What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Patriots the Greatest Dynasty in NFL History? (1 Viewer)

Warhogs

Footballguy
I grew up starting watching football in the late 70's.  I caught the tail end of the Steeler's dynasty.  I of course have seen the 49ers years, the Cowboys years, the Patriots.  Throw in whomever you would like.  I hate to say it because I'm not a Patriots fan.  I feel they have cemented themselves as the greatest dynasty we have ever seen in the NFL.  Congratulations to them.  What an incredible run they have had.

 
The craziest thing about their 16-season run is how nothing the Patriots do seems to be duplicable by any other teams. Usually, when a team has great success, the things they do propagate throughout the league and things kind of reach equilibrium until the next innovation.

I guess one thing more NFL teams could do is get a lot bolder about personnel moves and pretty much jettison every non-QB a season or two early before having to pay them. Otherwise, I don't know.

 
I was telling my sons the story of going to Foxborough back in 1993 after the Pats hired Bill Parcells and drafted Bledsoe - I went to see them play the Oilers and Scott Secules was the starting QB. He threw 3 picks that day and the Pats dropped to 1-5 -- I remember walking back to my car that afternoon, realizing that my team had only won 14 or 15 games in the past FIVE seasons. 

If you had told that 21 year old that the Patriots would end up one of the greatest dynasties in professional sports, I would have laughed in your face.

What a run.

 
The thing that is truly remarkable about this run is outside of BB/Brady it's been about 4-6 different teams in this era...it is not a core group of guys like Pittsburgh or Dallas that you could just ride...you have the 01 team with its makeshift line-up...the dominant 03-04 run...the 07 season was kind of living off those fumes with the addition of some studs like Moss and Welker...there was the period between there and the Seattle win where a lot was going on and you now have this team with the Hightowers, Edelmans and Gronks and there has still been a decent amount of turnover just between those two championship teams...for all the great moves BB and the front-office have made their ability to know when to let a player walk has truly been remarkable...they are almost flawless in that department...while I'm sure the temptation has been there they have always looked to the future and never really loaded up for just one season and it has paid off in sustained greatness that may never happen again...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I remember the 60's Packers.  5 Championships in 7 years.  A Coach the trophy is named after and a Q.B. an award involving integrity is named after. 

I don't remember Otto Graham, but the post war Browns need to be in the discussion, along with the Steelers and the 49ers.  hell, even the Cowboys have some claim, I suppose.

I'm going to say no, Patriots are not the greatest dynasty in football.  They are in the discussion, but no.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I remember the 60's Packers.  5 Championships in 7 years.  A Coach the trophy is named after and a Q.B. an award involving integrity is named after. 

I don't remember Otto Graham, but the post war Browns need to be in the discussion, along with the Steelers and the 49ers.  hell, even the Cowboys have some claim, I suppose.

I'm going to say no, Patriots are not the greatest dynasty in football.  They are in the discussion, but no.
I did not follow football in the era before the Superbowl so I'm not going to argue with anyone's opinion.  I am curious though about how many franchises were in the league at that time?  Things become argumentative with no clear way of answering when you aren't comparing apples to apples.  I just know from the time I have followed football I have a hard time arguinmg anyone has been more of a dynasty than the Patriots.

 
I remember the 60's Packers.  5 Championships in 7 years.  A Coach the trophy is named after and a Q.B. an award involving integrity is named after. 

I don't remember Otto Graham, but the post war Browns need to be in the discussion, along with the Steelers and the 49ers.  hell, even the Cowboys have some claim, I suppose.

I'm going to say no, Patriots are not the greatest dynasty in football.  They are in the discussion, but no.
I think you can make a case that they are not the greatest dynasty (depending on your definition of  Dynasty) but they are the greatest franchise...not knocking previous all-time greats but in the old days a Dynasty involved a core group of studs that had no chance of leaving due to free agency and the salary cap...the Niners had a great run as well but unlike the Pats the whole era was not played at a time where the league was basically designed to not have this happen... 

