Best dynasty of the last half-century? (1 Viewer)

[Ghost Rider]

In light of Sunday's result, this should be interesting.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

What's going to be said in here is how you're comparing apples to oranges. I believe it was 94 when they installed the salary cap which makes it so much more difficult to now have a dynasty.

My vote would go to the Patriots because of how much more difficult it is to have a dynasty now that it was before.

If you want to talk strictly football, then I'd go with the Packers in the 60's.

 

[redman]

What's going to be said in here is how you're comparing apples to oranges. I believe it was 94 when they installed the salary cap which makes it so much more difficult to now have a dynasty.My vote would go to the Patriots because of how much more difficult it is to have a dynasty now that it was before.If you want to talk strictly football, then I'd go with the Packers in the 60's.

If you listen to Pats fans it's not even fairly called a dynasty because there has been so much player turnover.

 

[David Yudkin]

What's going to be said in here is how you're comparing apples to oranges. I believe it was 94 when they installed the salary cap which makes it so much more difficult to now have a dynasty.My vote would go to the Patriots because of how much more difficult it is to have a dynasty now that it was before.If you want to talk strictly football, then I'd go with the Packers in the 60's.

I started a thread on this last week. The Patriots have been to the SB 5 times since the salary cap started. No other team has been there more than twice. NE also has the best regular season record and the best post season record in that time frame as well.In that thread I openly wondered why they were so good. I since uncovered part of the answer, as they have gone 66-1 in the Brady/Belichick era in games when they had fewer turnovers than their opponents.Including the loss to the Giants (even in turnovers), they have gone 97-11 (.898) in games where they were within one turnover, even, or ahead in turnovers in that time (basically -1 turnovers or better).

 

[Steeler07]

For the same reason there was no FA back in the day, there were many great teams in the 70's. Landry's Cowboys, the Purple People Eaters, the Raiders, the Dolphins and of course the greatest football dynasty of all time, the Steelers.

 

[Steeler07]

What's going to be said in here is how you're comparing apples to oranges. I believe it was 94 when they installed the salary cap which makes it so much more difficult to now have a dynasty.My vote would go to the Patriots because of how much more difficult it is to have a dynasty now that it was before.If you want to talk strictly football, then I'd go with the Packers in the 60's.

I started a thread on this last week. The Patriots have been to the SB 5 times since the salary cap started. No other team has been there more than twice. NE also has the best regular season record and the best post season record in that time frame as well.In that thread I openly wondered why they were so good. I since uncovered part of the answer, as they have gone 66-1 in the Brady/Belichick era in games when they had fewer turnovers than their opponents.Including the loss to the Giants (even in turnovers), they have gone 97-11 (.898) in games where they were within one turnover, even, or ahead in turnovers in that time (basically -1 turnovers or better).

Tuck rule callIllegal contact no-calls vs. Indy and Carolina (AFCC & SB)CheatingThat explains a lot.

 

[redman]

What's going to be said in here is how you're comparing apples to oranges. I believe it was 94 when they installed the salary cap which makes it so much more difficult to now have a dynasty.My vote would go to the Patriots because of how much more difficult it is to have a dynasty now that it was before.If you want to talk strictly football, then I'd go with the Packers in the 60's.

I started a thread on this last week. The Patriots have been to the SB 5 times since the salary cap started. No other team has been there more than twice. NE also has the best regular season record and the best post season record in that time frame as well.In that thread I openly wondered why they were so good. I since uncovered part of the answer, as they have gone 66-1 in the Brady/Belichick era in games when they had fewer turnovers than their opponents.Including the loss to the Giants (even in turnovers), they have gone 97-11 (.898) in games where they were within one turnover, even, or ahead in turnovers in that time (basically -1 turnovers or better).

What's interesting though is that to discuss the Patriots as a dynasty in the salary cap era, you begin the conversation with the front office and the coaching staff. In every other era, you talk about dynasties by talking about the teams and the players. It's a different paradigm altogether.

 

[dgreen]

Just a quick comparison of playoff records, margin of losses, and margin of victory for each of these dynasties:

Team W-L Avg.L Avg.W Avg.Pt.DiffGreen Bay 9-1 -4.0 15.1 13.2Pittsburgh 14-4 -13.3 14.4 8.2San Francisco 13-4 -18.8 17.8 9.2Dallas 12-5 -16.2 17.3 7.5New England 14-3 -7.0 9.4 6.5The thing that has always stood out to me about this NE dynasty is that they don't blow away their playoff opponents. Of their 14 wins, 6 have been by 3 points and 1 by 7 points. Only 7 of their 14 wins have been by more than one score. On the flip side, they don't get blown out either, losing by 3, 4, and 14 points.Dallas only had one win by less than one score, with their other 11 wins being by 10+ points. They had one really bad loss by 32 points.

San Francisco won 4 close games (each by 5 points or less), 2 more by 11 and 14 points, then 6 by 22-28 points, and 1 by 45 points. They also lost a 46 point game.

Pittsburgh won 4 close games, then had 10 wins by 10+ points. 3 of their 4 losses were by 13+ points.

Green Bay only lose the one game by 4 points and it was their first playoff game in the 1960s. They won by 3, 4, and 7 points, then all the others were by more than one score with one being 37 points.

 

[CrossEyed]

It's definitely different under the salary cap. But I really can't decide if it is any harder. Sure you lose guys to FA. But you can also go out and sign other team's FAs, so it's a bit of a wash.

 

[dgreen]

I know I'm being homer, but what about the Redskins dynasty (1982-1991)? They tend to be left out because they didn't win back-to-back titles and don't fit nicely into a decade. For comparison, here's how their numbers stack up with playoff point differential as I just did for the other dynasties:

Team W-L Avg.L Avg.W Avg.Pt.DiffWashington 15-4 -17.0 16.9 9.7Any other teams make good 10-year runs that we don't usually mention?BTW, I know that numbers could be a little skewed because I included years that weren't necessarily part of the "dynasty". For example, we call them the 90s Cowboys, but they weren't the same in the late 90s.

 

[David Yudkin]

It's definitely different under the salary cap. But I really can't decide if it is any harder. Sure you lose guys to FA. But you can also go out and sign other team's FAs, so it's a bit of a wash.

I am not singling you out, but if it were so easy, why aare the Pats the only team to go to more than 2 SBs in the 14 year salary cap era?IMO, churning out players year after year will make team chemistry suffer a lot, even if you can go out and add new players. It was a lot easier having your same teammates year after year that you knew where they would be each play vs having to retrain 40-50% of the team each season like today.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

What's going to be said in here is how you're comparing apples to oranges. I believe it was 94 when they installed the salary cap which makes it so much more difficult to now have a dynasty.My vote would go to the Patriots because of how much more difficult it is to have a dynasty now that it was before.If you want to talk strictly football, then I'd go with the Packers in the 60's.

I started a thread on this last week. The Patriots have been to the SB 5 times since the salary cap started. No other team has been there more than twice. NE also has the best regular season record and the best post season record in that time frame as well.In that thread I openly wondered why they were so good. I since uncovered part of the answer, as they have gone 66-1 in the Brady/Belichick era in games when they had fewer turnovers than their opponents.Including the loss to the Giants (even in turnovers), they have gone 97-11 (.898) in games where they were within one turnover, even, or ahead in turnovers in that time (basically -1 turnovers or better).

Tuck rule callIllegal contact no-calls vs. Indy and Carolina (AFCC & SB)CheatingThat explains a lot.

Brutal

 

[redman]

I know I'm being homer, but what about the Redskins dynasty (1982-1991)? They tend to be left out because they didn't win back-to-back titles and don't fit nicely into a decade. For comparison, here's how their numbers stack up with playoff point differential as I just did for the other dynasties:

Team		   W-L   Avg.L  Avg.W  Avg.Pt.DiffWashington	15-4   -17.0   16.9	   9.7

Any other teams make good 10-year runs that we don't usually mention?BTW, I know that numbers could be a little skewed because I included years that weren't necessarily part of the "dynasty". For example, we call them the 90s Cowboys, but they weren't the same in the late 90s.

The reason the 'Skins tend to get left out is that they weren't the most successful dynasty of their decade (the 49'ers were because of that fourth Super Bowl championship) and the assumption tends to be that there should only be on representative per decade. I agree that they belong in this discussion though.

 

[David Yudkin]

I know I'm being homer, but what about the Redskins dynasty (1982-1991)? They tend to be left out because they didn't win back-to-back titles and don't fit nicely into a decade. For comparison, here's how their numbers stack up with playoff point differential as I just did for the other dynasties:

Team		   W-L   Avg.L  Avg.W  Avg.Pt.DiffWashington	15-4   -17.0   16.9	   9.7

Any other teams make good 10-year runs that we don't usually mention?BTW, I know that numbers could be a little skewed because I included years that weren't necessarily part of the "dynasty". For example, we call them the 90s Cowboys, but they weren't the same in the late 90s.

For football historians looking to read up on teams, here are some others that have had some pretty decent runs (in no particular order):30s and 40s Bears60s and 70s Raiders70s Rams90s Bills50s and 60s Browns70s Cowboys60s Colts70s Dolphins70s VikingsThe Broncos from the 70s onFavre-era PackersManning-era ColtsNote that some of these teams didn't rack up a lot of titles, but still did well for a number of years.

 

[3nOut]

Everyone will have their own definition of a dynasty. Is it Superbowl wins? Season records? Winning percentage? Consecutive plafoff years? How many years constitutes a dynasty, 3, 5, 8? Consistency of player turnover? Combination of these? Other criteria?

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

I know I'm being homer, but what about the Redskins dynasty (1982-1991)? They tend to be left out because they didn't win back-to-back titles and don't fit nicely into a decade. For comparison, here's how their numbers stack up with playoff point differential as I just did for the other dynasties:

Team		   W-L   Avg.L  Avg.W  Avg.Pt.DiffWashington	15-4   -17.0   16.9	   9.7

Any other teams make good 10-year runs that we don't usually mention?BTW, I know that numbers could be a little skewed because I included years that weren't necessarily part of the "dynasty". For example, we call them the 90s Cowboys, but they weren't the same in the late 90s.

The reason the 'Skins tend to get left out is that they weren't the most successful dynasty of their decade (the 49'ers were because of that fourth Super Bowl championship) and the assumption tends to be that there should only be on representative per decade. I agree that they belong in this discussion though.

The reason the Skins get left off of dynasty talk is because they never had a Dynasty.Start a thread, put some information in it that would describe what you think the Washignton Dynasty was and we'll have an objective discussion with all board members to decide if the Skins had a dynasty at some point or not.I just think they had a couple good seasons, which to me isn't a dynasty.

