So like...how is this a valid excuse in a miniseries about the Dynasty on the whole. Spygate and Deflategate had been covered from every possible angle before this series existed. 2001 had been covered immensely.MassLive (Karen Guregian, Chris Mason et al) interviewed Hamachek and here are a couple of comments to rebut some of the criticisms that have popped up in this thread.
Why no coverage of the 2003, 2004 Super Bowls?
‘Dynasty’ director shares why two Patriots SBs didn’t get much screen time - masslive.com (free)
“They’ve been covered by NFL Films. They’ve been covered by ‘Three Games to Glory.’ Tom Brady covered them in his 10-part doc series,” Hamachek said. “So the beginning of this story is about the Little Engine That Could, or the David that turns into Goliath. David slays Goliath and becomes Goliath. I’m sure as a fan this is not what anybody wants to hear, but I just felt like those Super Bowls had been covered so well by a bunch of other people that it wasn’t advancing our question that much to continue to go into them.”
Hamachek said they actually started preparing for the 2003 season — which included the arrival of Rodney Harrison — but then opted to go in a different direction.
“... So I just didn’t feel like we needed to tell that story again because I think what we had captured was episodes 1 and 2 and then 3, which was really the idea, the concept of team-first... I feel like we had gotten a good sense of the culture and what worked so well to create those three Super Bowls.”
The whole point of 2003-2004 was the bolded. A flukish 2001 Super Bowl followed by missing the playoffs in 2002 isn't a start of a dynasty, 2003-2004 made it that. Like skipping Pearl Harbor on a WWII Documentary because it'd been covered.