MD5eahawks":1s6bj67t said:
I think talk like this is definitely premature. A dynasty is something labelled after the fact. Enjoy it now. Accolades can come later. I don't recall any dynasty being referred to as such during the actual time.
Yeah, he tries to get around this with the trailing indicator talk of Lombardi trophies, but I think the point he's missing is that the label "dynasty" is ITSELF a trailing indicator of sustained performance.
He's admittedly asking a different question -- how do you predict dynasties before they're labeled as such - and I think point differential is probably the best way to predict that, but again, a "dynasty" is itself a trailing indicator. It's why the Bills from 1990-93 were never even in the conversation about being a dynasty, and instead, are a factoid about ineptitude and sadness.
A simpler way to put this is that if you want to look for indicators for dynasties you need to look at the indicators that actually classify teams as dynasties, which are playoff appearances and SB wins. The Hawks look good on those, but not yet (at least) as good as the Packers or Patriots, and the Ravens also looked as good on those until this year, as did the Giants for the four years from 2005-2008 until they suddenly didn't anymore.