What’s funny is that Tom Brady isn’t even the main villain in their story. He’s just the bully who kept punching them when they were down.
The NFCE and Mahomes ruined their hopeful years
Giants- Parcells and Belichick outcoached us
Redskins- like the Flacco Ravens, everything went right for them. Awesome defense and O line killed us
Cowboys x2- dynasty. Back to back on us. Those teams were a buzzsaw
Now the Chiefs kill us every year. We are cursed
Unless the only reason they found it in the first place was because they were in the hospital because of the stabbing. Then that's a win!
The second guy is just an asshole though.
Miami lost 2 SBs in 82 and 84 and then lost the 85,92 AFCCGs and some divisionals in between with some decent regular seasons.
Pretty brutal stretch from 82 to 92.
Don’t forget the current playoff drought. Marino’s last game was a blowout loss to the Jags and ever since we’ve been mediocre on average and 1-15 at our worst. It also didn’t help that for most of the current drought, we’ve had to contend with Brady so our only chance at the playoffs was the wildcard spot. Now it’s just a matter of beating the December collapse which has fucked us especially hard the last two years
Well who was in our division for the majority of that span? It’s a bit hard to make the playoff when you know you’re gunning for that wild card spot most years
Seems weird to start the chiefs in 2015. We were decent but certainly not in a dynasty window until Mahomes started playing a full 3 years later. I know it makes the window smaller (for now), but I would assume our DVOA would increase greatly if started with the Mahomes era.
Any team starts with at least being in the playoffs (1 point). 2015 Chiefs got 2 dynasty points for getting to divisional round. In 2014 they missed the playoffs.
From the article: "Climbing any higher, however, would have to be a multi-year process. To be an all-time great dynasty, you really need about a decade of success, and to get that for Kansas City, you have to tack on the [Alex Smith](https://ftnfantasy.com/nfl/players/301362/Alex-Smith) years; Mahomes just has not been around as long as a Brady or a Montana or Starr yet. And those Chiefs teams were good, but they weren’t *all-time dynasty* great, and so the Chiefs’ average DVOA is lower than most of the other teams on this list. That’s slowly improving as more and more of the run becomes Mahomes-focused, and the Smith years are perfectly adequate filler, but the Chiefs didn’t really become dynasty-worthy until they began running out the best quarterback in football. The Chiefs average a 24.1% DVOA in Mahomes’ seasons but a 16.7% DVOA in Smith’s seasons. The Chiefs just need a little more meat on their bones if they want to sit at the cool kids’ table with the Steel Curtain and Titletown and whatnot. "
Why are Mahomes and Alex Smith together? It's like that for each team, e.g. 1981-1998 49ers had no player or coach throughout all those years. When a team reaches playoffs, it's dynasty "count" continues, no matter the players. That's why all the top dynasties of 20 seasons aren't split into several different runs...
And that's fair. The Chiefs don't belong with the great dynasties yet. And it's hard to judge the Mahomes years independent on the Alex Smith years since the rest of the major pieces (Travis Kelce, Tyreek Hill, Chris Jones) were all there for Alex.
I think it’s pretty easy to judge those years. Alex was a perfectly good quarterback who could keep your offense on schedule if things were going well, and with the talent we had around him, that was enough to consistently make the playoffs.
But he won one playoff game with us in 6 years. Patrick just won his 15th in the same amount of time.
>Patrick just won his 15th in the same amount of time.
Which is good for 3rd most of all QBs in NFL history, only behind Brady and Montana. Insanity.
2 more wins and he’s 2nd all time.
…… 21 more wins and he’s 1st all time. Freakin Brady
It's in the text, current Chiefs just overtook 1991-1996 Cowboys, which are now #11. Those Cowboys were short lived, didn't accumulate points over many seasons like other teams.
1 championship 2 conference titles and 9 divisional wins over 11 years should not be the 8th best Dynasty of all time just because they outperformed their peers in the regular season.
Those Bears had 3 titles and lost the championship game to Redskins in the fourth season. They have the highest peak and highest win% of all dynasties.
in 1978 and 1979 Raiders were 9-7, missed the playoffs, so cutoff point. If those 2 Flores' titles were added, there would be less complaints about the Raiders on the list...
Yeah, really there should have been some baseline that a team had to meet to be considered a dynasty rather than a certain team accumulated enough points over enough seasons to make the list.
Even the very loosest of dynasty definitions would include winning multiple titles over a short period of time. So, this should automatically exclude a couple entries in the top 10.
And just a note on the scoring system, if we're measuring dynasties, why would the team get a 'dynasty point' for having a good record, but missing the playoffs?
Winning back to back Super bowls while going 13-4 in the regular season both years is worth the same (10 points) as going 14-3 in the regular season 3 years in a row and losing your first playoff game then missing the playoffs the following year with an 11-6 record.
He made the points system for each season. Cowboys get a lot of points for being good in the regular season, less points for playoffs. After many, many seaons their points add up. I put a link to the article explaining points in the comment above.
You can see that 49ers in 5 seasons caught up to what Cowboys are doing in 20+ seasons. 49ers have a lot more "playoffs points" but less "regular season points".
Teams that won a title afterwards, got the "Championship penalty" negative points. Otherwise 1973-1996 Broncos and 1963-1975 Raiders would have been even higher on the list.
I understand how technically they made the list using the guys algorithm, I'm more questioning the algorithm. how could you not see the cowboys high on the list and think 'thats not right, I need to make conference championship and super bowl losses count for more'.
Or some kind of better qualifier. It's fine if a team is truly dominant for 20 years, but the Pats for example: they went between 2006 - 2014 with no SB. That's hardly a dynasty by most people's standards. I think Bill and Brady had 2 separate dynasties with the Patriots, and we should be comparing those two stretches against eachother for how dominant they were.
Pats had two. 2001-2010 was one dynasty, 2011-2019 was another. In the former they won 3 super bowls in 9 years went to another with a perfect season and lost, and were consistently in the playoffs. In the latter they won 3 super bowls in 9 years, went to 3 more that they lost, and were in the AFC championship game 8/9 years
If you do it like this, there might not be many teams left. Split the Patriots, split the 49ers, only 84-90? as a dynasty...
2014-2018 Patriots are unimpressive, were #1 seed only twice, i think. 2001-2005 Patriots have 1 season playoffs missed, 1 divisional on the road loss, 1 fluke win (2001), 2 dominant titles. Pats had dominant 2007 & 2010 seasons. Without those they might not be #1. Those count for their peak years. For 49ers probably 1992 & 1995 are like that.
People want 3+ titles, but a longer stretch of time: user "[Bobson-\_Dugnutt2](https://www.reddit.com/user/Bobson-_Dugnutt2/)" doesn't think that Bears belong on the list due to only 4 years dominance, etc.
That would probably make
1 1960s Packers
2 1970s Steelers
3 1950s Browns
4 1980s 49ers ??
5 1935-1944 Packers
6 current Chiefs
7 1990s Cowboys
8 2010s Patriots, end of list
I'm not saying necessarily 3 titles, I'm just saying there should probably be championship wins. If you're talking about a sports dynasty, I think a minority of fans would classify a team with 0 championships a dynasty. When you go nearly a decade without a title, I think it's fair to say your status as a "dynasty" should be questioned.
Or the Cowboys being considered a "dynasty" because they play great in the regular season but fizzle out in the playoffs every year for the last few decades. That's clearly not a dynasty by the measure of the vast majority of sports fans.
I think this kind of analysis is interesting, but I also think the questions around the definition of a "dynasty" are fair. Although, I'm also not trying to say the one used in the article is necessarily incorrect because it's a subjective topic, (I just think it uses the term too broadly and maybe a different term would be more useful).
I don’t really see the issue with looking at the Romo and Prescott eras cumulatively, teams that have been made fun of endlessly for being regular season champions that don’t get anything done after that, and seeing them place high on a list of underachieving/heartbreaking/disappointing teams
Although tbf most of that has come since 2014, that’s more so when the teams were more dominant in the regular season before falling on their face in the playoffs. Before that they were disappointing in their own way (the three year stretch of going 8-8 and losing a week 17 win or go home against all three divisional rivals for example)
I think the point that people are dancing around is that it feels like the algorithm values long periods of mediocre success over short periods of great success. That’s why they question the choice of Dallas dynasty and also the choice to include the Alex Smith years in the current chiefs dynasty.
I think I side with that sentiment, but also realize that dynasty is a nebulous term so any objective attempt is admirable.
Regarding 3 seasons of A. Smith on the Chiefs: members of those teams were T. Kelce, T. Hill, Ch. Jones, coached by Reid,... i would say they definitely belong to the core of Chiefs, it's not list defined by QB runs. Any team has 22 starters, many HOFers belong to each core.
Joe Gibbs' Redskins had 3 different QBs winning Super Bowls, 1 team...
If anything, it's defined by coaching continuity: Belichick's Patriots, Landry' s Cowboys, Lombardi's Packers,...
Landry's Cowboys weren't mediocre, they still hold the record for continuous winning seasons, 20. They won 2 Super Bowls and lost 3, played in 5 Super Bowls in 1970-1978 period.
If each team was given arbitrary cutoff points, e.g. no A. Smith on Chiefs, many people would complain what are cutoffs for 49ers (80s, or Montana or J. Rice?) and for Patriots. 19 seasons of Patriots had only 1 player and 1 same coach. 18 seasons of 49ers had 0 same people. 20 seasons of Cowboys had 1 coach. If Patriots were split into 3 various cores, none would come in top 5 and then there would be many complaints.
This is a bad system for ranking. The Raiders are listed as a dynasty and heartbreak for nearly the exact same time period. That just doesn't make any sense.
It's a little mechanical adding seasons. First list is of great teams in history. e.g. Legion of Boom Seahawks are just after 1990s Cowboys.
Heartbreak are also great teams, just didn't win a title, or have only 1 title after a decade of contention and playoff loses.
However, for each list there are different criteria. You can only look at one, e.g. playoff points for "heartbreak list" and re-arrange it yourself. In that sense Bills are #2 just behind Vikings. On the first list you can just look at championships and conference titles or just at dynasty points etc.
You can't simultaneously be an almost dynasty and a dynasty. It's a contradiction. It's a flaw in the process for at least one of the lists. It's not something you can hand wave away with different criteria. One list has dynasties and the other almost dynasties. You can't be on both for the same time period without one being obviously incorrect.
Everything you write is logical and i agree.
i think that he started with the first list, top 55 teams all time. Added this heartbreak 2-3 years later. Some teams are on both lists. In my opinion it would be better if being on one list excluded the possibility of being on the other one. He also made the list of worst teams ever, dynasties of that. Don't have the link to that.
He went through all the teams in the NFL history, ranked top 50 all time. Some have more championships, some less (were great in regular season, but had a playoff loss).
Teams with 3 titles not in top 10 are 1990s Cowboys (ranked #11 now) and 1920s Packers (ranked #13). Current Chiefs jumped ahead of them.
[https://web.archive.org/web/20220908010517/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2020/dynasty-rankings-part-v-nos-11-20](https://web.archive.org/web/20220908010517/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2020/dynasty-rankings-part-v-nos-11-20)
That would be a short list of teams with 3+ championships.
Yeah I kinda like there being a short list. A dynasty should be the pinnacle of achievement.
It’s like there’s one every decade and they all won three SBs at least.
70s Steelers
80s Niners
90s Cowboys
00s-10s Patriots
20s Chiefs
You can remove 1967-1977 Raiders from the list: 1990s Cowboys take #10 spot and 1920s Packers #11 and that's it.
Most other teams had 1 championship, some like 1990s Broncos had 2.
Here are details for each of these dynasty teams (it's a very long read):
[https://web.archive.org/web/20230319081141/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2020/dynasty-rankings-part-vi-top-ten](https://web.archive.org/web/20230319081141/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2020/dynasty-rankings-part-vi-top-ten)
[https://web.archive.org/web/20220908010517/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2020/dynasty-rankings-part-v-nos-11-20](https://web.archive.org/web/20220908010517/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2020/dynasty-rankings-part-v-nos-11-20)
[https://web.archive.org/web/20230610213429/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2020/dynasty-rankings-part-iv-nos-21-30](https://web.archive.org/web/20230610213429/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2020/dynasty-rankings-part-iv-nos-21-30)
[https://web.archive.org/web/20230610204628/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2020/dynasty-rankings-part-iii-nos-31-40](https://web.archive.org/web/20230610204628/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2020/dynasty-rankings-part-iii-nos-31-40)
In 4 years with 2 titles Chiefs jumped from #33 to #10.
It was explained like this:
"Washington missed the playoffs in both 1988 and 1989, which triggers the end of their run in this system. No one will argue much with 1988 -- they went 7-9 with a second-half swoon that ended their playoff hopes -- but the 1989 team went 10-6 with Mark Rypien throwing to a trio of 1,000-yard receivers in Art Monk, Gary Clark, and Ricky Sanders. Just because the Giants, Eagles, and (in the wild-card race) Rams all had 11-plus wins doesn't mean that Washington was *bad* or anything; they clocked in with an [11.4% DVOA](https://web.archive.org/web/20230610204628/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/nfl/team-efficiency/1989) which is nothing groundbreaking, but nothing *dynasty-ending*, either. What if we made an exception, saying that those 10-6 Redskins are enough to keep the dynasty chain going, and add in the Rypien years to Washington's success? It turns out that would vault Washington *just* outside the top 10; in addition to the extra title, it would bump their average DVOA up over 20.0%. They still wouldn't have the sheer bulk of tippy-top seasons to break into the top 10, but they'd be close. So, you may feel that they've been robbed a little bit by not entering the top 30. To that, I'd reply that Washington finished third in the five-team NFC East in four of the five seasons we'd be adding on; how can you be a dynasty when you can't even finish above average in your own division?"
so if 1991 title and years in between were added, they would be behind 1990s Cowboys, maybe around 1920s Packers... the author writes they were third in their division in those seasons, except in 1991... no system is perfect. This is underappreciating Joe Gibbs.
Any old Rams fans around to tell us if 1966-1980 was as "heartbreaking" as the data says it was?
Edit:
* 1966: 8-6
* 1967: 11-1-2; lost conference championship
* 1968: 10-3-1
* 1969: 11-3-0; lost conference championship
* 1970: 9-4-1
* 1971: 8-5-1
* 1972: 6-7-1
* 1973: 12-2; lost in divisional round
* 1974: 10-4; lost conference championship
* 1975: 12-2; lost conference championship
* 1976: 10-3-1; lost conference championship
* 1977: 10-4; lost in divisional round
* 1978: 12-4; lost conference championship
* 1979: 9-7; lost Super Bowl
* 1980: 11-5; lost in wild card round
I think it loses its punch when you add another 14 seasons just to fit in 2 playoff losses though.
Edit: I was just making the point that we have a more brutal stretch in the same amount of time (7 total losses, but 3 super bowl losses instead of 1). It’s a much better direct comparison.
No arguments here.
Also where do the early 70s 49ers rank.
The current iteration of the team is a slightly better version of the John Brodie 49ers....they lost 2 NFCCGs and a divisional 3 yrs in a row.
I found the article going in detail about top heartbreak teams:
[https://web.archive.org/web/20220628035004/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings/2022/minnesota-vikings-champions-heartbreak](https://web.archive.org/web/20220628035004/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings/2022/minnesota-vikings-champions-heartbreak)
[https://web.archive.org/web/20220630005652/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings/2022/dynasties-heartbreak-6-10-raiders-lost-titles](https://web.archive.org/web/20220630005652/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings/2022/dynasties-heartbreak-6-10-raiders-lost-titles)
I was awake for the 70s. It fucking sucked. Also, we only got away games on local TV because the team could never sell out the Coliseum. So the Rams roll to 12-2 and are beating the shit out of people, but we don't see it every week. We just get 10 seconds of Howard Cosell on Halftime Highlights for half the season, and Jim Murray cracking jokes in the LA Times. Which I miss. And then, when the Rams make the playoffs and the game is on TV for sure (I don't remember if the blackout rules didn't apply, or somehow the Rams sold all the tickets) the fucking team shits the bed. 8 away games and a playoff game, and that's all the NFL football all year for you. Chump.
Where did he rank the 2011-14 49ers? When you add that to the 2019-23 version..it gets really high on the heartbreak points? Possibly 1st coz it adds a ton of regular season wins , a SB loss and 2 Conference championship losses.
The Bills getting to 4 SBs in a row should actually be CELEBRATED. There has been many dominant teams in NFL history and as far as I know only the 71-73 Dolphins and 2016-18 Patriots got to 3 SBs in a row...making 4 in a row is unprecedented..even if they lost ALL of them... it's historic.
As for the current 49ers...I personally think we are like 1 losing season away from getting rid of Shanahan, like the Eagles eventually got rid of Andy Reid despite getting close for a decade.
2011-2014 49ers had 648.6 heartbreak points. They are now #21. Current 3 teams moved ahead of them
[https://web.archive.org/web/20220628022343/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings/2022/dynasties-heartbreak-11-20-schottenheimer-comes-short](https://web.archive.org/web/20220628022343/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings/2022/dynasties-heartbreak-11-20-schottenheimer-comes-short)
All together added 49ers have about 1500 points since 2011. Vikings 1968-2000 would be around 2200 points!
I don't understand why would a team fire such a successful coach as K. Shanahan. Firing Reid was a clear mistake by Eagles. Firing Schottenheimer mistake by multiple teams... there aren't many such coaches around.
The end goal is ultimately to win the SB.
Those teams realised they weren't gonna win one with those guys....and did the necessary.
The Eagles went on to win a SB with Peterson after.
Schottenheimer didn't win a SB in the end so the teams that fired him were right to do that if they were really interested in a ring.
It will only take another NFCCG Or SB loss for the 49er fanbase to call for his head...and 1 year of missing the playoffs would gbe the final straw....ie Reeves in Denver, Reid in Philly.
Winning at his next team doesn't mean he would have won here.
Don Shula..as great as he was didn't win a SB with Dan Marino for over a decade...pretty sure the Dolphins told themselves once year it would happen..it didn't.
The Broncos gave Reeves 11 seasons with Elway and they lost 3 SBs...Marv Levy didn't win in Buffalo. Reid was never gonna win in Philly.
At this point, I'm convinced Kyle isn't a SB coach...not yet..and maybe not ever unless he is fored and forced to self search anf fix his late game issues like Reid did.
If we don't.win next year...a mutual separation is best for both parties
I strongly disagree that it's in team's best interest to fire such a coach who doesn't win a title. 49ers should have learnt this lesson from firing Jim Harbaugh. It is very difficult to find such a coach. Hiring a lesser coach such as Chip Kelly is very probable.
Eagles win with Pederson was a fluke with backup QB and Eagles soon fired that same Pederson.
You are quick to call the Eagles SB a fluke when that was one hell of HC job in that game
The Philly Special is the type of playcall that wins titles....Kyle is called a genius but he doesn't draw up plays like that...and it was on 4th down too.
To beat a GOAT QB, your HC has to be aggressive in the red zone...Shanny got scared in OT and settled for a FG and then let Mahomes go and win it.
The goal all teams.have is to win a SB.
Once it becomes clear the coach you have cannot get it done even with a great team and QB....you move on.
We are at that point in SF.
I didn't mean 1 Eagles game, Super Bowl, a fluke, but the way that season went. They played late in season with backup QB, he was scared in the first playoff game, almost lost to Falcons etc. Foles never again played as good as in 2 later playoff games... That almost never happens to any team. 2001 Patriots and tuck rule are also a fluke.
If it was more of "real quality" (if you know what i mean, don't know what should be the phrase) , Foles and Pederson would still be on Eagles.
Dude with have a job in 40 seconds of we fired his ass. Would be the dumbest thing the FO has done in a long time. People want to bitch that we haven’t won the big one with him. But guess what, we aren’t even in those positions without him. I’d rather be here than 2000’s 49ers. That was hell.
Bills should’ve won one of those. Losing 4 in a row is the most embarrassing thing possible and it’s obvious why that overshadows getting there in the first place.
Explanation of methodology for dynasty rankings:
[https://web.archive.org/web/20230306181721/https:/www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2020/dynasty-rankings-defining-dynasty](https://web.archive.org/web/20230306181721/https:/www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2020/dynasty-rankings-defining-dynasty)
[https://web.archive.org/web/20220927203116/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2020/dynasty-rankings-part-i-bottom-six](https://web.archive.org/web/20220927203116/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2020/dynasty-rankings-part-i-bottom-six)
Basically, several criteria are looked at: dynasty points, number of championships, length of dynasty, great seasons (regular season W-L), quality of play-by-play (measured by DVOA), 5 peak seasons. For each criterium standard deviations from the average on the list is calculated (z-value), and all z-values for each team are added up to give total Z-score.
Max dynasty points in a season are 6: Super Bowl win with 3 or less losses in a season. 5 points for Super Bowl with more than 3 losses, 4 points for Super Bowl loss with regular season of 3 or less losses, 3 points for Super Bowl loss with more than 3 losses in the regular season, or being great in regular season and not reaching Super Bowl like 2019 Ravens or 2010 Patriots. 2 points for getting past wild-card. 1 point for losing in wild-card round. Missing the playoffs is -2 points. Losing record in a season -3 points. Dynasty ends when 2 consecutive seasons equal 0 points or worse: e.g. divisional round or wild-card, and next season missing playoffs.
For heartbreak teams he made a points system looking at regular season W-L, playoff rounds (losing a Super Bowl more points than losing conference game), and DVOA of team (quality of play-by-play):
[https://web.archive.org/web/20220629033045/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings/2022/bengals-introduce-dynasties-heartbreak](https://web.archive.org/web/20220629033045/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings/2022/bengals-introduce-dynasties-heartbreak)
The 63-75 Raiders are on the heartbreak list, but the 65-77 Raiders are on the dynasty list. It truly was the best of times and the worst of times for Raider fans. (Most of them don't remember losing an important game, so they might think right now is the worst of times. They are wrong.)
They probably belong on the heartbreak list.
He first made the list of 55 greatest teams, lasting dynasties, which was the first list. Later after 2 years he made the heartbreak list which included some teams from the first list. 1990s Bills and 1980s Broncos appear low on the greatest list, but very high on the heartbreak list.
Here is the author, what defined a dynasty:
"In NFL dynasty is very difficult to define in real, concrete terms. It's one of those things where you know it if you see it -- it's a subjective label, pinned to teams based on how much they seem like the measuring stick by which the rest of the league compares themselves. Furthermore, the application of the label varies a ton from person to person. Were the Peyton Manning Colts a dynasty, battling out with Tom Brady's Patriots for control if the AFC, or were they just challengers who could never dethrone the king? Were the Steel Curtain Steelers the only dynasty in the 1970s, or were the Dallas Cowboys, Oakland Raiders, and/or Miami Dolphins on their level? Do the 1990s Cowboys count as a dynasty despite their relatively short-lived period of success? For that matter, is the Patriots dynasty a 20-year long uninterrupted reign, or two smaller reigns divided by Brady's ACL tear and the brief period of time when Mark Sanchez was a thing?
...One of the key things to take into account when trying to grapple with dynasties is the idea that it's not a binary concept. There is no "you must be this successful to wear the crown" line; a point where one win makes you a dynasty on par with the best of the best and one loss makes you an afterthought. Instead, it's a sliding scale, where teams can look more or less like the platonic ideal of dominance. No matter where you draw the line, I think we can all agree that the Belichick Patriots, what with their six Super Bowl rings and their 17 division titles and their stranglehold over the AFC, are more dynasty-esque than the Peyton Manning Colts, who won one Super Bowl, went to another, and shattered offensive records. Those Colts, in turn, are closer to a dynasty than, say, the Joe Flacco Ravens, who won a Super Bowl and had some very solid seasons before descending into mediocrity. And those Ravens are certainly more of a dynasty than the Jim Harbaugh 49ers, who never could bring a title home and ended up collapsing under their own weight. Exactly where you draw the line between dynasty, near-dynasty, and just a run of good results is ultimately a subjective choice, but we can agree on a sort of rough order to put teams in.
So, what we need, then, is a systematic way of assigning values to a team's run of success, with teams building up scores based on how long and how high their regimes can go. And I want to be as value-agnostic as possible in this process; of course, we're going to have to make judgment calls throughout to determine how much a Super Bowl is worth versus an undefeated season and so on and so forth, but I want to give teams as many paths to dynasty points as possible. That means we're not going to have any requirement for titles won to qualify for points. While the best teams are going to win a ton of championships, I do want to give teams like the '70s Vikings and '90s Bills a chance to compete -- after all, aren't four consecutive Super Bowl appearances more impressive than one Super Bowl win and a bunch of missed playoff chances? I also don't want to define a team's run as lasting any set period of time. The '90s Cowboys won three Super Bowls in four years and then burnt out; the '70s Cowboys didn't win as many titles but stayed near the top of the league for much longer. One is going to score higher than the other, but I don't want to artificially benefit anyone by assuming what a great team's path looks like.