 

[redman]

I know I'm being homer, but what about the Redskins dynasty (1982-1991)? They tend to be left out because they didn't win back-to-back titles and don't fit nicely into a decade. For comparison, here's how their numbers stack up with playoff point differential as I just did for the other dynasties:

Team		   W-L   Avg.L  Avg.W  Avg.Pt.DiffWashington	15-4   -17.0   16.9	   9.7

Any other teams make good 10-year runs that we don't usually mention?BTW, I know that numbers could be a little skewed because I included years that weren't necessarily part of the "dynasty". For example, we call them the 90s Cowboys, but they weren't the same in the late 90s.

The reason the 'Skins tend to get left out is that they weren't the most successful dynasty of their decade (the 49'ers were because of that fourth Super Bowl championship) and the assumption tends to be that there should only be on representative per decade. I agree that they belong in this discussion though.

The reason the Skins get left off of dynasty talk is because they never had a Dynasty.Start a thread, put some information in it that would describe what you think the Washignton Dynasty was and we'll have an objective discussion with all board members to decide if the Skins had a dynasty at some point or not.I just think they had a couple good seasons, which to me isn't a dynasty.

I fail to see how the 'Skins had any less of a dynasty than do the Patriots now. Could you explain that? Regardless, over that 10-year period ('82-'91) the 'Skins were in four Super Bowls, won 3, were in the playoffs 7 times (and again in 1992; and twice won 10 games and missed the playoffs in 1985 & 1989), with a 15-4 playoff record and a 107-45 regular season record (all while losing 8 games during two strike seasons).

 

[JohnnyU]

Close enough to last half century.

Pro football's greatest dynasty

Cold, Hard Football Facts for December 2, 2004

Cleveland football fans may suffocate Sunday from the bags placed over their heads. At the very least, they’ll gag on the performances of the Luke McCown-Terry Robiskie Browns. Sorry, folks, but Sunday's game against New England is going to be ugly.

But perhaps Clevelanders can comfort themselves by remembering the post-World War II Browns – the greatest dynasty in pro football history, a team that dominated not one but two leagues and an organization that literally changed the complexion of pro sports.

The story of the postwar Browns might sound familiar to fans in New England. They were led by a legendary coach who always seemed a step ahead of everyone else in football, a quarterback who didn’t throw pretty passes but seemed to win every game he played, and a popular kicker whose last-second heroics captured an NFL championship. Heck, they were so good even the radio announcer was a beloved fan favorite.

The legendary coach was Paul Brown. He was so popular that fans voted to name the team after him. The quarterback was Otto Graham, a winner unmatched in the history of football and so dominant that Tom Brady and his .794 winning percentage pales in comparison. The kicker was Lou “The Toe” Groza, who played tackle and handled kicking duties. All are enshrined in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. The team’s popular broadcaster was Ken Coleman, whose name is well known in New England. Coleman was the voice of the Boston Red Sox for 20 years. In Cleveland he handled radio and then TV duties during the Browns glory years.

The Browns were founded in 1946 as part of the old All America Football Conference (AAFC), which competed against the NFL for four years. It was a period of rejuvenation for pro football, which suffered during World War II (1941-45) like many other elements of society. Some teams were disbanded. The Eagles and Steelers played together as the Steagles. Twenty-one NFL players were killed in the war.

Suffice it to say, pro football was a welcome and popular relief in the postwar years. And the Browns dominated those years like no team has ever dominated football before or since. We turned to the Buddha of gridiron enlightenment, the Cold, Hard Football Facts, and can now declare in no uncertain terms that the postwar Browns are the greatest dynasty in pro football history. Here’s why:

The Browns appeared in 10 straight championship games. The modern football public is amazed by the Bills of the early 1990s who appeared in four straight Super Bowls. The Browns played for a championship every year from 1946 to 1955. They won seven times (’46, ’47, ’48, ’49, ’50, ’54, ’55). The Vince Lombardi Packers appeared in six title games in eight years, winning five.

The Browns dominated two leagues. Cleveland won all four AAFC championships before the league merged with the NFL in 1950. The Browns proved they were no junior-league fluke with a 10-2 record and a victory over the Los Angeles Rams in the 1950 NFL championship game. Groza’s last-second field goal gave Cleveland the 30-28 victory. The Browns made it to the NFL title game but lost each year from 1951 to 1953. They returned to championship form in 1954 and 1955.

The 1948 Browns were undefeated. Like the 1972 Dolphins, the 1948 Browns went 14-0 in the regular season and won their league title. But because it happened in the AAFC, the NFL does not recognize the undefeated 1948 Browns -- the only other team to go through both the regular and postseasons without a loss. (The Dolphins played three postseason games and went 17-0; the Browns played just one postseason game and went 15-0).

Paul Brown changed the face of pro sports. Brown’s Hall of Fame biography calls him the “master innovator.” He was the first to test players for intelligence and institute classroom learning techniques that are an essential part of football today. He was the first to make extensive use of film study. Some say he created what’s now known as the West Coast offense. In his spare time, he broke the color barrier in pro sports when he signed future Hall of Famers Marion Motley and Bill Willis in 1946, a year before Jackie Robinson joined the Brooklyn Dodgers. He posted a career record in Cleveland of 167-53-8 before he was fired by team owner Art Modell in 1962 – the same jerk who unceremoniously moved the Browns to Baltimore in 1996. Brown founded the Cincinnati Bengals in 1968 (note the same colors as the Browns). The Bengals made the playoffs in 1970. At the time it was the earliest an expansion team ever made the postseason. The Bengals appeared in two Super Bowls with Brown the team’s general manager.

