to come close to capacity, etc, etc, etc.
lmao nice try faggot. refball made sure they beat the seahawks and cardinals and it also made sure the immaculate incompletion got them to a SB they had no business in so that's only 3 no cheating AT BEST.
fuck off you limp dick faggot.
>I'm a pussy cuck white boy I only talk shit on the internet also I have a small dick since I have all the free time not getting laid
sorry if the truth hurts son, your a weak beta that should be eradicated off our planet
owner is crybabby trustfund babby who ran out a coach that took the team to the super bowl because he wouldn't cowtow to his bullshit even though he knows nothing about football, got a new stadium, but it's one of the worst in the league for game day experience, just set up to show off and as a venue for rich people to ignore the game and network, gm shoulda been sent on a rocket to mars, but he sucks the owners dick, so he's here for good, management is so bad young stars fucking retire so they don't have to play for us. at least oakland has some player optimism. rumor has it kelly likes gabbert. fml
>implying anyone on this chinese cartoon picture internet website isn't a virgin
Bullshit, Reggie Mckenzie is the reason why they are getting better adn Davis is much better than some cunt with money like Snyder or York, he's trying to get the best people he can, and its not an exaggeration, he really wants to be like his dad.
here's the difference: the raiders are all that davis has, and now that al's gone mark's actually trying to make them work by hiring football people instead of being a micromanager. on the other hand, york was born on third and thinks that means he hit a triple, so as far as he's concerned everything he does is perfect and all fuckups are someone else's fault, and he doesn't give a shit about the team, he just wants to be in charge.
but i really don't know why we're arguing about these two teams, since neither has a shot at making a run this decade. i'm going to bed.
Serious question, who hasn't cheated? Jerry Rice cheated, Terry Bradshaw admitted that the Steelers were using roids in the 70s, the Panthers in their last SB appearance got caught using steroids after the fact. I mean who hasn't cheated in the NFL?
>Ed Hochuli reffing AFC Championship game
>Clete Blake man reffing the Owl
Is this the most obvious set up in the history of professional sports?
>You don't seem to understand that the Raiders have by far the worst ownership and GM in the NFL.
Are we talkinga bout the chargers or texans here?
Raiders had to wait for Al to pass to start the rebuilding , Reggie was hired when the team was full of horrible players getting paid star money , he cut the rest suffering the dead money and cap and literally last year was able to fix the problem and finally get players.
Coming into the next season they're going to have the largest payroll out of everyone in the league.
They're back to late 90s-pre 00s raiders hype.
theyve been on suicide watch since the Pitt game
Anyone who doesn't want to admit that the packers were the team of the 60's is a literally Reddit. Had they actually played the super bowl the previous year the packers would have smoked them, and because they would have won 3 years in a row in a dominant fashion, the NFL would have split with the afl because of a lack of suitable competition.
Only if they get another sometime after.
Every dynasty has no less than 3 championships in their given decade so if they want to claim the 10s they need 1 more even after they get this one inside the 2010s
nah, it's not as objective as that. you just have to be "the" team of a decade. rings just reinforce it. and since no one's dethroned the pats and they haven't fallen off track they're looking pretty strong to retain the title.
best hope at this point is panthers beat pats in sb 50, and make multiple deep playoff runs the rest of the decade, including at least one more ring.