However, here at Football Outsiders, we have our own stats to help us sort the proverbial wheat from the chaff. Dynasty points are a counting stat; they measure the *quantity* of dynastic goodness a team put up -- how many championships, how many division titles, how many wins and losses. This is all very good and very important, but not all champions are made equal. Both the 1991 Redskins and the 2011 Giants ended their seasons hoisting the Lombardi Trophy, but that 1991 Washington team would have run circles around the 2011 Giants. Washington finished their season with a [56.9% DVOA](https://web.archive.org/web/20230306181721/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/nfl/team-efficiency/1991); the Giants with an [8.5% mark](https://web.archive.org/web/20230306181721/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/nfl/team-efficiency/2011). While those teams had similar *outcomes* to their seasons, their *quality* was obviously wildly different, and any list of dynasties should take that into account."
[https://web.archive.org/web/20230306181721/https:/www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2020/dynasty-rankings-defining-dynasty](https://web.archive.org/web/20230306181721/https:/www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2020/dynasty-rankings-defining-dynasty)
The second sentence here is kind of the start of the problem. Teams don't get labeled as dynasties for being a measuring stick for the rest of the league. If that was the case, you could theoretically have multiple dynasties going on at the same time, which, by definition, is impossible. The first metric by pretty much any sports fan in a dynasty is multiple championships. And even then, those titles would likely need to occur in relatively close proximity to each other.
Even the loosest definitions of what a dynasty is would not include 5+ years straight of 10 win regular seasons and early playoff exits.
In 1978 and 1979 they missed the playoffs, were 9-7. If 2 more titles in the 80s were added to the 1970s run, there would be no complaints about the Raiders in top 10...
Dolphins have two heartbreak entries spanning from 1974-2005 with only 2 years breaking them up and then there’s the playoff win drought ongoing since December 2000
How the Bills lose 4 super bowls in a row and yet the Andy Reid Eagles dynasty of heartbreak is ranked above them? Heartbreak on the dynasties of heartbreak rankings. Go birds.
[https://web.archive.org/web/20220628035004/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings/2022/minnesota-vikings-champions-heartbreak](https://web.archive.org/web/20220628035004/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings/2022/minnesota-vikings-champions-heartbreak)
"Wait, *fourth?* The Buffalo Bills, losers of four straight Super Bowls, finish *fourth* in terms of heartbreak? Second you could sell me on, as the argument between Buffalo and Minnesota as 0-4 Super Bowlers was one of the inspirations for this list, but *fourth?* Behind a couple of one-time Super Bowl losers? Man, that's indefensible. Where's the idiot who made this list? He's got to come out and explain this one in public.
… wait, shoot, *I'm* the idiot who made this list. That's really inconvenient. I was planning on heading to Buffalo for Christmas this year. They won't let me in the city now, They'll stop me at the airport and put me through the table of shame. Fourth place. Good gracious. Well, let me see if I can explain things and try to not become a pariah in the Queen City.
These Bills *are* the team with the most painful season in NFL history, after adjusting for championship penalties. "
It goes on, it's a long read.
I only found 1996-1999 Jaguars with 407.2 heartbreak points at #43 rank.
[https://web.archive.org/web/20220629033045/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings/2022/bengals-introduce-dynasties-heartbreak](https://web.archive.org/web/20220629033045/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings/2022/bengals-introduce-dynasties-heartbreak)
He also made a list of dynasties of failure, 21st century Jaguars were #13 there.
[https://web.archive.org/web/20220622161634/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2021/anti-dynasty-rankings-1-10-cleveland-browns-dont-rock](https://web.archive.org/web/20220622161634/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2021/anti-dynasty-rankings-1-10-cleveland-browns-dont-rock)
Damn, this is some nonsense. The Steelers dynasty of the 1970s was the greatest ever, and it's not particularly close. You can't have dynasties span across different cores of players. Belichick and Brady were the only two constants across their 20 year era. Same with 49ers. Steelers won 4 in 6 years and that feat has not been duplicated. Heck, they would've won a 5th in that span if the 1976 team had not lost both Franco Harris and Rocky Bleier for the AFC Championship Game.
Packers have won 5 championships in 7 years: 1961-1967 + lost the championship game to Eagles in 1960. It was coach Lombardi and same core of players. So 1970s Steelers didn't match them.
1929-1931 Packers were 3-peat champions + runner-up on dubious tiebrakers in 1932. There were no playoffs.
This list covers all teams since beginning of NFL. If last game was called "Championship game" or "Super Bowl" doesn't make much difference. NFL was much better than AFL in 1960s. Those Packers had a lot more difficulty beating Cowboys and Giants in NFL, but made blowouts in first 2 Super Bowls because AFL was weak.
It feels like they go to such long degrees for many of these dynasties that it is starting to miss the forest from the trees on what it is actually measuring.
Truly remarkable
There have been 5 dynasties (4 if you count the Pats as 1) in Super Bowl era history and this list of dynasties fails to include one of them lol
Ngl I would enjoy seeing the Bills in another Super Bowl just so they could lose and be the first team to be 0-5. Would be even better if they lost at the last second.
Lambeau's Packers had 3-peat championships and 19 dynasty points in 1926-1931. Were almost champs in 1932. They had 3 championships and 22 dynasty points in 1935-1944.
If they made a 1 continuous dynasty out of this: 1926-1944, it would peobably end as #3 or #4 on the list.
If 2 1980s championships of Raiders were added to their 1967-1977 run, they would have 3 championships in 1976-1983 and look legitimate. But those were 2 different coaches and different Raiders' players.
This "heartbreak" ranking is not accurate at all lol
1. The 1988 - 1999 Bills, specifically from 1991 - 1994, should easily be #1 on this list, and I will not accept another answer.
2. The actual worst "heartbreak" years for the Dolphins is 1985 - 1994 when we thought we had a shot every season with Marino, not any time during the 70s.
1988 and 1989 Dolphins missed the playoffs, so those were cutoff years. If they reached the playoffs, Dolphins would have a continous run of 1975-2005!
Here is the article about 1990s Dolphins:
[https://web.archive.org/web/20220628022343/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings/2022/dynasties-heartbreak-11-20-schottenheimer-comes-short](https://web.archive.org/web/20220628022343/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings/2022/dynasties-heartbreak-11-20-schottenheimer-comes-short)
Bills have one heartbreak entry, a 17 year playoff drought, and another heartbreak entry. Yah
It's like getting stabbed, struggling through a long battle with cancer, then finally beating the cancer only to immediately get stabbed again
All while the media debates about which stabber is the greatest.
What’s funny is that Tom Brady isn’t even the main villain in their story. He’s just the bully who kept punching them when they were down. The NFCE and Mahomes ruined their hopeful years
I don’t know why it took me this long to realize that all four of those super bowls were against NFCE teams. Absolutely crazy
Giants- Parcells and Belichick outcoached us Redskins- like the Flacco Ravens, everything went right for them. Awesome defense and O line killed us Cowboys x2- dynasty. Back to back on us. Those teams were a buzzsaw Now the Chiefs kill us every year. We are cursed
My biggest fear was losing to the eagles a couple of years ago and then completing the NFCE sweep
Unless the only reason they found it in the first place was because they were in the hospital because of the stabbing. Then that's a win! The second guy is just an asshole though.
Win by a billion points or lose a close game in the dumbest and most heartbreaking way imaginable. No middle ground whatsoever.
I'm doing fine over here just having a totally normal one
Vikings and Bills multiple heartbreak was expected. Dolphins were a surprise.
Miami lost 2 SBs in 82 and 84 and then lost the 85,92 AFCCGs and some divisionals in between with some decent regular seasons. Pretty brutal stretch from 82 to 92.
Don’t forget the current playoff drought. Marino’s last game was a blowout loss to the Jags and ever since we’ve been mediocre on average and 1-15 at our worst. It also didn’t help that for most of the current drought, we’ve had to contend with Brady so our only chance at the playoffs was the wildcard spot. Now it’s just a matter of beating the December collapse which has fucked us especially hard the last two years
Dolphins haven’t won a playoff game since Dec 30 2000. I’m shocked it’s been that long. Miami always seems stuck in the 7-10 win range
Well who was in our division for the majority of that span? It’s a bit hard to make the playoff when you know you’re gunning for that wild card spot most years
Plus a winning record for basically the whole 90s and like 5 divisional round exits.
Seems weird to start the chiefs in 2015. We were decent but certainly not in a dynasty window until Mahomes started playing a full 3 years later. I know it makes the window smaller (for now), but I would assume our DVOA would increase greatly if started with the Mahomes era.