Graham was the greatest winner in pro football history. Tom Brady is the greatest winner in football today but he couldn’t hold a candle to Graham, who led the Cleveland offense during the entire 1946-1955 period. The Browns posted a 105-17-4 (.861) regular season record over those 10 years – gaudy even by the standards of college dynasties. Graham padded his stats with a 9-3 postseason record, four AAFC championships and three NFL championships. History shows that Graham was the glue that held together the Browns dynasty. The Graham-less 1956 Browns went 5-7 -- their first losing record -- and the Browns have made only three more title-game appearances since his departure. They lost to Detroit, 59-14, in 1957; beat Baltimore, 27-0, in 1964; and lost to Green Bay, 23-12, in 1965. The Browns have not been back to an NFL title game since.

Sorry, Browns fans, that's not about to change anytime soon. Otto Graham and Paul Brown aren't walking out on that field Sunday. Just Luke McCown and Terry Robiskie. These aren't your daddy's Browns.

 

[Ghost Rider]

I fail to see how the 'Skins had any less of a dynasty than do the Patriots now. Could you explain that?

3 Super Bowl titles in 4 seasons is far more impressive than 3 Super Bowl titles in 8 seasons.

 

[bostonfred]

I guess I don't define a dynasty by a number of years or a number of championships. I define it by the one or few people who make that dynasty run. The Jordan-era Bulls. The Bird/McHale/Parish Celtics. I wouldn't really consider the Patriots' Superbowl in 96 to be part of the same dynasty as the Brady/Belichick dynasty of this decade, although I suppose you could have talked about the the Steinbrenner Yankees, or the Auerbach Celtics, and you might talk about the Kraft era Patriots if Belichick and Brady retired and they continued winning.

 

[redman]

I fail to see how the 'Skins had any less of a dynasty than do the Patriots now. Could you explain that?

3 Super Bowl titles in 4 seasons is far more impressive than 3 Super Bowl titles in 8 seasons.

Really? I would think the latter is more difficult to do than the former. The reason I say that is because virtually every other "dynasty" consists of a team that won a certain number of championships in that many or just a few more years. And as I pointed out, it's not like the Redskins were sucking in between those championships.

 

[David Yudkin]

Close enough to last half century.

Pro football's greatest dynasty

Cold, Hard Football Facts for December 2, 2004

Cleveland football fans may suffocate Sunday from the bags placed over their heads. At the very least, they’ll gag on the performances of the Luke McCown-Terry Robiskie Browns. Sorry, folks, but Sunday's game against New England is going to be ugly.

But perhaps Clevelanders can comfort themselves by remembering the post-World War II Browns – the greatest dynasty in pro football history, a team that dominated not one but two leagues and an organization that literally changed the complexion of pro sports.

The story of the postwar Browns might sound familiar to fans in New England. They were led by a legendary coach who always seemed a step ahead of everyone else in football, a quarterback who didn’t throw pretty passes but seemed to win every game he played, and a popular kicker whose last-second heroics captured an NFL championship. Heck, they were so good even the radio announcer was a beloved fan favorite.

The legendary coach was Paul Brown. He was so popular that fans voted to name the team after him. The quarterback was Otto Graham, a winner unmatched in the history of football and so dominant that Tom Brady and his .794 winning percentage pales in comparison. The kicker was Lou “The Toe” Groza, who played tackle and handled kicking duties. All are enshrined in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. The team’s popular broadcaster was Ken Coleman, whose name is well known in New England. Coleman was the voice of the Boston Red Sox for 20 years. In Cleveland he handled radio and then TV duties during the Browns glory years.

The Browns were founded in 1946 as part of the old All America Football Conference (AAFC), which competed against the NFL for four years. It was a period of rejuvenation for pro football, which suffered during World War II (1941-45) like many other elements of society. Some teams were disbanded. The Eagles and Steelers played together as the Steagles. Twenty-one NFL players were killed in the war.

Suffice it to say, pro football was a welcome and popular relief in the postwar years. And the Browns dominated those years like no team has ever dominated football before or since. We turned to the Buddha of gridiron enlightenment, the Cold, Hard Football Facts, and can now declare in no uncertain terms that the postwar Browns are the greatest dynasty in pro football history. Here’s why:

The Browns appeared in 10 straight championship games. The modern football public is amazed by the Bills of the early 1990s who appeared in four straight Super Bowls. The Browns played for a championship every year from 1946 to 1955. They won seven times (’46, ’47, ’48, ’49, ’50, ’54, ’55). The Vince Lombardi Packers appeared in six title games in eight years, winning five.

The Browns dominated two leagues. Cleveland won all four AAFC championships before the league merged with the NFL in 1950. The Browns proved they were no junior-league fluke with a 10-2 record and a victory over the Los Angeles Rams in the 1950 NFL championship game. Groza’s last-second field goal gave Cleveland the 30-28 victory. The Browns made it to the NFL title game but lost each year from 1951 to 1953. They returned to championship form in 1954 and 1955.

The 1948 Browns were undefeated. Like the 1972 Dolphins, the 1948 Browns went 14-0 in the regular season and won their league title. But because it happened in the AAFC, the NFL does not recognize the undefeated 1948 Browns -- the only other team to go through both the regular and postseasons without a loss. (The Dolphins played three postseason games and went 17-0; the Browns played just one postseason game and went 15-0).

Paul Brown changed the face of pro sports. Brown’s Hall of Fame biography calls him the “master innovator.” He was the first to test players for intelligence and institute classroom learning techniques that are an essential part of football today. He was the first to make extensive use of film study. Some say he created what’s now known as the West Coast offense. In his spare time, he broke the color barrier in pro sports when he signed future Hall of Famers Marion Motley and Bill Willis in 1946, a year before Jackie Robinson joined the Brooklyn Dodgers. He posted a career record in Cleveland of 167-53-8 before he was fired by team owner Art Modell in 1962 – the same jerk who unceremoniously moved the Browns to Baltimore in 1996. Brown founded the Cincinnati Bengals in 1968 (note the same colors as the Browns). The Bengals made the playoffs in 1970. At the time it was the earliest an expansion team ever made the postseason. The Bengals appeared in two Super Bowls with Brown the team’s general manager.

