As the Kansas City Chiefs come off their second Super Bowl victory in the Andy Reid and Patrick Mahomes era, they've established themselves as the NFL's team to beat. However, don't start calling them a dynasty yet.

For Stephen A. Smith, the Chiefs are great, but they are certainly not a dynasty. “That's not a dynasty. That's a great team, a worthy team, but dynasty are those who close the deal consistently enough for us … I say greatness, but not dynasty,” via ESPN First Take.

In order for Smith to start considering the Chiefs a dynasty, they would need to win two Super Bowls in a row. “Ain't no dynasty if you can't even win two [Super Bowls] in a row.”

The Chiefs have already had a remarkable run of success entering year seven with Patrick Mahomes. Since Mahomes became the full-time starter in 2018, The Chiefs have gone to five consecutive AFC Title Games, won two Super Bowls, and lost another.

Though there is no consensus that Kansas City is a dynasty, the chatter will only continue to grow assuming they continue to put up winning seasons. Still, the Chiefs have not yet hit the level of the all time dynasties like the 1960s Packers, 1970s Steelers, 1980s 49ers, 1990s Cowboys, or 2000s Patriots. Each of those dynasties won at least three Super Bowls (except for the Packers who won five championships since the Super Bowl era started midway through their dynasty). Those dynasties also all won back-to-back Super Bowls, which as Smith pointed out, the Chiefs have not done.

The Chiefs may not be a dynasty yet, but expect that narrative to change if they win another Super Bowl in the next year or two.