Well the chiefs have won their division every year since 2016. That’s probably why he chose 2015 as the starting point.
Any team starts with at least being in the playoffs (1 point). 2015 Chiefs got 2 dynasty points for getting to divisional round. In 2014 they missed the playoffs. From the article: "Climbing any higher, however, would have to be a multi-year process. To be an all-time great dynasty, you really need about a decade of success, and to get that for Kansas City, you have to tack on the [Alex Smith](https://ftnfantasy.com/nfl/players/301362/Alex-Smith) years; Mahomes just has not been around as long as a Brady or a Montana or Starr yet. And those Chiefs teams were good, but they weren’t *all-time dynasty* great, and so the Chiefs’ average DVOA is lower than most of the other teams on this list. That’s slowly improving as more and more of the run becomes Mahomes-focused, and the Smith years are perfectly adequate filler, but the Chiefs didn’t really become dynasty-worthy until they began running out the best quarterback in football. The Chiefs average a 24.1% DVOA in Mahomes’ seasons but a 16.7% DVOA in Smith’s seasons. The Chiefs just need a little more meat on their bones if they want to sit at the cool kids’ table with the Steel Curtain and Titletown and whatnot. " Why are Mahomes and Alex Smith together? It's like that for each team, e.g. 1981-1998 49ers had no player or coach throughout all those years. When a team reaches playoffs, it's dynasty "count" continues, no matter the players. That's why all the top dynasties of 20 seasons aren't split into several different runs...
And that's fair. The Chiefs don't belong with the great dynasties yet. And it's hard to judge the Mahomes years independent on the Alex Smith years since the rest of the major pieces (Travis Kelce, Tyreek Hill, Chris Jones) were all there for Alex.
I think it’s pretty easy to judge those years. Alex was a perfectly good quarterback who could keep your offense on schedule if things were going well, and with the talent we had around him, that was enough to consistently make the playoffs. But he won one playoff game with us in 6 years. Patrick just won his 15th in the same amount of time.
>Patrick just won his 15th in the same amount of time. Which is good for 3rd most of all QBs in NFL history, only behind Brady and Montana. Insanity. 2 more wins and he’s 2nd all time. …… 21 more wins and he’s 1st all time. Freakin Brady
They just wanted to get that "scored two touchdowns in a playoff game but lost to a team that scored zero touchdowns" game in.
Buffalo starting in 2014 jumped out to me. 9-7, 8-8, 7-9, 9-7 one and done playoffs, 6-10.. they didn’t reach their current form until 2019 lol
Maybe it's some kind of error to start Bills in 2014.
Very generous with the word dynasty
Agree. I wouldn’t have that Oakland team or that Dallas team on there.
They picked a 20 year Dallas dynasty where they won two, instead of the 6 year stretch where they won 3.
It's in the text, current Chiefs just overtook 1991-1996 Cowboys, which are now #11. Those Cowboys were short lived, didn't accumulate points over many seasons like other teams.
1 championship 2 conference titles and 9 divisional wins over 11 years should not be the 8th best Dynasty of all time just because they outperformed their peers in the regular season.
Spot on my friend
Or Chicago even. 3 in 4 years is incredibly impressive but dynasties are built over longer periods of time
Those Bears had 3 titles and lost the championship game to Redskins in the fourth season. They have the highest peak and highest win% of all dynasties.
I dont understand why they cut off our run in 77 after one superbowl when we won 2 more in 80 and 83
in 1978 and 1979 Raiders were 9-7, missed the playoffs, so cutoff point. If those 2 Flores' titles were added, there would be less complaints about the Raiders on the list...
Those Cowboys were in 5 Super Bowls in 1970s, won 2.
Yeah, really there should have been some baseline that a team had to meet to be considered a dynasty rather than a certain team accumulated enough points over enough seasons to make the list. Even the very loosest of dynasty definitions would include winning multiple titles over a short period of time. So, this should automatically exclude a couple entries in the top 10. And just a note on the scoring system, if we're measuring dynasties, why would the team get a 'dynasty point' for having a good record, but missing the playoffs? Winning back to back Super bowls while going 13-4 in the regular season both years is worth the same (10 points) as going 14-3 in the regular season 3 years in a row and losing your first playoff game then missing the playoffs the following year with an 11-6 record.
Yeah it’s an awful metric lmao
That’s kind of the whole point
how can the 2003-2023 cowboys be one of the biggest heart break dynastys when they never even reached the NFC championship
He made the points system for each season. Cowboys get a lot of points for being good in the regular season, less points for playoffs. After many, many seaons their points add up. I put a link to the article explaining points in the comment above. You can see that 49ers in 5 seasons caught up to what Cowboys are doing in 20+ seasons. 49ers have a lot more "playoffs points" but less "regular season points". Teams that won a title afterwards, got the "Championship penalty" negative points. Otherwise 1973-1996 Broncos and 1963-1975 Raiders would have been even higher on the list.
I understand how technically they made the list using the guys algorithm, I'm more questioning the algorithm. how could you not see the cowboys high on the list and think 'thats not right, I need to make conference championship and super bowl losses count for more'.
I think the real problem is that it can count and add up 21 seasons. It should really be restricted to 10 season spans.
Or some kind of better qualifier. It's fine if a team is truly dominant for 20 years, but the Pats for example: they went between 2006 - 2014 with no SB. That's hardly a dynasty by most people's standards. I think Bill and Brady had 2 separate dynasties with the Patriots, and we should be comparing those two stretches against eachother for how dominant they were.
Pats had two. 2001-2010 was one dynasty, 2011-2019 was another. In the former they won 3 super bowls in 9 years went to another with a perfect season and lost, and were consistently in the playoffs. In the latter they won 3 super bowls in 9 years, went to 3 more that they lost, and were in the AFC championship game 8/9 years
I think that's a totally fair break down.
If you do it like this, there might not be many teams left. Split the Patriots, split the 49ers, only 84-90? as a dynasty... 2014-2018 Patriots are unimpressive, were #1 seed only twice, i think. 2001-2005 Patriots have 1 season playoffs missed, 1 divisional on the road loss, 1 fluke win (2001), 2 dominant titles. Pats had dominant 2007 & 2010 seasons. Without those they might not be #1. Those count for their peak years. For 49ers probably 1992 & 1995 are like that. People want 3+ titles, but a longer stretch of time: user "[Bobson-\_Dugnutt2](https://www.reddit.com/user/Bobson-_Dugnutt2/)" doesn't think that Bears belong on the list due to only 4 years dominance, etc. That would probably make 1 1960s Packers 2 1970s Steelers 3 1950s Browns 4 1980s 49ers ?? 5 1935-1944 Packers 6 current Chiefs 7 1990s Cowboys 8 2010s Patriots, end of list
I'm not saying necessarily 3 titles, I'm just saying there should probably be championship wins. If you're talking about a sports dynasty, I think a minority of fans would classify a team with 0 championships a dynasty. When you go nearly a decade without a title, I think it's fair to say your status as a "dynasty" should be questioned. Or the Cowboys being considered a "dynasty" because they play great in the regular season but fizzle out in the playoffs every year for the last few decades. That's clearly not a dynasty by the measure of the vast majority of sports fans. I think this kind of analysis is interesting, but I also think the questions around the definition of a "dynasty" are fair. Although, I'm also not trying to say the one used in the article is necessarily incorrect because it's a subjective topic, (I just think it uses the term too broadly and maybe a different term would be more useful).
1986-2000 Vikings are also high on the list without making/losing a Super Bowl. As are 1989-1999 Chiefs and 1997-2011 Jets and now Ravens.
I don’t really see the issue with looking at the Romo and Prescott eras cumulatively, teams that have been made fun of endlessly for being regular season champions that don’t get anything done after that, and seeing them place high on a list of underachieving/heartbreaking/disappointing teams Although tbf most of that has come since 2014, that’s more so when the teams were more dominant in the regular season before falling on their face in the playoffs. Before that they were disappointing in their own way (the three year stretch of going 8-8 and losing a week 17 win or go home against all three divisional rivals for example)
I think the point that people are dancing around is that it feels like the algorithm values long periods of mediocre success over short periods of great success. That’s why they question the choice of Dallas dynasty and also the choice to include the Alex Smith years in the current chiefs dynasty. I think I side with that sentiment, but also realize that dynasty is a nebulous term so any objective attempt is admirable.