Graham was the greatest winner in pro football history. Tom Brady is the greatest winner in football today but he couldn’t hold a candle to Graham, who led the Cleveland offense during the entire 1946-1955 period. The Browns posted a 105-17-4 (.861) regular season record over those 10 years – gaudy even by the standards of college dynasties. Graham padded his stats with a 9-3 postseason record, four AAFC championships and three NFL championships. History shows that Graham was the glue that held together the Browns dynasty. The Graham-less 1956 Browns went 5-7 -- their first losing record -- and the Browns have made only three more title-game appearances since his departure. They lost to Detroit, 59-14, in 1957; beat Baltimore, 27-0, in 1964; and lost to Green Bay, 23-12, in 1965. The Browns have not been back to an NFL title game since.

Sorry, Browns fans, that's not about to change anytime soon. Otto Graham and Paul Brown aren't walking out on that field Sunday. Just Luke McCown and Terry Robiskie. These aren't your daddy's Browns.

I had the Browns in my list a few posts ago, but part of the issue is that they were not in the NFL for their first 4 tittles.

 

[dallas428]

I fail to see how the 'Skins had any less of a dynasty than do the Patriots now. Could you explain that?

3 Super Bowl titles in 4 seasons is far more impressive than 3 Super Bowl titles in 8 seasons.

Really? I would think the latter is more difficult to do than the former. The reason I say that is because virtually every other "dynasty" consists of a team that won a certain number of championships in that many or just a few more years. And as I pointed out, it's not like the Redskins were sucking in between those championships.

NO DYNASTY FOR YOU!!! NEXT?

 

[bryan215]

given the makeup of the team and the ability of the FO to constantly replenish players...the 00 Patriots have to be in the debate in large part because of them working within the salary cap/FA era.

The will most likely win 1-2 more Superbowls

2000: Sucked 5-11

2001: Won SB

2002: Winning record but missed playoffs

2003: Won SB

2004: Won SB

2005: Made playoffs

2006: Went to AFC Championship and lost to SB winner INDY

2007: Went 16-0 regular season and reached the SB and lost to NYG

2008: Def make playoffs. Strong shot to go to AFC Championship game/SB

2009: Should make playoffs

2010: Should make playoffs

 

[David Yudkin]

Looking things up really quickly, here are the only teams that I found that had made the playoffs 8 times in a ten year span.

83-92 49ers - 9 (14 out of 15 times from 83-98)

75-84 Cowboys - 9

66-75 Cowboys - 9

69-78 Vikings - 9

67-76 Raiders - 9

88-97 Bills - 8

50-59 Browns - 8

90-99 Cowboys - 8

95-04 Packers - 8

98-07 Colts - 8

92-01 Dolphins - 8

91-00 Vikings - 8

72-81 Steelers - 8

92-01 49ers - 8

73-82 Rams - 8 (12 out of 14 times from 73-86)

One or two of these teams may have had a year or two that could have added them on the list again, but I opted not to list them more than once.

 

[phthalatemagic]

Took the Pack here. Not sure why anyone would consider otherwise.

 

[phthalatemagic]

the 00 Patriots have to be in the debate in large part because of them working within the salary cap/FA era.

No, not really.

 

[duece2626]

We all now know it's not NE.

 

[The Jerk]

It's definitely different under the salary cap. But I really can't decide if it is any harder. Sure you lose guys to FA. But you can also go out and sign other team's FAs, so it's a bit of a wash.

I am not singling you out, but if it were so easy, why aare the Pats the only team to go to more than 2 SBs in the 14 year salary cap era?

I agree with CrossEyed on this one, and the answer to your question on why NE has been so much more successful is that they've simply been better at managing the 2000s NFL than any other team.The game has changed greatly, but each of the teams listed in the poll have been able to master the NFL as it was in that decade.A simple point in terms of how free agency and salary cap actually helps to sustain the top teams is that through the 1980s, by far the main way talent was replenished was through the draft, and as everyone knows, the teams who win pick later in the draft than the other teams. There was almost no way to avoid the cycling from a top team to a bottom team when you're consistently drafting late.Now in the 2000s, free agency allows another talent stream, and the economic reality of today is that top 5 picks command huge cap numbers for players who are unproven and inexperienced. So it can actually be argued that today's situation might actually make a dynasty slightly more probable.However, as I said before, the Patriots have shown that they are the best at managing the 2000s era NFL. However, note that they aren't the only team to be consistently good. Both the Colts and the Steelers and to a lesser extent the Seahawks have been dominating their divisions for a long stretch, too.Finally, I'm not sure how it can be said that it was easier to win multiple CHAMPIONSHIPS in past decades when the same rules apply to all teams. The supposed increased parity of today does not just affect bad teams and make them mediocre. It also affects the top teams and makes them weaker. The 1970s Steelers matched up frequently with the Raiders in the playoffs and of course twice with the Cowboys in the Super Bowl. While the Steelers may have been weakened by free agency had it existed, a similar impact could have been expected on the Riaders and Cowboys (and other strong teams in that era).

 

[bryan215]

Took the Pack here. Not sure why anyone would consider otherwise.