 
The yearly process where the fans of the victorious team try to cement the greatest historical perspective for their team.  The attempt to write history.  often this ends up with folks thinking poorly of those fans.  I say let it come of its own accord, if it will.

 
There have been a few teams I thought better over a 4-6 year stretch. If you want to use that as your measure than I'd say no, but nothing comes close to what they've done for the duration. I mean I'm my mid 40's, but I guess if you did not start playing paying attention to football until you were around 8-10 and you are no upper 20's all you've known your entire life is the Patriots are SB contenders every year. That's not just a dynasty, that's almost stamped a mindset on a generation. I hate it with every core of my being, but the answer for me is yes.

 
I would say yes.

The difficult thing about comparing today's league with the 50s, 60s and even after the AFL-NFL merger is back then it was a part-time profession. There was virtually no off-season program, no OTAs, and with the exception of a handful of superstars, virtually every NFL player had an off-season gig. They sold cars or worked in banks. Every year growing up I would go see the Detroit Lions barnstorming basketball team - they toured the state playing ragtag alumni & faculty teams, playing in tiny high school gyms. Can you even imagine something like that today?

Free agency and salary caps didn't exist - player control was completely lopsided in favor of the owners. The average NFL salary was $25K in 1969, about 5 times the national average. Today its $1.9M (50 times the average Joe.)

Of course it does help the Patriots cause the greatest QB of all time structures his contracts in a team friendly manner. I think his cap hit this year and next was around $14M, and he only took $1M in salary ($765K after deducted his pay while serving the 4-game suspension.) 

How much are they under the cap next year, $60M? Still boggles my mind they traded an All Pro LB in the middle of the season rather than pony up $50M. The Patriot Way.

 
The yearly process where the fans of the victorious team try to cement the greatest historical perspective for their team.  The attempt to write history.  often this ends up with folks thinking poorly of those fans.  I say let it come of its own accord, if it will.
It's difficult to compare... certainly. However I think it's natural to attempt to enjoy something while you're in it's presence, rather than waiting until it's in the rearview mirror. That said, you can admire what is happening now, THEN discuss it's historical significance when it is, in fact, history. 

I'm clearly biased.... but 5 Wins (33%), 7 Superbowl appearances (47%) , and 11 AFC Champ game appearances (73%), 13 Division wins (87%) n a 15 year stretch (removing the ACL year) between Bill & Tom in the era of free agency / parity.....  that's going to be a pretty difficult set of numbers to match going forward. If they somehow manage to go to the superbowl again (let alone win), I don't know how it doesn't likely shut down the debate. 

As a fan who cried as a 9yo when the bears smoked us.... as a fan who drank himself blackout drunk during the 96/97 superbowl when the packers ran away from us in the 2nd quarter...  this run has been nice, no matter the historical significance. 

 
The fact that they're even in the conversation during an era where it's significantly more difficult to put together a dynasty means the answer is yes.
I have to say they are for this reason. And I really hate Brady at this point. Watching Gisele calmly pull out her phone and then pull a fake crazy celebration for a selfie video was sickening. But you have to respect what the hoodie has done even if he's taking every shortcut he could.

 
The Patriots run may not be over.  What happens if they get two more titles but manage one more scandal, this time significant and more definitively proved?  What happens if they get one more and no scandals and Brady gives both his kidneys to a blind kid who saved many dogs and still saved the stranger?

No question what we are seeing is impressive.  For the fans handling this all with grace I am happy for you.  Me, I got to enjoy a dynasty as a young boy, at an age when football players were heroes.  I have had an occasional chance to enjoy some great moments since.  Being, for a time, on top of the sports world is an experience all should get to enjoy, though many don't.   I am happy for the good fans of N.E.  I will wait to decide upon history once matter are writ.