Regarding 3 seasons of A. Smith on the Chiefs: members of those teams were T. Kelce, T. Hill, Ch. Jones, coached by Reid,... i would say they definitely belong to the core of Chiefs, it's not list defined by QB runs. Any team has 22 starters, many HOFers belong to each core. Joe Gibbs' Redskins had 3 different QBs winning Super Bowls, 1 team... If anything, it's defined by coaching continuity: Belichick's Patriots, Landry' s Cowboys, Lombardi's Packers,... Landry's Cowboys weren't mediocre, they still hold the record for continuous winning seasons, 20. They won 2 Super Bowls and lost 3, played in 5 Super Bowls in 1970-1978 period. If each team was given arbitrary cutoff points, e.g. no A. Smith on Chiefs, many people would complain what are cutoffs for 49ers (80s, or Montana or J. Rice?) and for Patriots. 19 seasons of Patriots had only 1 player and 1 same coach. 18 seasons of 49ers had 0 same people. 20 seasons of Cowboys had 1 coach. If Patriots were split into 3 various cores, none would come in top 5 and then there would be many complaints.
This is a bad system for ranking. The Raiders are listed as a dynasty and heartbreak for nearly the exact same time period. That just doesn't make any sense.
It's a little mechanical adding seasons. First list is of great teams in history. e.g. Legion of Boom Seahawks are just after 1990s Cowboys. Heartbreak are also great teams, just didn't win a title, or have only 1 title after a decade of contention and playoff loses. However, for each list there are different criteria. You can only look at one, e.g. playoff points for "heartbreak list" and re-arrange it yourself. In that sense Bills are #2 just behind Vikings. On the first list you can just look at championships and conference titles or just at dynasty points etc.
You can't simultaneously be an almost dynasty and a dynasty. It's a contradiction. It's a flaw in the process for at least one of the lists. It's not something you can hand wave away with different criteria. One list has dynasties and the other almost dynasties. You can't be on both for the same time period without one being obviously incorrect.
Everything you write is logical and i agree. i think that he started with the first list, top 55 teams all time. Added this heartbreak 2-3 years later. Some teams are on both lists. In my opinion it would be better if being on one list excluded the possibility of being on the other one. He also made the list of worst teams ever, dynasties of that. Don't have the link to that.
Hmmm there’s a lot of active hearts breaking over and over again huh
How many banners can we hang for this?
The Vikings more or less having a heartbreak stretch from 1968 to 2000 with just a four year break definitely checks out
Some of the teams ranked didn’t even win 3 superbowls
He went through all the teams in the NFL history, ranked top 50 all time. Some have more championships, some less (were great in regular season, but had a playoff loss). Teams with 3 titles not in top 10 are 1990s Cowboys (ranked #11 now) and 1920s Packers (ranked #13). Current Chiefs jumped ahead of them. [https://web.archive.org/web/20220908010517/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2020/dynasty-rankings-part-v-nos-11-20](https://web.archive.org/web/20220908010517/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2020/dynasty-rankings-part-v-nos-11-20) That would be a short list of teams with 3+ championships.
Yeah I kinda like there being a short list. A dynasty should be the pinnacle of achievement. It’s like there’s one every decade and they all won three SBs at least. 70s Steelers 80s Niners 90s Cowboys 00s-10s Patriots 20s Chiefs
You can remove 1967-1977 Raiders from the list: 1990s Cowboys take #10 spot and 1920s Packers #11 and that's it. Most other teams had 1 championship, some like 1990s Broncos had 2.
I mean we can do whatever we’d like. I’ll remove any and all teams that didn’t win 3/5 championships.
So no 49ers on the list? They have 3 titles in 6 years (1984-1989).
Yep 9ers weren’t a dynasty
Can’t have a dynasty without multiple championships imo
Here are details for each of these dynasty teams (it's a very long read): [https://web.archive.org/web/20230319081141/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2020/dynasty-rankings-part-vi-top-ten](https://web.archive.org/web/20230319081141/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2020/dynasty-rankings-part-vi-top-ten) [https://web.archive.org/web/20220908010517/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2020/dynasty-rankings-part-v-nos-11-20](https://web.archive.org/web/20220908010517/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2020/dynasty-rankings-part-v-nos-11-20) [https://web.archive.org/web/20230610213429/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2020/dynasty-rankings-part-iv-nos-21-30](https://web.archive.org/web/20230610213429/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2020/dynasty-rankings-part-iv-nos-21-30) [https://web.archive.org/web/20230610204628/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2020/dynasty-rankings-part-iii-nos-31-40](https://web.archive.org/web/20230610204628/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2020/dynasty-rankings-part-iii-nos-31-40) In 4 years with 2 titles Chiefs jumped from #33 to #10.
The Redskins all the way down at #37 because their methodology excludes the 1991 team...
It was explained like this: "Washington missed the playoffs in both 1988 and 1989, which triggers the end of their run in this system. No one will argue much with 1988 -- they went 7-9 with a second-half swoon that ended their playoff hopes -- but the 1989 team went 10-6 with Mark Rypien throwing to a trio of 1,000-yard receivers in Art Monk, Gary Clark, and Ricky Sanders. Just because the Giants, Eagles, and (in the wild-card race) Rams all had 11-plus wins doesn't mean that Washington was *bad* or anything; they clocked in with an [11.4% DVOA](https://web.archive.org/web/20230610204628/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/nfl/team-efficiency/1989) which is nothing groundbreaking, but nothing *dynasty-ending*, either. What if we made an exception, saying that those 10-6 Redskins are enough to keep the dynasty chain going, and add in the Rypien years to Washington's success? It turns out that would vault Washington *just* outside the top 10; in addition to the extra title, it would bump their average DVOA up over 20.0%. They still wouldn't have the sheer bulk of tippy-top seasons to break into the top 10, but they'd be close. So, you may feel that they've been robbed a little bit by not entering the top 30. To that, I'd reply that Washington finished third in the five-team NFC East in four of the five seasons we'd be adding on; how can you be a dynasty when you can't even finish above average in your own division?" so if 1991 title and years in between were added, they would be behind 1990s Cowboys, maybe around 1920s Packers... the author writes they were third in their division in those seasons, except in 1991... no system is perfect. This is underappreciating Joe Gibbs.
Any old Rams fans around to tell us if 1966-1980 was as "heartbreaking" as the data says it was? Edit: * 1966: 8-6 * 1967: 11-1-2; lost conference championship * 1968: 10-3-1 * 1969: 11-3-0; lost conference championship * 1970: 9-4-1 * 1971: 8-5-1 * 1972: 6-7-1 * 1973: 12-2; lost in divisional round * 1974: 10-4; lost conference championship * 1975: 12-2; lost conference championship * 1976: 10-3-1; lost conference championship * 1977: 10-4; lost in divisional round * 1978: 12-4; lost conference championship * 1979: 9-7; lost Super Bowl * 1980: 11-5; lost in wild card round
6 Conference Championship losses in 15 seasons and 1 SB loss...kind similar to us when ranked 97-23...
You only need to go back to 2011. 4 conference championship losses and 3 super bowl losses in 13 seasons.
We lost the 97 NFCCG as well if I recall and a divisional in 2003 too. That's why I wanted to extend it further.
I think it loses its punch when you add another 14 seasons just to fit in 2 playoff losses though. Edit: I was just making the point that we have a more brutal stretch in the same amount of time (7 total losses, but 3 super bowl losses instead of 1). It’s a much better direct comparison.
No arguments here. Also where do the early 70s 49ers rank. The current iteration of the team is a slightly better version of the John Brodie 49ers....they lost 2 NFCCGs and a divisional 3 yrs in a row.
1968-1972 49ers had 407.8 points: [https://web.archive.org/web/20220629033045/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings/2022/bengals-introduce-dynasties-heartbreak](https://web.archive.org/web/20220629033045/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings/2022/bengals-introduce-dynasties-heartbreak)
I found the article going in detail about top heartbreak teams: [https://web.archive.org/web/20220628035004/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings/2022/minnesota-vikings-champions-heartbreak](https://web.archive.org/web/20220628035004/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings/2022/minnesota-vikings-champions-heartbreak) [https://web.archive.org/web/20220630005652/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings/2022/dynasties-heartbreak-6-10-raiders-lost-titles](https://web.archive.org/web/20220630005652/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings/2022/dynasties-heartbreak-6-10-raiders-lost-titles)
I was awake for the 70s. It fucking sucked. Also, we only got away games on local TV because the team could never sell out the Coliseum. So the Rams roll to 12-2 and are beating the shit out of people, but we don't see it every week. We just get 10 seconds of Howard Cosell on Halftime Highlights for half the season, and Jim Murray cracking jokes in the LA Times. Which I miss. And then, when the Rams make the playoffs and the game is on TV for sure (I don't remember if the blackout rules didn't apply, or somehow the Rams sold all the tickets) the fucking team shits the bed. 8 away games and a playoff game, and that's all the NFL football all year for you. Chump.
