I really don’t know how the word has become so oversaturated these days. This Kansas City Chiefs team are on the verge of being one of the greatest rosters in the history of the NFL…but is it already a dynasty as so many like to say?
An AFC dynasty is not an NFL dynasty, even if the media would have you believe otherwise.
Despite not having the acclaimed third Super Bowl championship just yet, the Kansas City Chiefs are already being hailed as the newest dynasty in the NFL that rivals the likes of the New England Patriots, Pittsburgh Steelers, Dallas Cowboys, etc. But, all this talk really does make one question whether or not they are a dynasty?
Okay, like I said, the Kansas City Chiefs are NOT an NFL dynasty just yet. They’re an AFC dynasty.
I know this may seem like a silly semantics argument…but it’s really not. The Chiefs have had one of the most impressive AFC runs of all-time over these last 8 or so seasons as they not only have won the AFC West division 8 straight seasons, but they have also reached 6 straight AFC title games and have won four of them. Only the 2000’s and 2010’s Patriots can compete with such dominance over a division and the AFC conference.
However, unlike the Kansas City Chiefs as of this moment, the New England Patriots of the 2000’s and the 2010’s were able to achieve something KC has not just yet: they won three Super Bowls.
To just flippantly say a team, which has still yet not met the traditional requirements despite being so close to said goals, is already a dynasty without the generally agreed upon definitions does a great disservice to the dynasties of the past.
Is it really right to say that the 90’s Cowboys were a dynasty after winning their 2nd Super Bowl in 1993 and before their final triumph in 1995? Or what about the 1970’s Miami Dolphins? Are they a dynasty despite not winning three Super Bowls? Maybe, given their unique status as the only undefeated team in NFL history with their 1972 Super Bowl triumph, but not winning the third title does really cast doubt over the long-term competitiveness a traditional dynasty holds.
But, personally, I think the Chiefs MUST accomplish the traditional requirements a dynasty has before they can actually be considered a true, undisputed dynasty.
So, I guess that leads us to the question as to “What are the traditional requirements of a dynasty?”.
Now, I think everyone can agree upon the first principle a dynasty must have: three championship wins. This rule is pretty unanimous across all sports, so I’m not really going to get into the weeds on this one too much. However, the second and easily more debated point for what constitutes as dynasty is the timeframe and manner a dynasty must complete its domination.
I’ve seen some people say that a dynasty MUST BE three wins in four seasons and nothing else; others have said that a dynasty needs to be three wins ALONG WITH a back-to-back title success, while some claim that dynasties must not have ANY OTHER contenders during their days to be considered a true dynasty. There are a few people who say that a team must win THREE IN A ROW to be considered a dynasty!
Now, I sort of subscribe to all of these points (except for the last one), though I will say that my own rules for a dynasty are a little bit different and more lenient than most: 1. Must have 3 titles; 2. Must have same core of players (usually 3+ great players) for at least 3 title wins, 3. CAN happen at the same time as another dynasty, but must be competitive (aka: can’t get blown out every time they meet other dynasty), 4. Title wins must be at least half the timeframe of the dynasty (aka: 10-year dynasty must have at least 5 title wins, or 3 in 6).
So, under all the rules I’ve just stated for both my own, personal requirements and the one’s I’ve seen online, the Kansas City Chiefs DO NOT YET follow any of the parameters of traditional dynasty.
Right now, they’re on par with the likes of the 70’s Dolphins (lost 1st SB, won next two), or the 70’s Minnesota Vikings (won 1 NFL Championship, lost 4 SBs), 70’s Cowboys (won 2 SBs, lost 3 SBs in 10-year period), the 1990’s Detroit Pistons of the NBA (lost 1st NBA Finals, won next 2), the 90’s Pittsburgh Penguins of the NHL (won back-to-back Stanley Cups in only two appearances), and the 2010’s Miami Heat (won 2 NBA Finals, lost 2 NBA Finals), etc.
All-time great teams…that just aren’t dynasties.
However, seeing as how I believe Patrick Mahomes, Travis Kelce, Chris Jones, Andy Reid, etc. are just too good to be beaten when it REALLY comes down to crunch time, I think this argument will be null and void as the Chiefs will defeat the 49ers again and become the newest dynasty in the NFL outright and uncontested on Super Bowl Sunday.
Images Source: Featured Image:
