5 times? Nobody has done that? How could it be a dynasty if it never even happened? The league has only been around for 47 years.

The point is that a dynasty is whichever team had the most rings in a decade.

Some people take for granted just HOW HARD it is to win ONE super bowl.

If winning 3-4 super bowls was a simple feat, there wouldn't still be long running teams like the titans(oilers), lions, seahawks, falcons, and browns etc who are still missing rings.

Winning 3 or more in 10 years is a pretty difficult feat.

Basketball and a ton of other sports? Not so much.

You take these teams away and the NFC doesn't become much better than the AFC.

Here's NFC teams we KNOW are good.

Saints
Packers
9ers
Giants
Lions

Here's AFC teams we KNOW are good.

Steelers
Ravens
Patriots
Texans
Broncos

Not much difference.

Ok I will bite..

First:
The NFC is not dominant because of a per team comparison. It is that way because that is the way it is... But if you would like to compare I would say there is a huge difference... 4-1 Super Bowl trophies.... Or QB's that hold more than 90% of the NFLs QB records (Skill based... not longevity). Between Brees, Rogers, and Favre.. there isn't much left.

In the last 5 years 4 of the SB Champions were NFC.
Last year 4 of the 5 top Offenses were NFC.
Last year 4 of 5 top producing QB's are NFC.

Except for Brady... AFC QBs are at best "good".

2011 top 4 teams combined records: NFC 11% better
NFC 50 - W / 14 - L - 78% W rate
AFC 43 -W / 21 - L - 67% W rate

Winningest Team for the last three years combined including play offs = New Orleans Saints! NFC

Secondly:

I do not know that ANYONE is good yet. I know there were some good teams last year but Detroit and the Broncos did not fall into that category on my planet. Nor do they come close this year based on last year..

Denver: 8-8 <---Please explain so i understand how this is good?
Detriot: Wild Card <---Please explain so I understand how this is good?

49erd HAD a great Defense and the Patriots and Packers HAD great offenses.


LASTLY:
There is nothing about a 10 year period that is a Dynasty. At best its an Era.

Presently there is only one team that comes close to ANYTHING resembling a Dynasty and that is the Pittsburgh Steelers. It has nothing to do with any QB or receiver... its the franchise.

So to answer the question.. No... Brees and two more will retire before the Saints are any where resembling a Dynasty (If we keep our present win rates). With 3 more Brees would have an Era.

Pittsburgh = Dynasty
Terry Bradshaw = Era
Joe Montana = Era

Why should being a dynasty be an easy thing to do? I just don't understand that...

But like I said, this is how you define a dynasty and it's naturally your prerogative, especially as the initial poster, but in my opinion dynasties are something that happen only very rarely - not necessarily once in every decade.

The best example, of what a dynasty in the sports world means to me, that I can give you is the Edmonton Oilers dynasty 1983-1990 in the NHL:

5 Stanley Cup Championships
5 Conference Championships
6 Division Championships

That to me is a dynasty.

Edmonton Oilers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to call something a dynasty, it would have to have happened already.

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, so I hope you don't take this the wrong way... But what is the logic behind that statement?!

Are you saying that we can just make stuff up? We can't just say " oh you have to win this many rings before you're a dynasty".

If no one ever scored a touchdown, we wouldn't know what it looks like to score a touchdown and wouldn't be able to describe the details. What if somebody said "oh touchdowns are now worth 20 points instead of 7"?

So how can we come up with a legit def for a football dynasty if it has never happened?

Hockey isn't the same as football. One game. Not 6.

First, in the Stanley Cup Finals, it's best out of 7 not 6, and some might argue that it's easier to win a single game than 4, but that's besides the point.


Second, there's quite a lot of difference between the definition of a dynasty and a touchdown, because for one, the other is pretty distinctly described in the rule book and the other is simply one term for greatness in sports.

So, in effect, I'm saying we can just make stuff up, because that is what f.e. those websites you sited have done. They've made up definitions for what a dynasty is in their opinion and according to those made-up guidelines they've handed out dynasty titles to some teams. As opposed to the touchdown, which I can't really make up a new definition for, I'm as free as those websites to define the term dynasty as whatever I please, because there's no unified and written down definition for what the term means other than of course some type of greatness. But for there to be a change in the points awarded by a touchdown, there'd have to be quite a few meetings between the league and the owners, and an official decision about it.

It just doesn't compute with me that you are saying that we can't define a dynasty to be something that hasn't already happened, because if that was the penultimate criteria no one could've even talked about a potential dynasty before a certain team won enough games/championships, and after that somebody went: "Hey, you know what, I think this team should be called a dynasty!" If that's the criteria, someone could've said right after the first Super Bowl in '67 that the Packers were a dynasty because they just won the Super Bowl. That would be as legit of a definition as any other based on the fact that the defining characteristic of a dynasty is that it has to be something that has already taken place.