 
I was telling my sons the story of going to Foxborough back in 1993 after the Pats hired Bill Parcells and drafted Bledsoe - I went to see them play the Oilers and Scott Secules was the starting QB. He threw 3 picks that day and the Pats dropped to 1-5 -- I remember walking back to my car that afternoon, realizing that my team had only won 14 or 15 games in the past FIVE seasons. 

If you had told that 21 year old that the Patriots would end up one of the greatest dynasties in professional sports, I would have laughed in your face.

What a run.
Savior it. Seriously savoir every moment of this. It will end soon. So enjoy it man. It's a great thing.

 
Just based on success, they aren't there yet. The Paul Brown-Otto Graham Browns are the standard bearer to date. They won 7 titles in 10 years from 1946 to 1955. 

The George Halas Bears from 1932-1946 won 6 titles, including 4 from 1940-1946 and for all but the first 2 were lead by the NFL's most underrated QB of all-time in Sid Luckman.

The Curly Lambeau Packers won 6 titles from 1929-1944, including 3 in a row from 1929-1931, led by Lavvie Dilweg. 

That said, they are the best of the Super Bowl Era, I think that is obvious. With added difficulties such as the Salary Cap and more teams spreading rosters thinner, they've had BY FAR the highest degree of difficulty. 

 
I have seen a ton of football over the course of my life and The Patriots are probably the best dynasty I have seen. I would have them like this (post merger modern era):

1) Patriots

2) Steel Curtain Steelers

3) Walsh/Seifert 49ers

4) Jimmy's Cowboys (yeah including the one Switzer year that was Jimmy's team)

5) Shula's Dolphins 71-74 ( too young to know this but I am a huge Dolphins fan and know the history and have read and watched so much about it).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
To do this in the salary cap era is much more difficult than previous dynasty's.

Every year the Detroit Lions say Stafford needs more help and they draft WRs, TEs and RBs, sign FA WRs and had one of the best WRs of all time in Calvin.  Then every year the Pats trot our a bunch of nobodies at WR and RB. Their best offensive weapon is hurt and they plug in rejects from other teams, lacrosse players, former college QBs and keep on winning.

2nd rd pick Kyle Van Noy could not start for the Lions and was traded in mid-season to NE and started for the Pats in the Super Bowl. Had a forced fumble in a playoff game and a sack yesterday.

I used to hate the Pats but now I respect the hell out of them and what they have been able to accomplish.

 
Just based on success, they aren't there yet. The Paul Brown-Otto Graham Browns are the standard bearer to date. They won 7 titles in 10 years from 1946 to 1955. 

The George Halas Bears from 1932-1946 won 6 titles, including 4 from 1940-1946 and for all but the first 2 were lead by the NFL's most underrated QB of all-time in Sid Luckman.

The Curly Lambeau Packers won 6 titles from 1929-1944, including 3 in a row from 1929-1931, led by Lavvie Dilweg. 

That said, they are the best of the Super Bowl Era, I think that is obvious. With added difficulties such as the Salary Cap and more teams spreading rosters thinner, they've had BY FAR the highest degree of difficulty. 
Are we legitimately going to hold the 30s/40s NFL with 9-10 teams and white dudes in leather helmets to the same standard as the 32 team free agency league that it is today? 

I'm okay if people think it's an apples to apples comparison... just wanting that belief to be stated on record. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'll say "yes", obviously and unfortunately.

It pains me that if two coaches just ran the ball when the should have, the last Super Bowl win for the Pats would have been in 2004 (and then it wouldn't be so clear).

Of course if I was a Pats' fan I could not care less on why/how they won, I'd just be happy that they did.

 
How much are they under the cap next year, $60M? Still boggles my mind they traded an All Pro LB in the middle of the season rather than pony up $50M. The Patriot Way.
Why is this not more imitated? GMs fear getting run out of town if they can't replace the year-too-soon player?

 
I'll say "yes", obviously and unfortunately.

It pains me that if two coaches just ran the ball when the should have, the last Super Bowl win for the Pats would have been in 2004 (and then it wouldn't be so clear).

Of course if I was a Pats' fan I could not care less on why/how they won, I'd just be happy that they did.
TO BB's credit part of his coaching philosophy on D with his bend-but-don't-break D is the other team is gonna screw-up...Seattle and Atlanta just did it in a dramatic fashion...

 
Why is this not more imitated? GMs fear getting run out of town if they can't replace the year-too-soon player?
Because not many can coach players up the way the Pats do...BB is fearless when it comes to his confidence to coach someone up...the Jamie Collins situation is the latest example...

 
Best coached team in a league full of hammerhead coaches. They keep their egos in check. It is a dynasty.

3 of the SB were gifted by morons, Mike Martz, Darrell Bevell and Kyle Shanahan. Each team was superior to the Pats in player talent but hamstrung by some of the worst coaches in SB history. 2 of these clowns have heads the size of the goodyear blimp.

 
About half of the Browns' run was in the AAFC, so I don't think they can really be evaluated the same.

I'd give it to New England over the likes of GB, Pitt, and SF.  It is really incredible to be this good for this long.  49ers are the only one that can match them in longevity, but the 5th title puts them over the top for me.

 
Boston said:
TO BB's credit part of his coaching philosophy on D with his bend-but-don't-break D is the other team is gonna screw-up...Seattle and Atlanta just did it in a dramatic fashion...
I think Belichick is the greatest coach ever, but I think this gives him a little too much credit for those decisions.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Warhogs said:
I grew up starting watching football in the late 70's.  I caught the tail end of the Steeler's dynasty.  I of course have seen the 49ers years, the Cowboys years, the Patriots.  Throw in whomever you would like.  I hate to say it because I'm not a Patriots fan.  I feel they have cemented themselves as the greatest dynasty we have ever seen in the NFL.  Congratulations to them.  What an incredible run they have had.


Ditkaless Wonders said:
I remember the 60's Packers.  5 Championships in 7 years.  A Coach the trophy is named after and a Q.B. an award involving integrity is named after. 

I don't remember Otto Graham, but the post war Browns need to be in the discussion, along with the Steelers and the 49ers.  hell, even the Cowboys have some claim, I suppose.

I'm going to say no, Patriots are not the greatest dynasty in football.  They are in the discussion, but no.
This is quite accurate. There is a lot of history going back a very long time ago that would supercede the Patriots.

However, I think they are definitely in the discussion. Top 3 all time for sure. What we saw last night was special. 

 
lod001 said:
Best coached team in a league full of hammerhead coaches. They keep their egos in check. It is a dynasty.

3 of the SB were gifted by morons, Mike Martz, Darrell Bevell and Kyle Shanahan. Each team was superior to the Pats in player talent but hamstrung by some of the worst coaches in SB history. 2 of these clowns have heads the size of the goodyear blimp.
lol     :goodposting:  

What a complete melt down in the superbowl by these coaches

 
I think Belichick is the greatest coach ever, but I think this gives him a little too much credit.
Why?  His philosophy is that if you don't give up the big play (as well as take away the opponents top threat) and force offenses to make 10-12 play drives to score they will eventually screw up be it a turnover, a sack, a penalty, a dropped ball or a bad coaching decision...not saying that some opponents and/or coaches don't make this easier for them but this is the foundation of his defenses...honestly I find it somewhat painful as a fan because the other team is going to make a lot of plays between the 20's but right now I have to say it's working...even yesterday...the D only gave up 21 points and as good as Julio's plays were he still only had four total catches...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why?  His philosophy is that if you don't give up the big play (as well as take away the opponents top threat) and force offenses to make 10-12 play drives to score they will eventually screw up be it a turnover, a sack, a penalty, a dropped ball or a bad coaching decision...not saying that some opponents and/or coaches don't make this easier but this is the foundation of his defenses...honestly I find it somewhat painful as a fan because the other team is going to make a lot of plays but right now I have to say it's working...even yesterday...the D only gave up 21 points and as good as Julio's plays were he still only had four total catches...
because nothing Bill did justified a coach not giving the ball to Marshawn Lynch at the 1 when he was carving the Pats up the whole half or not running all three downs up by 8 with three minutes left and in easy FG range. Those are just terrible decisions and have nothing to do with the Pats defensive philosophy.

