How do you define a sports dynasty?

Gronkowski is more just the placeholder for the second dynasty.

Are the years of the 4 consecutive Super Bowl losses by the Bills a dynasty? They were at least an AFC dynasty.

My choices for NHL dynasties:

Ottawa Senators (original)-- 9 seasons from 1918/19 to 1926/27. 4 Cup wins (20-21-23-27) as well as 7 first place finishes in the regular season every year end from 1919 to 1927 except for 2nd place in 1921 and 4th in 1925. They didn't make the playoffs that year but did finish with a winning record and bounced back with 2 more first place seasons and another Cup following it. No other franchise won more than one Cup in this time or were anywhere near as consistent in the regular season so I include their entire run.

More later.....

It's the Vinatieri vs Gostkowski era.

Hmmmm...Agree with your post. But What about the world cups. Brazil got 3 in 4. Australia 3 in 3. Guess they count a bit more for they are played once in 4 years?

I specifically said "in sports I care about." Hockey and Soccer notsomuch. With test cricket dynasty is not a term used. You'll hear people talk about "the great West Indian team from 1977-95) or "the great Australian team of 1995-2008," no one calls them dynasties.

No real way to definitively define a dynasty. The Yankees from 1921 to 1964 could be called a dynasty. Have been called a dynasty. No player made it through those years (duh). There was a seamless transition though the "sub-dynasties". Ruth to Gehrig, Gehrig to DiMaggio, DiMaggio to Mantle. Some lean years, 1929-1935 (one WS, mostly due to the A's and Tigers being better), 1944 - 1949, but only one losing season in 43 years (none in 38). Or the Philadelphia A's from 1925 to 1932. Only two titles but a mighty team. Foxx, Simmons, Cochrane, Dykes (heh heh heh, I said Dyke), Grove. Only two titles. Beginning years, the Yankees were a touch better and the team was broken up prematurely. But most take the tighter form. Green Bay Packers from 1960-67. Six titles, same cast of characters. Taking the long was of saying years don't matter, nor rosters. But you can't stretch it. The Red Sox have won four in 14 years. As much of a dynasty that baseball has in this century. But there's no common thread, other than ownership.

By that same reasoning would you classify the 2000s Lakers are 1 dynasty or 2 dynasties?

2000-2004 - The Lakers went to the NBA Finals 4 times in 5 years and won 3 straight titles.

2008-2010 - The Lakers went to the NBA Finals 3 straight years and won back-to-back titles.

Both segments of their run had Kobe Bryant and Phil Jackson in common.