Are we talking about the same Packers? i.e. the 90s one that only won one superbowl and have yet to win in Dallas?

 

[David Yudkin]

Finally, I'm not sure how it can be said that it was easier to win multiple CHAMPIONSHIPS in past decades when the same rules apply to all teams. The supposed increased parity of today does not just affect bad teams and make them mediocre. It also affects the top teams and makes them weaker. The 1970s Steelers matched up frequently with the Raiders in the playoffs and of course twice with the Cowboys in the Super Bowl. While the Steelers may have been weakened by free agency had it existed, a similar impact could have been expected on the Riaders and Cowboys (and other strong teams in that era).

I think you answered yourself in your own post. Given that teams that win are the ones most pirated by other teams for players, IMO it becomes much more difficult to plug and play key players and still be expected to win.At least in the pre-salary cap era you knew what weapons you had in your arsenal. Now with such a high turnover you never know what you'll get.

 

[David Yudkin]

Took the Pack here. Not sure why anyone would consider otherwise.

Are we talking about the same Packers? i.e. the 90s one that only won one superbowl and have yet to win in Dallas?

I'm pretty sure he means the 60s variety Packers.

 

[dgreen]

Finally, I'm not sure how it can be said that it was easier to win multiple CHAMPIONSHIPS in past decades when the same rules apply to all teams. The supposed increased parity of today does not just affect bad teams and make them mediocre. It also affects the top teams and makes them weaker. The 1970s Steelers matched up frequently with the Raiders in the playoffs and of course twice with the Cowboys in the Super Bowl. While the Steelers may have been weakened by free agency had it existed, a similar impact could have been expected on the Riaders and Cowboys (and other strong teams in that era).

I think you answered yourself in your own post. Given that teams that win are the ones most pirated by other teams for players, IMO it becomes much more difficult to plug and play key players and still be expected to win.At least in the pre-salary cap era you knew what weapons you had in your arsenal. Now with such a high turnover you never know what you'll get.

That's true for every team, though.

 

[phthalatemagic]

Took the Pack here. Not sure why anyone would consider otherwise.

Are we talking about the same Packers? i.e. the 90s one that only won one superbowl and have yet to win in Dallas?

No. We are not talking about the same Packers.

 

[phthalatemagic]

Finally, I'm not sure how it can be said that it was easier to win multiple CHAMPIONSHIPS in past decades when the same rules apply to all teams. The supposed increased parity of today does not just affect bad teams and make them mediocre. It also affects the top teams and makes them weaker. The 1970s Steelers matched up frequently with the Raiders in the playoffs and of course twice with the Cowboys in the Super Bowl. While the Steelers may have been weakened by free agency had it existed, a similar impact could have been expected on the Riaders and Cowboys (and other strong teams in that era).

I think you answered yourself in your own post. Given that teams that win are the ones most pirated by other teams for players, IMO it becomes much more difficult to plug and play key players and still be expected to win.At least in the pre-salary cap era you knew what weapons you had in your arsenal. Now with such a high turnover you never know what you'll get.

That's true for every team, though.

I'd love to read a study/analysis on the ease of teams to change their win totals from year to year based on era. Maybe if one of the stat geniuses here could actually show me with empirical evidence that it's more difficult to build a regular winner in the salary cap era rather than with theoretical suppositions, I'd be on board. Until then, we could all just make up our own theories.

 

[dgreen]

Finally, I'm not sure how it can be said that it was easier to win multiple CHAMPIONSHIPS in past decades when the same rules apply to all teams. The supposed increased parity of today does not just affect bad teams and make them mediocre. It also affects the top teams and makes them weaker. The 1970s Steelers matched up frequently with the Raiders in the playoffs and of course twice with the Cowboys in the Super Bowl. While the Steelers may have been weakened by free agency had it existed, a similar impact could have been expected on the Riaders and Cowboys (and other strong teams in that era).

I think you answered yourself in your own post. Given that teams that win are the ones most pirated by other teams for players, IMO it becomes much more difficult to plug and play key players and still be expected to win.At least in the pre-salary cap era you knew what weapons you had in your arsenal. Now with such a high turnover you never know what you'll get.

That's true for every team, though.

I'd love to read a study/analysis on the ease of teams to change their win totals from year to year based on era. Maybe if one of the stat geniuses here could actually show me with empirical evidence that it's more difficult to build a regular winner in the salary cap era rather than with theoretical suppositions, I'd be on board. Until then, we could all just make up our own theories.

For a long time, I just accepted that "it's harder now." But, I've never seen anything that proves that. I'm not saying I don't believe it's harder now, I just don't have an opinion on it any more.

 

[bryan215]

Took the Pack here. Not sure why anyone would consider otherwise.

Are we talking about the same Packers? i.e. the 90s one that only won one superbowl and have yet to win in Dallas?

I'm pretty sure he means the 60s variety Packers.

Eh yeah I can see it but the game is SOOO much more advanced and the athletes of today would run circles around 60s era guys. I'd take most teams from the 80s or beyond over a pre 70s era team given the changes

 

[David Yudkin]

Finally, I'm not sure how it can be said that it was easier to win multiple CHAMPIONSHIPS in past decades when the same rules apply to all teams. The supposed increased parity of today does not just affect bad teams and make them mediocre. It also affects the top teams and makes them weaker. The 1970s Steelers matched up frequently with the Raiders in the playoffs and of course twice with the Cowboys in the Super Bowl. While the Steelers may have been weakened by free agency had it existed, a similar impact could have been expected on the Riaders and Cowboys (and other strong teams in that era).