 
  • Smile
Reactions: LBH
The NFL changed forever in 1994 with the advent of free agency and the salary cap. It is exponentially  more difficult to win year in and year out in the salary cap era compared to the old days when rosters barely changed.

NE, BB, and TB have no equals in terms of what they have accomplished in the salary cap era. I can't even imagine anyone able to make a case otherwise (except for folks that embrace the serial cheaters narrative).

In the 23 seasons in the salary cap era, the Patriots have been to 8 SB's and won 5 of them. DEN and PIT both went to 4 (DEN 3-1, PIT 2-2). BAL, NYG, and GB each won two titles. Seven other teams won a SB. Ten teams didn't even make a SB.

I'm not sure how you stack up teams in this era against others (even the player turnover among Patriots teams has been substantial). But in the era we are in now, they have been leaps and bounds above the other 31 franchises.

 
because nothing Bill did justified a coach not giving the ball to Marshawn Lynch at the 1 when he was carving the Pats up the whole half or not running all three downs up by 8 with three minutes left and in easy FG range. Those are just terrible decisions and have nothing to do with the Pats defensive philosophy.
Agree and disagree...I am not saying he made them do that specifically...no argument there...but in the big picture he does base his D on the fact they will do something that will screw them and give the edge to the Pats...in both these cases the other team cooperated in dramatic fashion...watch "Do Your Job"...in the time before the Malcolm Butler play he did not call a time-out because he saw that the Seahawks were a little panicky...again, not saying he caused that int but the Seahawks did fall into the trap of making a mistake...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
because nothing Bill did justified a coach not giving the ball to Marshawn Lynch at the 1 when he was carving the Pats up the whole half 
While I agree with you that the Seahawks should have run Lynch on that play, he was hardly "carving up the Pats" in the second half: 11 carries for 43 yards.  There were several drives down the stretch where Lynch was completely ineffective.

 
While I agree with you that the Seahawks should have run Lynch on that play, he was hardly "carving up the Pats" in the second half: 11 carries for 43 yards.  There were several drives down the stretch where Lynch was completely ineffective.
that's 4 yards per carry - maybe I overstated a little but he was effective.

 
because nothing Bill did justified a coach not giving the ball to Marshawn Lynch at the 1 when he was carving the Pats up the whole half or not running all three downs up by 8 with three minutes left and in easy FG range. Those are just terrible decisions and have nothing to do with the Pats defensive philosophy.
While that may be true, you are leaving out the rest of the story about what actually happened (instead of focusing on what should have happened). Based on the player package the Seahawks had on the field, BB thought had a high probability that SEA was in a passing set. Based on tenancies and film review, he snuffed out what the play call was likely to be.

The Pats had practiced that same exactly down, formation, and situation for two weeks leading up to the Super Bowl. Malcolm Butler said he got verbally undressed in practice by not doing what Bill wanted in practice while working on that exact play call in practice. Low and behold, SB on the line, Butler's eyes lit up when the exact formation that he had been abused on in practice presented itself. SEA confirmed the play call of a slant when the RB they had motioned out of the backfield. Butler adjusted where he was standing (the Seahawks had stacked receivers on the right side) to get away from the oncoming block and to get closer to the path of the football before the snap and jumped the route.

BB also confused SEA by letting the clock run. The Seahawks were SURE the Pats would call timeout to try to give Brady one last gasp to try to pull the game out with seconds remaining. That altered what the Seahawks could do, as they had to try a pass play or they ran the risk of the game clock expiring if they didn't get a clock stoppage.

