Super Bowl -- Dynasty?

So the day after the Patriots won the Super Bowl, the question that seems to be on people's minds is whether the Patriots have created a dynasty. To me this question is absurd. The Patriots are a great team, and deserve accolades for what they have accomplished. To win back-to-back titles in this era of parity, let alone three in four years, speaks volumes about the players, the coaches, and the management of the team. The team is greater than the sum of its parts, and its success seems due to the mentality of the team and the genius of the coaching staff. Whether the team will win next year depends on how well they replace their departing coordinators, Weis and Crennel, and whether other teams take advantage of their greater talent (the Patriots were not the more talented team on the field last night).

They have won their Super Bowls, appreciate (or despise) what they have accomplished, and recognize that they may indeed repeat. But don't call them a dynasty unless and until they rule the roost for more than two years. It's hard to count the "three-in-four-years" thing when the team didn't just not win the Super Bowl after it won once, it didn't even make the playoffs. Show me a team that wins consistently (and by consistent, I mean at least five years) before you call them a dynasty. Let's see them make the playoffs each of the next three years and win at least one more Super Bowl, and then I'll think in terms of dynasty.