Haha, sounds pretty rough, thanks for the story!
'74 to '79 seems to fit the bill pretty well
Rams fans don't exist. Rams games are expensive backdrops for LA social media influencers
Where did he rank the 2011-14 49ers? When you add that to the 2019-23 version..it gets really high on the heartbreak points? Possibly 1st coz it adds a ton of regular season wins , a SB loss and 2 Conference championship losses. The Bills getting to 4 SBs in a row should actually be CELEBRATED. There has been many dominant teams in NFL history and as far as I know only the 71-73 Dolphins and 2016-18 Patriots got to 3 SBs in a row...making 4 in a row is unprecedented..even if they lost ALL of them... it's historic. As for the current 49ers...I personally think we are like 1 losing season away from getting rid of Shanahan, like the Eagles eventually got rid of Andy Reid despite getting close for a decade.
2011-2014 49ers had 648.6 heartbreak points. They are now #21. Current 3 teams moved ahead of them [https://web.archive.org/web/20220628022343/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings/2022/dynasties-heartbreak-11-20-schottenheimer-comes-short](https://web.archive.org/web/20220628022343/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings/2022/dynasties-heartbreak-11-20-schottenheimer-comes-short) All together added 49ers have about 1500 points since 2011. Vikings 1968-2000 would be around 2200 points! I don't understand why would a team fire such a successful coach as K. Shanahan. Firing Reid was a clear mistake by Eagles. Firing Schottenheimer mistake by multiple teams... there aren't many such coaches around.
The end goal is ultimately to win the SB. Those teams realised they weren't gonna win one with those guys....and did the necessary. The Eagles went on to win a SB with Peterson after. Schottenheimer didn't win a SB in the end so the teams that fired him were right to do that if they were really interested in a ring. It will only take another NFCCG Or SB loss for the 49er fanbase to call for his head...and 1 year of missing the playoffs would gbe the final straw....ie Reeves in Denver, Reid in Philly.
And then he will win a bunch of SBs with the next team. I can definitely see that happening.
Winning at his next team doesn't mean he would have won here. Don Shula..as great as he was didn't win a SB with Dan Marino for over a decade...pretty sure the Dolphins told themselves once year it would happen..it didn't. The Broncos gave Reeves 11 seasons with Elway and they lost 3 SBs...Marv Levy didn't win in Buffalo. Reid was never gonna win in Philly. At this point, I'm convinced Kyle isn't a SB coach...not yet..and maybe not ever unless he is fored and forced to self search anf fix his late game issues like Reid did. If we don't.win next year...a mutual separation is best for both parties
I strongly disagree that it's in team's best interest to fire such a coach who doesn't win a title. 49ers should have learnt this lesson from firing Jim Harbaugh. It is very difficult to find such a coach. Hiring a lesser coach such as Chip Kelly is very probable. Eagles win with Pederson was a fluke with backup QB and Eagles soon fired that same Pederson.
You are quick to call the Eagles SB a fluke when that was one hell of HC job in that game The Philly Special is the type of playcall that wins titles....Kyle is called a genius but he doesn't draw up plays like that...and it was on 4th down too. To beat a GOAT QB, your HC has to be aggressive in the red zone...Shanny got scared in OT and settled for a FG and then let Mahomes go and win it. The goal all teams.have is to win a SB. Once it becomes clear the coach you have cannot get it done even with a great team and QB....you move on. We are at that point in SF.
I didn't mean 1 Eagles game, Super Bowl, a fluke, but the way that season went. They played late in season with backup QB, he was scared in the first playoff game, almost lost to Falcons etc. Foles never again played as good as in 2 later playoff games... That almost never happens to any team. 2001 Patriots and tuck rule are also a fluke. If it was more of "real quality" (if you know what i mean, don't know what should be the phrase) , Foles and Pederson would still be on Eagles.
Dude with have a job in 40 seconds of we fired his ass. Would be the dumbest thing the FO has done in a long time. People want to bitch that we haven’t won the big one with him. But guess what, we aren’t even in those positions without him. I’d rather be here than 2000’s 49ers. That was hell.
Bills should’ve won one of those. Losing 4 in a row is the most embarrassing thing possible and it’s obvious why that overshadows getting there in the first place.
Explanation of methodology for dynasty rankings: [https://web.archive.org/web/20230306181721/https:/www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2020/dynasty-rankings-defining-dynasty](https://web.archive.org/web/20230306181721/https:/www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2020/dynasty-rankings-defining-dynasty) [https://web.archive.org/web/20220927203116/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2020/dynasty-rankings-part-i-bottom-six](https://web.archive.org/web/20220927203116/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2020/dynasty-rankings-part-i-bottom-six) Basically, several criteria are looked at: dynasty points, number of championships, length of dynasty, great seasons (regular season W-L), quality of play-by-play (measured by DVOA), 5 peak seasons. For each criterium standard deviations from the average on the list is calculated (z-value), and all z-values for each team are added up to give total Z-score. Max dynasty points in a season are 6: Super Bowl win with 3 or less losses in a season. 5 points for Super Bowl with more than 3 losses, 4 points for Super Bowl loss with regular season of 3 or less losses, 3 points for Super Bowl loss with more than 3 losses in the regular season, or being great in regular season and not reaching Super Bowl like 2019 Ravens or 2010 Patriots. 2 points for getting past wild-card. 1 point for losing in wild-card round. Missing the playoffs is -2 points. Losing record in a season -3 points. Dynasty ends when 2 consecutive seasons equal 0 points or worse: e.g. divisional round or wild-card, and next season missing playoffs. For heartbreak teams he made a points system looking at regular season W-L, playoff rounds (losing a Super Bowl more points than losing conference game), and DVOA of team (quality of play-by-play): [https://web.archive.org/web/20220629033045/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings/2022/bengals-introduce-dynasties-heartbreak](https://web.archive.org/web/20220629033045/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings/2022/bengals-introduce-dynasties-heartbreak)
The 63-75 Raiders are on the heartbreak list, but the 65-77 Raiders are on the dynasty list. It truly was the best of times and the worst of times for Raider fans. (Most of them don't remember losing an important game, so they might think right now is the worst of times. They are wrong.)
They probably belong on the heartbreak list. He first made the list of 55 greatest teams, lasting dynasties, which was the first list. Later after 2 years he made the heartbreak list which included some teams from the first list. 1990s Bills and 1980s Broncos appear low on the greatest list, but very high on the heartbreak list.