And statistically, Lynch that season was not a sure thing at the goal line. While people tend to think that the Seahawks would have scored if they inserted Lynch and their goal line power package, IIRC Lynch was a 50/50% proposition or worse in goal line situations that year. BB later said had the Seahawks put in their power running package, he would have had to call time out to get in his run stuffing goal line defenders.

Like always, we can always guess what could have happened, but we only know what actually happened. I've heard BB and Malcolm Butler discuss this play in detail over the years, so while many others may just call it dumb luck, I call it master level coaching and preparation. You have to get in position to win, and that's exactly what NE did.

 
that's 4 yards per carry - maybe I overstated a little but he was effective.
Marginally:  His last 6 carries (including First and Goal from the 4 yard line on the Baldwin TD) yielded 1, 2, 2, 1, 5 and 4 yards.  2.5 per carry.  The Pats pretty much shut him down during their second half comeback.  Again, I still think they were stupid not to run it at the goal line but people forget that the Pats took him out of the game down the stretch of that Super Bowl.

 
While that may be true, you are leaving out the rest of the story about what actually happened (instead of focusing on what should have happened). Based on the player package the Seahawks had on the field, BB thought had a high probability that SEA was in a passing set. Based on tenancies and film review, he snuffed out what the play call was likely to be.

The Pats had practiced that same exactly down, formation, and situation for two weeks leading up to the Super Bowl. Malcolm Butler said he got verbally undressed in practice by not doing what Bill wanted in practice while working on that exact play call in practice. Low and behold, SB on the line, Butler's eyes lit up when the exact formation that he had been abused on in practice presented itself. SEA confirmed the play call of a slant when the RB they had motioned out of the backfield. Butler adjusted where he was standing (the Seahawks had stacked receivers on the right side) to get away from the oncoming block and to get closer to the path of the football before the snap and jumped the route.

BB also confused SEA by letting the clock run. The Seahawks were SURE the Pats would call timeout to try to give Brady one last gasp to try to pull the game out with seconds remaining. That altered what the Seahawks could do, as they had to try a pass play or they ran the risk of the game clock expiring if they didn't get a clock stoppage.

And statistically, Lynch that season was not a sure thing at the goal line. While people tend to think that the Seahawks would have scored if they inserted Lynch and their goal line power package, IIRC Lynch was a 50/50% proposition or worse in goal line situations that year. BB later said had the Seahawks put in their power running package, he would have had to call time out to get in his run stuffing goal line defenders.

Like always, we can always guess what could have happened, but we only know what actually happened. I've heard BB and Malcolm Butler discuss this play in detail over the years, so while many others may just call it dumb luck, I call it master level coaching and preparation. You have to get in position to win, and that's exactly what NE did.
I didn't question BB's preparation or coaching ability at all - but thanks for the "Do Your Job" recap.

 
The patriots might be the best dynasty but I will put up any Dallas Cowboys team from 92 to 95 and I say we crush all five Super Bowl winning Patriots teams.

 
49ers are the only one that can match them in longevity, but the 5th title puts them over the top for me.
49ers won 5, too.

SF resume:

Seasons - 18 (1981-1998)

Regular Season record - 207-72-1 (0.741)

Regular Season point differential - +2,693 (9.6 pts/gm)

Playoff appearances - 16/18

10+ wins in a season - 17/18 (1982 strike season: 3-6)

Division titles - 13/18

Playoff record -22-11 (0.667)

Reached NFCC - 9/18

Reached SB - 5/18

Super Bowl record - 5-0

Playoff point differential - +242 (7.3 pts/gm)

Average SRS - +8.6

NE resume:

Seasons - 16 and counting (2001-2016)

Regular Season record - 196-60-0 (0.766)

Regular Season point differential - +2,372 (9.3 pts/gm)

Playoff appearances - 14/16

10+ wins in a season - 15/16 (1982 strike season: 3-6)

