Originally Posted by 3 to be 4
it all balnces out, all the advantages and disadvantages.
look, i dont compare the Patriots to the 70's Steelers. Jerry Kramer is right, i said this on a far inferior Steeler fan site after the Patriots beat Pittsburgh earlier this season, the Patriots are more like the Packer dynasty. the Steelers were the best ever. The Packers the most magical. the 80's 49ers and 90's Cowboys were of the Steelers talent based variety of greatness. teams like the 60's Packers and 60's Celtics stand as almost mythical creations, forging their legend on more than talent. the Patriots have been like that. They will NEVER equal the 70's Steelers. But they have passed the 90's Cowboys and 70's Dolphins on teamwork, guttiness, and character.
#1 70's Steelers
#2 80's 49ers
#3 60's Packers
#4 00's Patriots
i hate the argument that its much harder to build a dynasty today. like you said all the advantages and disadvantages ballance out. sure its hard to manage the cap. but in the olden days teams didnt have 14+ assistant coaches and capologists either. i like your placement of the 4 teams above the cowboys. they have always had cokeheads to assist their play (hollywood henderson playing in a sb with a vial of coke in his pants is pretty disgraceful. parcells looking the other way when lt was coked up is too.) although the giants werent a dynasty i think you get my point. i look at the steelers dynasty stretching from 72-84 sandwiched in between 2 afcc game losses to the shula led dolphins. i count the 49ers dynasty at 4 sb rings. their last one was far removed from the players and coach of the 1st one. deion sanders was part of a dynasty? i think not.