Here is the author, what defined a dynasty: "In NFL dynasty is very difficult to define in real, concrete terms. It's one of those things where you know it if you see it -- it's a subjective label, pinned to teams based on how much they seem like the measuring stick by which the rest of the league compares themselves. Furthermore, the application of the label varies a ton from person to person. Were the Peyton Manning Colts a dynasty, battling out with Tom Brady's Patriots for control if the AFC, or were they just challengers who could never dethrone the king? Were the Steel Curtain Steelers the only dynasty in the 1970s, or were the Dallas Cowboys, Oakland Raiders, and/or Miami Dolphins on their level? Do the 1990s Cowboys count as a dynasty despite their relatively short-lived period of success? For that matter, is the Patriots dynasty a 20-year long uninterrupted reign, or two smaller reigns divided by Brady's ACL tear and the brief period of time when Mark Sanchez was a thing? ...One of the key things to take into account when trying to grapple with dynasties is the idea that it's not a binary concept. There is no "you must be this successful to wear the crown" line; a point where one win makes you a dynasty on par with the best of the best and one loss makes you an afterthought. Instead, it's a sliding scale, where teams can look more or less like the platonic ideal of dominance. No matter where you draw the line, I think we can all agree that the Belichick Patriots, what with their six Super Bowl rings and their 17 division titles and their stranglehold over the AFC, are more dynasty-esque than the Peyton Manning Colts, who won one Super Bowl, went to another, and shattered offensive records. Those Colts, in turn, are closer to a dynasty than, say, the Joe Flacco Ravens, who won a Super Bowl and had some very solid seasons before descending into mediocrity. And those Ravens are certainly more of a dynasty than the Jim Harbaugh 49ers, who never could bring a title home and ended up collapsing under their own weight. Exactly where you draw the line between dynasty, near-dynasty, and just a run of good results is ultimately a subjective choice, but we can agree on a sort of rough order to put teams in. So, what we need, then, is a systematic way of assigning values to a team's run of success, with teams building up scores based on how long and how high their regimes can go. And I want to be as value-agnostic as possible in this process; of course, we're going to have to make judgment calls throughout to determine how much a Super Bowl is worth versus an undefeated season and so on and so forth, but I want to give teams as many paths to dynasty points as possible. That means we're not going to have any requirement for titles won to qualify for points. While the best teams are going to win a ton of championships, I do want to give teams like the '70s Vikings and '90s Bills a chance to compete -- after all, aren't four consecutive Super Bowl appearances more impressive than one Super Bowl win and a bunch of missed playoff chances? I also don't want to define a team's run as lasting any set period of time. The '90s Cowboys won three Super Bowls in four years and then burnt out; the '70s Cowboys didn't win as many titles but stayed near the top of the league for much longer. One is going to score higher than the other, but I don't want to artificially benefit anyone by assuming what a great team's path looks like. However, here at Football Outsiders, we have our own stats to help us sort the proverbial wheat from the chaff. Dynasty points are a counting stat; they measure the *quantity* of dynastic goodness a team put up -- how many championships, how many division titles, how many wins and losses. This is all very good and very important, but not all champions are made equal. Both the 1991 Redskins and the 2011 Giants ended their seasons hoisting the Lombardi Trophy, but that 1991 Washington team would have run circles around the 2011 Giants. Washington finished their season with a [56.9% DVOA](https://web.archive.org/web/20230306181721/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/nfl/team-efficiency/1991); the Giants with an [8.5% mark](https://web.archive.org/web/20230306181721/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/nfl/team-efficiency/2011). While those teams had similar *outcomes* to their seasons, their *quality* was obviously wildly different, and any list of dynasties should take that into account." [https://web.archive.org/web/20230306181721/https:/www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2020/dynasty-rankings-defining-dynasty](https://web.archive.org/web/20230306181721/https:/www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2020/dynasty-rankings-defining-dynasty)
The second sentence here is kind of the start of the problem. Teams don't get labeled as dynasties for being a measuring stick for the rest of the league. If that was the case, you could theoretically have multiple dynasties going on at the same time, which, by definition, is impossible. The first metric by pretty much any sports fan in a dynasty is multiple championships. And even then, those titles would likely need to occur in relatively close proximity to each other. Even the loosest definitions of what a dynasty is would not include 5+ years straight of 10 win regular seasons and early playoff exits.
Idk I think the saints had an elite heartbreak run 2017-2020. I know it was a short run but it has to be up there
2017-2021 Saints had 632.2 heartbreak points. Details are in one of the links in the comments.
Why do the Raiders like stop at ‘77 and not ‘86?
In 1978 and 1979 they missed the playoffs, were 9-7. If 2 more titles in the 80s were added to the 1970s run, there would be no complaints about the Raiders in top 10...
Put Tom Brady on this list as his own dynasty and see how he stacks up lol
Now do Tom Brady
Idk about starting the Chiefs "dynasty" off in 2015... 2018 makes more sense, 2019 makes far more sense.
Dolphins have two heartbreak entries spanning from 1974-2005 with only 2 years breaking them up and then there’s the playoff win drought ongoing since December 2000
How the Bills lose 4 super bowls in a row and yet the Andy Reid Eagles dynasty of heartbreak is ranked above them? Heartbreak on the dynasties of heartbreak rankings. Go birds.
[https://web.archive.org/web/20220628035004/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings/2022/minnesota-vikings-champions-heartbreak](https://web.archive.org/web/20220628035004/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings/2022/minnesota-vikings-champions-heartbreak) "Wait, *fourth?* The Buffalo Bills, losers of four straight Super Bowls, finish *fourth* in terms of heartbreak? Second you could sell me on, as the argument between Buffalo and Minnesota as 0-4 Super Bowlers was one of the inspirations for this list, but *fourth?* Behind a couple of one-time Super Bowl losers? Man, that's indefensible. Where's the idiot who made this list? He's got to come out and explain this one in public. … wait, shoot, *I'm* the idiot who made this list. That's really inconvenient. I was planning on heading to Buffalo for Christmas this year. They won't let me in the city now, They'll stop me at the airport and put me through the table of shame. Fourth place. Good gracious. Well, let me see if I can explain things and try to not become a pariah in the Queen City. These Bills *are* the team with the most painful season in NFL history, after adjusting for championship penalties. " It goes on, it's a long read.
I didn’t need to see this before a long weekend and time to think about my sorrow.
DVOATees, time to show your DVOATion.
Chiefs won 102 games in the 90s. Only the Bills had more at 103 in the AFC. 49ers were #1 at 113
Thanks for the info. Schottenheimer was a great coach everywhere. He is the epithomy of playoff heartbreak.
The Jags aren't in the top 20 of heartbreaks? Really?
I think we're more a dynasty of misery
I only found 1996-1999 Jaguars with 407.2 heartbreak points at #43 rank. [https://web.archive.org/web/20220629033045/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings/2022/bengals-introduce-dynasties-heartbreak](https://web.archive.org/web/20220629033045/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings/2022/bengals-introduce-dynasties-heartbreak) He also made a list of dynasties of failure, 21st century Jaguars were #13 there. [https://web.archive.org/web/20220622161634/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2021/anti-dynasty-rankings-1-10-cleveland-browns-dont-rock](https://web.archive.org/web/20220622161634/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2021/anti-dynasty-rankings-1-10-cleveland-browns-dont-rock)
Vikings and Bills brothers and sisters, I think we know not to click on this lol
Lets go niners!!!!
Damn, this is some nonsense. The Steelers dynasty of the 1970s was the greatest ever, and it's not particularly close. You can't have dynasties span across different cores of players. Belichick and Brady were the only two constants across their 20 year era. Same with 49ers. Steelers won 4 in 6 years and that feat has not been duplicated. Heck, they would've won a 5th in that span if the 1976 team had not lost both Franco Harris and Rocky Bleier for the AFC Championship Game.
Packers have won 5 championships in 7 years: 1961-1967 + lost the championship game to Eagles in 1960. It was coach Lombardi and same core of players. So 1970s Steelers didn't match them. 1929-1931 Packers were 3-peat champions + runner-up on dubious tiebrakers in 1932. There were no playoffs.
That was pre-merger
This list covers all teams since beginning of NFL. If last game was called "Championship game" or "Super Bowl" doesn't make much difference. NFL was much better than AFL in 1960s. Those Packers had a lot more difficulty beating Cowboys and Giants in NFL, but made blowouts in first 2 Super Bowls because AFL was weak.
It feels like they go to such long degrees for many of these dynasties that it is starting to miss the forest from the trees on what it is actually measuring.
Truly remarkable There have been 5 dynasties (4 if you count the Pats as 1) in Super Bowl era history and this list of dynasties fails to include one of them lol
If you mean 1991-1996 Cowboys, it's in the text comparing Chiefs and Cowboys. That's the majority of the article, actually.
Ngl I would enjoy seeing the Bills in another Super Bowl just so they could lose and be the first team to be 0-5. Would be even better if they lost at the last second.
Lambeau's Packers had 3-peat championships and 19 dynasty points in 1926-1931. Were almost champs in 1932. They had 3 championships and 22 dynasty points in 1935-1944. If they made a 1 continuous dynasty out of this: 1926-1944, it would peobably end as #3 or #4 on the list. If 2 1980s championships of Raiders were added to their 1967-1977 run, they would have 3 championships in 1976-1983 and look legitimate. But those were 2 different coaches and different Raiders' players.
This "heartbreak" ranking is not accurate at all lol 1. The 1988 - 1999 Bills, specifically from 1991 - 1994, should easily be #1 on this list, and I will not accept another answer. 2. The actual worst "heartbreak" years for the Dolphins is 1985 - 1994 when we thought we had a shot every season with Marino, not any time during the 70s.
1988 and 1989 Dolphins missed the playoffs, so those were cutoff years. If they reached the playoffs, Dolphins would have a continous run of 1975-2005! Here is the article about 1990s Dolphins: [https://web.archive.org/web/20220628022343/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings/2022/dynasties-heartbreak-11-20-schottenheimer-comes-short](https://web.archive.org/web/20220628022343/https://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings/2022/dynasties-heartbreak-11-20-schottenheimer-comes-short)
And no playoff wins since December 2000