Stephen A. INSISTS the Kansas City Chiefs ‘AREN’T A DYNASTY’ 🤯 | First Take

On First Take, Stephen A. Smith is joined by Harry Douglas and Kimberley Martin to talk in-depth about the Kansas City Chiefs, Aaron Rodgers and more throughout the NFL.
0:00 The Chiefs dynasty?
1:45 Kimberly responds to Stephen A.’s comments
5:10 MVP Rodgers loading?
#ESPN #FirstTake #StephenA

[DedSht]

Whether or not you think they are, judging by back to back arguments is silly imo
The San Antonio Spurs were a dynasty for winning 5 rings but they never won back to back, but they showed prolonged dominance in the league.

[SETHM]

One more ring would probably validate them being a dynasty

[starastro]

Stephen A is great and making up certain standards to fit his argument for the sake of having an argument because first take is a show where 90% of sports fans can agree on something… someone has to make a counter argument for the sake of having a debate

[scruffdg]

Chiefs are in the middle of a dynasty in the making.

[gregoryevans]

They’re not quite there yet, but it’s close. If they win it again this year I’d say they are. That would be 3 in 5 years and a back to back, along with 4 SB appearances and 6 straight title game appearances.

[IGVIRIALMONIFIACHASERTV]

She know what she be talking about for the last 2 years she be having me zoned in ❤

[problembaby]

It's like Kimberly Martin watch reruns of this show and actually thinks she doing a good job...

[brxndaveli]

Topics like this with a cast like this is bout to send this show straight to #2 behind undisputed with their current lineup lol

[NotExplicable]

If you win 3 then yes, competition is getting harder and smarter.

[SundevilRoadrunner]

Even Mahomes said you got to win three.

[cbo]

Spurs never won 2 in a row. I bet we can find footage of him calling the spurs a dynasty

[michaelhession]

If they win one more they certainly will be. They've made 3 Super Bowls and are 2-1 in them so they have a case right now. But they need a 3rd like most dynasties have.

[jackharrist]

If they win it all this year then they are a dynasty, but not yet. You need 3 rings to be considered one. They're definitely on that track, just not there yet.

[dwayne]

As a chiefs fan, I agree. Not sure about the back to back argument. But you have to win 3 in a short window to be a dynasty.

[jakeadams]

The chiefs are absolutely close but not a dynasty yet. New England was the last repeat and went on to win 6. We can’t lower the standards. If the chiefs win this year they’re in that room.

[sportsunhinged]

Stephen A and Kim have great on screen chemistry

[johnrobinson]

And I agree with Stephen A Smith and it's crazy because I'm a big big Chiefs fan I always say for them to be a dynasty got to win back-to-back

[duaneroach]

I agree they’re not a dynasty yet because but that’s because I feel like they got to win 3 but… Spurs never won back-to-back but they are a dynasty…

[BrianMccallumstudioart]

Stephen A and Skip need to start a show called "we hate the Chiefs."

[orlandoclark]

I am with Stephen A, not a dynasty but close to one if they win the Superbowl this season.