Division titles - 14/16

Playoff record -25-9 (0.735)

Reached NFCC - 11/16

Reached SB - 7/16

Super Bowl record - 5-2

Playoff point differential - +222 (6.5 pts/gm)

Average SRS - +9.2

They are pretty similar, but New England does seem to have a little bit of an advantage. I wonder how things might come out when considering SOS and differences in the league (# of teams, # of available playoff spots, etc.).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
As I mentioned in one of the other threads, winning consistently in the salary cap / free agency era is exponentially more difficult than winning before then. The roster turnover these day is staggering. IMO, what NE is doing now is much harder to accomplish than what the Niners did in their run. That doesn't mean NE is better, only that cap management adds an entirely different layer of complexity that the Niners didn't have. And SF got penalized for not following the salary cap rules once the cap did roll around.

 
Regarding the Packers, just saw that from the first championship in 1961 to the last one in 1967, Green Bay had 10 starting players who played throughout the entire run: 7 are in the Hall of Fame. That personnel consistency is impossible in today's NFL.

 
As I mentioned in one of the other threads, winning consistently in the salary cap / free agency era is exponentially more difficult than winning before then. The roster turnover these day is staggering. IMO, what NE is doing now is much harder to accomplish than what the Niners did in their run. That doesn't mean NE is better, only that cap management adds an entirely different layer of complexity that the Niners didn't have. And SF got penalized for not following the salary cap rules once the cap did roll around.
:shrug:

NE plays under the same rules as their opponents (insert joke here) and SF played under the same as theirs. If SF had an easier time keeping a group together, so did their competition (Redskins, Giants, Cowboys, Bears, Rams, etc.).

 
49ers won 5, too.

SF resume:

Seasons - 18 (1981-1998)

Regular Season record - 207-72-1 (0.741)

Regular Season point differential - +2,693 (9.6 pts/gm)

Playoff appearances - 16/18

10+ wins in a season - 17/18 (1982 strike season: 3-6)

Division titles - 13/18

Playoff record -22-11 (0.667)

Reached NFCC - 9/18

Reached SB - 5/18

Super Bowl record - 5-0

Playoff point differential - +242 (7.3 pts/gm)

NE resume:

Seasons - 16 and counting (2001-2016)

Regular Season record - 196-60-0 (0.766)

Regular Season point differential - +2,372 (9.3 pts/gm)

Playoff appearances - 14/16

10+ wins in a season - 15/16 (1982 strike season: 3-6)

Division titles - 14/16

Playoff record -25-9 (0.735)

Reached NFCC - 11/16

Reached SB - 7/16

Super Bowl record - 5-2

Playoff point differential - +222 (6.5 pts/gm)

They are pretty similar, but New England does seem to have a little bit of an advantage. I wonder how things might come out when considering SOS and differences in the league (# of teams, # of available playoff spots, etc.).
Good post.  In my head the 49ers were the 2nd best dynasty in the superbowl era at least but looking at these numbers I don't know that I appreciated just how good they were over a similar time frame.  

 
:shrug:

NE plays under the same rules as their opponents (insert joke here) and SF played under the same as theirs. If SF had an easier time keeping a group together, so did their competition (Redskins, Giants, Cowboys, Bears, Rams, etc.).
There teams that were very good along with the Niners. However, poor or mediocre teams had it much tougher as well. Rosters didn't change much, and if they did it was almost exclusively through the draft.

Good teams could stay together longer back then. Look at what happens all the time now. Teams that win in short spurts then have to shell out big money to their top players or they walk. Look at the Seahawks as an example. They had several good years and then all their young talent needed new contracts. A lot of them cashed in and stayed and several of them cashed in and left. Either option weakened the team (fewer salary cap dollars to pay the other players on the roster . . . or having to restock players do to player defections).

In the 80's and 90's, SFO would have looked a lot different in a salary cap league. They would have had to constantly restock players instead of riding their core players for years.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top