The Pats Are A Dynasty, But The 70s Steelers Are Greatest Dynasty

[Yavin4]

of all time. Why? Because not only did the Steelers win four SBs in 6 years, they won it by beating other teams that won SBs during that same time, the Dolphins, Raiders, and Cowboys. IOW, if the Steelers didn't take two SBs from the Cowboys, then the Cowboys would have been the dynasty, winning four SBs in the 70s.

The Pats are not facing that level of competition in their march towards the SB, and because of that, their dynasty is not as stellar. Also, understand what I'm saying here. I'm not directly comparing the Pats to the 70s Steelers. What I'm saying is that the strength and quality of the competition that the Steelers had to face was much greater than the quality of the competition that the Pats have to face.

[andyhappy]

1. the pats are the first

the pats are the first post free agency dynasty.

I am not a big fan but a lot of the players stayed there when they could be making more money playing some place else but opted to stay to be part of something good!

but yeah...the steelers rock!

[WilliamPitt]

2. No argument here

The Pats have a few titles to win before they can challenge the truly epic milestones that are out there in NFL history.

That being said, the Patriots' run over the last few years is damned impressive given current league conditions.

[Yavin4]

3. I'm Not Arguing That At All

Theirs is a run that the new NFL rules were specifically meant to prevent. The NFL wanted a new champion every year, but the Pats have scuttled those plans.

[MikeG]

4. Three dynastys: Green Bay, Pittsburgh and San Francisco.

Cowboys were not.

[Guaranteed]

6. Agreed...the Cowboys had two sets of four or five-year dominance...

One of which the 49ers crushed.

And I guess it was the Packers that crushed the other, although I don't recall them meeting in the playoffs.

[Ravenseye]

10. Why not the Cowboys?

I mean didn't they do 3 superbowls in 4 years in the early nineties?

Not to mention that they've been in the most superbowls of any team, and are tied with the 49ers for most rings.

[napi21]

5. Yes, the Pats did good, but I'm still crying in my terrible towel!

I'm not going to try to explain that game last night. I was hoping, praying, and made my dog cross her paws for the Steelers. It didn't work.

I have to agree that the teems of 2004 aren't the same as the teems of the 70's. I remember watching the playoff games, and the SB's, having NO DOUBT that Bradshaw, Swan and Stalworth, with the help of Harris, Lambert etc would WIN! I watched them all, and there were some frightening moments, but I KNEW They'd WIN.

Not so today.

I have to wring out my terrible towel now.

[Guaranteed]

7. Dynasties are extended periods of time of dominance.

If you look at the extension of the dominance, the 49ers had the greatest dynasty- '81 to '94. Even after their last SuperBowl win, they were a solid team for another 3 or 4 years.

The Steelers, Raiders, Packers, and Cowboys all had these 3-7 year periods where they just crushed everyone. But NO ONE has ever extended a legacy like the 49ers did, stretching it through a full decade and halfway into another.

[Emboldened Chimp]

8. I don't know about that...

When I think of dynasty, the team has to have the same players--not all, of course, but the keys. SF a much different team when they won in '95, including in regards to the most important position: quaterback. The Steeler teams had the same QB, running back, WRs, defence, etc., as did the Packers, Cowboys, and now the Patriots. Not to take anything away from the 49ers, because they were indeed a dynasty; I'm just saying that the last 49er team to win the bowl isn't really a part of the Joe Montana dynasty.

[Guaranteed]

9. Well, Joe Montana's exit certainly was the beginning of their

downward slope... However, they did have many of the same players, among them the great Jerry Rice.

In any case, I don't think it's fair to say that a team has to have the same players when you're dealing with a decade and a half dynasty. Montana was with them for 12 or 13 years....I think he did what he could.

[joeybee12]

11. Sorry, I'm going by numbers, and the 49'er's are the best....

...it's hard to compare, and I don't think this issue can or will ever be resolved. Five in a fairly short period of time is just incredible.

P.S. I'm NOT a 49'er's fan, but I still have to go with them.

[Ravenseye]

12. Explain why the 49ers are better than the Cowboys

As far as Historical teams go?

The 49ers were fairly dominate for the 80's. The continued to be good through the early nineties. Other than that. Not great. Bad, mediocre, good, but not great.

The Cowboys had 2 distinct periods of dominance or greatness in the mid 70's and the early 90's. They were good through the entire 70's and the early 80's, then tapered off by the mid to late 90's again.

In all the 49ers went to 5 superbowls winning all 5. A tremendous feat.

The Cowboys went to 8 superbowls, winning 5.

So how, by the numbers, are the 49ers the best?

[joeybee12]

13. I'm talking about a team during a particular period...

...the Cowboys won their five Super Bowls during very different periods of time. This isn't taking anything away from them...but the 49'er's all came within what could be considered the same time period. So, if you want to talk dynasty, I gotta go with the 49'ers.

If you want to talk about which team HISTORICALLY is better, you can certainly make a case that the Cowboys are, since they've been good at varying times, while the 49'er's stunk before their dynasty, and really, really stink now.

[leeman67]

14. Agree that comparing Cowboys to Niners is apples & oranges.

the 80's and early 90's run for the Niners was impressive. But don't discount the 3 championships in 4 years from '92 to 95, something that the Patriots are about to repeat here in 2005, which is probably even more impressive because we're knee deep in the modern free-agency era.

Also, despite only winning 2 super bowls during the 70's consider the competition during that era coming from the AFC. The 49ers never had to deal with the likes of the Steelers, Raiders or Dolphins teams from that era. Keep in mind that Dallas was the only NFC team to win the Super Bowl during that entire decade.

What the Niners faced in the 80's was pretty weak (and even then the Bengals played them pretty tight twice). To be fair, Dallas' competition (and SF's) in the 90's wasnt' much better. Until the Broncos came along, the AFC was still the doormat conference. Dallas and SF were the class of the NFL for a while there before the Packers cut in on the action later in the decade.

But to those who say the Niners 5 Super Bowl wins in 5 tries is better than 5 wins in 8 tries, I say no way. It's always better to get to the Super Bowl and lose than to not get there at all. :)

[joeybee12]

15. Reminds me of how we used to see the NFC playing the AFC team

in the Super Bowl as just a formality, since the disparity was so great, laregly due to great defenses in the NFC. Now, it's gone 180!

[DaveinMD]

16. today's NFL

pales in comparison to the league in the 70s and 80s. The talent is so dispered. They call it parity. I call it mediocrity. The best teams of today would struggle to make the playoffs in the 70s and 80s.

[Lefty48197]

17. In the 1960's the Green Bay Packers had five NFL championships

1961, 1962, 1965, 1966, and 1967. The Steelers could only manage four in the 1970's? That's good enough for second best.