I think you answered yourself in your own post. Given that teams that win are the ones most pirated by other teams for players, IMO it becomes much more difficult to plug and play key players and still be expected to win.At least in the pre-salary cap era you knew what weapons you had in your arsenal. Now with such a high turnover you never know what you'll get.

That's true for every team, though.

Let's try this again . . .Old days: Best Players + Best Team + Keeping Players on Team = Continued Success = Continued Best Team

New Days: Best Players + Best Team - Can't Keep Players = No Longer the Best Team

As an analogy, look at the UCONN Huskies baskeball team. They had at least 10 guys leave the NCAA to become pro. Their team got pilfered. So it should be easy to replace them, right? Of course not. They are a decent team again, but they are not close to what they were.

The salary cap has caused players to move around a lot and has caused teams to have to readjust their personnel from year to year. Why do you think we are seeing an influx of teams that go from rags to ricjes (the Saints for example), riches to rags (the Bears to name one), and all points in between.

In the old days, with limited change teams could also better scout other teams and expect similar players, schemes, and game plans. Things change so much in today's NFL that you never know what to expect.

IMO, the element of change did not exist anywhere near as much "back in the day" as it does now. I do not think that I am in the minority of people that think it is far more difficult to be at the top of the list for an extended timeframe these days.

 

[bryan215]

Finally, I'm not sure how it can be said that it was easier to win multiple CHAMPIONSHIPS in past decades when the same rules apply to all teams. The supposed increased parity of today does not just affect bad teams and make them mediocre. It also affects the top teams and makes them weaker. The 1970s Steelers matched up frequently with the Raiders in the playoffs and of course twice with the Cowboys in the Super Bowl. While the Steelers may have been weakened by free agency had it existed, a similar impact could have been expected on the Riaders and Cowboys (and other strong teams in that era).

I think you answered yourself in your own post. Given that teams that win are the ones most pirated by other teams for players, IMO it becomes much more difficult to plug and play key players and still be expected to win.At least in the pre-salary cap era you knew what weapons you had in your arsenal. Now with such a high turnover you never know what you'll get.

That's true for every team, though.

I'd love to read a study/analysis on the ease of teams to change their win totals from year to year based on era. Maybe if one of the stat geniuses here could actually show me with empirical evidence that it's more difficult to build a regular winner in the salary cap era rather than with theoretical suppositions, I'd be on board. Until then, we could all just make up our own theories.

For a long time, I just accepted that "it's harder now." But, I've never seen anything that proves that. I'm not saying I don't believe it's harder now, I just don't have an opinion on it any more.

Players are faster, stronger, quicker, more intelligent.The game itself is far more complex esp when it comes to offensive and defensive schemes.

Salary Cap + Free Agency

Teams are forced to play far more games just to get to the SB let alone win it

The techn. advances in the game and means of study.

24 hour media

 

[redman]

Finally, I'm not sure how it can be said that it was easier to win multiple CHAMPIONSHIPS in past decades when the same rules apply to all teams. The supposed increased parity of today does not just affect bad teams and make them mediocre. It also affects the top teams and makes them weaker. The 1970s Steelers matched up frequently with the Raiders in the playoffs and of course twice with the Cowboys in the Super Bowl. While the Steelers may have been weakened by free agency had it existed, a similar impact could have been expected on the Riaders and Cowboys (and other strong teams in that era).

I think you answered yourself in your own post. Given that teams that win are the ones most pirated by other teams for players, IMO it becomes much more difficult to plug and play key players and still be expected to win.At least in the pre-salary cap era you knew what weapons you had in your arsenal. Now with such a high turnover you never know what you'll get.

That's true for every team, though.

I'd love to read a study/analysis on the ease of teams to change their win totals from year to year based on era. Maybe if one of the stat geniuses here could actually show me with empirical evidence that it's more difficult to build a regular winner in the salary cap era rather than with theoretical suppositions, I'd be on board. Until then, we could all just make up our own theories.

For a long time, I just accepted that "it's harder now." But, I've never seen anything that proves that. I'm not saying I don't believe it's harder now, I just don't have an opinion on it any more.

Players are faster, stronger, quicker, more intelligent.The game itself is far more complex esp when it comes to offensive and defensive schemes.

Salary Cap + Free Agency

Teams are forced to play far more games just to get to the SB let alone win it

The techn. advances in the game and means of study.

24 hour media

To add onto what you're saying, the complexities of the modern game make continuity all the more important, and yet you have less continuity because of the salary cap and free agency. I do believe it's more challenging. It's not a coincidence that the teams who have done the best in this salary cap era over a period of years (Denver, Green Bay, NE, Indy, St. Louis) have all had HoF caliber QB's leading them (Warner's career petered out, but he was at a HoF level from '99-'01).

 

[dgreen]

Finally, I'm not sure how it can be said that it was easier to win multiple CHAMPIONSHIPS in past decades when the same rules apply to all teams. The supposed increased parity of today does not just affect bad teams and make them mediocre. It also affects the top teams and makes them weaker. The 1970s Steelers matched up frequently with the Raiders in the playoffs and of course twice with the Cowboys in the Super Bowl. While the Steelers may have been weakened by free agency had it existed, a similar impact could have been expected on the Riaders and Cowboys (and other strong teams in that era).

I think you answered yourself in your own post. Given that teams that win are the ones most pirated by other teams for players, IMO it becomes much more difficult to plug and play key players and still be expected to win.At least in the pre-salary cap era you knew what weapons you had in your arsenal. Now with such a high turnover you never know what you'll get.

That's true for every team, though.

