12:13 PM EST on Wednesday, February 2, 2005

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- Dynasty, a noun, is defined in Webster's Dictionary as (1), a succession of rulers from the same family or line. (2) A family or group that maintains power for several generations: a political dynasty controlling the state.

Since we're going to be talking about modern-day football and not ancient Asian rulers, let's get the word "generations" out of there and replace it with "seasons."

Are four seasons "several?" It's twice as many as a couple and at least one more than a few. But "several?"

We ask because the New England Patriots may win their third Super Bowl in four seasons Sunday against the Philadelphia Eagles. This earns them the right to be mentioned in the same breath as the great teams -- the Cowboys of the early 1990s, the 49ers of the '80s, the '70s Steelers and Dolphins, and the Packers of the late '60s.

But they will not be a dynasty.

A longer run of sustained success is necessary.

This, of course, is a barroom argument to rival Russell vs. Chamberlain, Brady vs. Manning and Ginger vs. Mary Ann. And to argue that the 2001-2004 Patriots aren't a dynasty is screaming into a well. The preponderance of chatter in these days leading up to Super Bowl XXXIX is that, yes, New England is a dynasty.

And the chatter is coming from people with clout. Like Bill Walsh, the Hall of Fame coach who built the 49ers into a real dynasty -- a team that won 10 or more games every season from 1981 to 1998 (except the strike year in 1982), won five Super Bowls and went to nine NFC Championship Games.

AP photo

Patriots owner Robert Kraft, left, shares a laugh with wide receiver Deion Branch yesterday.

"In modern contemporary football they are one," the 49ers Hall of Fame coach said when asked if the Pats are dynastic. "Actually, they've already become one. There isn't anyone to rival them right now and they are clearly the best team and the best organization."

When Walsh refers to "modern contemporary football", he's not just being redundant. He's alluding to the fact that the game's changed radically from the time when he crafted his teams.

The dawn of free agency in 1993 and the advent of the salary cap meant two things to pro football clubs: First, free agency meant that good players would move from team-to-team more readily as they chased bigger contracts. That's an obstacle to sustained success. Second, the salary cap meant that budgeting would be as important as scouting and that teams would have to choose between keeping well-paid veteran players or cheaper young players more than at any other time.

This figured to be the death knell for the dynasty because how could a team be good year-in and year-out with roster turnover so great?

The Patriots are the first team to deal with the ways and means of free agency and the salary cap and still have sustained success. In many ways, even though the Pats have been great for a shorter period than some of the acknowledged dynasties, the accomplishment is more impressive.

Patriots head coach Bill Belichick would rather have a wardrobe malfunction than discuss whether or not his team is a dynasty. But he did say recently that the Cowboys of the early '90s were one. That team, not coincidentally, was the only other team in the Super Bowl era to win three Super Bowls in four seasons.

The man who built that club, head coach Jimmy Johnson, is a friend of Belichick's. Johnson talked about the Patriots' place in history last week.

"Football is not as good as it used to be because of player movement," he pointed out. "The salary cap forces you to play rookies and young players. That's the system. When you're forced to play rookies and free agents, there are so many silly and critical mistakes. You're not going to be as good. It's simple.

"The teams that are dominant today are better coached than any teams ever before," Johnson continued. "What Bill [Belichick] has done has been masterful. The job he's done over the last few years may be the best coaching job of all time. He's taken young players and free agents and, even with all the injuries, they don't make mistakes. But I don't think you can compare teams after free agency and the salary cap to the dominant teams like the Steelers, 49ers and Cowboys. That was the strongest era of football."

He is correct. You couldn't swing a pompon around those clubs without hitting a Hall of Famer. The Steelers had Terry Bradshaw, Franco Harris, Lynn Swann, Joe Green, Jack Lambert, Mel Blount, Mike Webster, among others. The Niners had Joe Montana, Jerry Rice and Ronnie Lott. The Cowboys of the '70s had Randy White, Roger Staubach and Tony Dorsett.

The Patriots might send a kicker (Adam Vinatieri) and a quarterback (Tom Brady) to the Hall of Fame.

The only teams that could be considered dynasties in the classic sense are those that had sustained power over several seasons. The aforementioned Niners from 1981 to 1997; the Cowboys from 1965 to 1985, with 10 NFC championships, five Super Bowl appearances and two championships; the Steelers from 1972 to 1979, with four Super Bowl wins; and the Packers from 1960-67, with six championship game appearances and five wins.

"The Steelers were the best team in history," said Walsh. "They had the greatest array and assemblage of players. Our San Francisco 49ers would be second. Those teams were outstanding with depth. The difference between dynasties of today and the past is depth. Our Super Bowl team in 1984 had nine defensive linemen who had played in Pro Bowls. Our backups were top players."

But should the definition of the word dynasty be changed because the rules changed? Or should some new term be used to describe clubs who have comparatively short bursts of utter domination?

Walsh tucks that question into bed and turns out the light.

"This is a dynasty," he said of the Patriots. "No question. A dynasty."