Let's try this again . . .Old days: Best Players + Best Team + Keeping Players on Team = Continued Success = Continued Best Team

New Days: Best Players + Best Team - Can't Keep Players = No Longer the Best Team

As an analogy, look at the UCONN Huskies baskeball team. They had at least 10 guys leave the NCAA to become pro. Their team got pilfered. So it should be easy to replace them, right? Of course not. They are a decent team again, but they are not close to what they were.

The salary cap has caused players to move around a lot and has caused teams to have to readjust their personnel from year to year. Why do you think we are seeing an influx of teams that go from rags to ricjes (the Saints for example), riches to rags (the Bears to name one), and all points in between.

In the old days, with limited change teams could also better scout other teams and expect similar players, schemes, and game plans. Things change so much in today's NFL that you never know what to expect.

IMO, the element of change did not exist anywhere near as much "back in the day" as it does now. I do not think that I am in the minority of people that think it is far more difficult to be at the top of the list for an extended timeframe these days.

Again, I'd like to see some study that looks at some results from each era. My guess is you are underestimating how many teams have had continued success in the salary cap era (NE, IND, PITT, SEA, PHI off the top of my head), while overestimating how many teams had continued success in, say, the 70s or 80s.

 

[The Jerk]

Finally, I'm not sure how it can be said that it was easier to win multiple CHAMPIONSHIPS in past decades when the same rules apply to all teams. The supposed increased parity of today does not just affect bad teams and make them mediocre. It also affects the top teams and makes them weaker. The 1970s Steelers matched up frequently with the Raiders in the playoffs and of course twice with the Cowboys in the Super Bowl. While the Steelers may have been weakened by free agency had it existed, a similar impact could have been expected on the Riaders and Cowboys (and other strong teams in that era).

I think you answered yourself in your own post. Given that teams that win are the ones most pirated by other teams for players, IMO it becomes much more difficult to plug and play key players and still be expected to win.At least in the pre-salary cap era you knew what weapons you had in your arsenal. Now with such a high turnover you never know what you'll get.

That's true for every team, though.

Let's try this again . . .Old days: Best Players + Best Team + Keeping Players on Team = Continued Success = Continued Best Team

New Days: Best Players + Best Team - Can't Keep Players = No Longer the Best Team

As an analogy, look at the UCONN Huskies baskeball team. They had at least 10 guys leave the NCAA to become pro. Their team got pilfered. So it should be easy to replace them, right? Of course not. They are a decent team again, but they are not close to what they were.

The salary cap has caused players to move around a lot and has caused teams to have to readjust their personnel from year to year. Why do you think we are seeing an influx of teams that go from rags to ricjes (the Saints for example), riches to rags (the Bears to name one), and all points in between.

In the old days, with limited change teams could also better scout other teams and expect similar players, schemes, and game plans. Things change so much in today's NFL that you never know what to expect.

IMO, the element of change did not exist anywhere near as much "back in the day" as it does now. I do not think that I am in the minority of people that think it is far more difficult to be at the top of the list for an extended timeframe these days.

David,You're a smart guy and I very much respect your opinion, but you're not the ONLY smart guy on these forums.

You chose to repeat what you said. I'll do the same: The Patriots have been the most successful team of the past decade because they have best mastered the combination of talent and scheme for today's NFL.

The old days as you call them meant absolute reliance on the draft. So the teams that did the best at the draft -- specifically the 1970s Steelers and Cowboys and 1980s 49ers -- were the best on the field.

Now the draft is still very important, but it's not as important because players can be acquired via free agency as well. The personnel turnover is true for EVERY team, not just the good teams, and the "raid the champs" aspect was more prevalent in the earlier days of free agency (see Larry Brown) than it is now. Sure, it still happens, but it's just as likely to hurt the teams that overspend on mediocre talent in a good system that doesn't perform as well outside of the original team.

Specific to the Patriots, I believe it is unarguable that free agency has helped far more than it has hurt, unless you believe that players like Vrabel, Rodney Harrison, Colvin and Adalius Thomas have added nothing to the defense.

I'm more than willing to acknowledge that the Patriots have done a sensational job mastering an aspect of team management that did not exist for most of the other dynasties on the list, but it's simply knee-jerk analysis to exclaim that it is clearly harder to maintain success now as opposed to then. What is clear is that the same group of players cannot simply be maintained for a 5-7 year span. However, just as it is more likely for some of those players to leave, it is actually much easier to plug in a key player or two through free agency for either replacement of the departing player or an upgrade.

I know I'm going against 90% or more of the national media on this one, but given their astute analysis year in and year out, that probably is a mark in my favor.

Overall, I'm getting fairly sick of the references to perfection from both this year's Pats and of course the 1972 Dolphins. And comparing teams from past eras is the same type of guessing game that people do when they try to compare the 1972 Dolphins with the 1984 49ers, 1985 Bears, 1991 Redskins, etc. It's far too simple just to look at 17-0 and say that's the best team, as there's a lot more to it. We don't just automatically rank every team each season in the power rankings based on record alone, so the same should apply across seasons and eras.

My bottom line is that the Patriots should be appreciated for what they have accomplished in this era. Claiming any of these teams are clearly superior or more impressive is subjective at best and more speculative than scientific by any standard.

 

[David Yudkin]

Finally, I'm not sure how it can be said that it was easier to win multiple CHAMPIONSHIPS in past decades when the same rules apply to all teams. The supposed increased parity of today does not just affect bad teams and make them mediocre. It also affects the top teams and makes them weaker. The 1970s Steelers matched up frequently with the Raiders in the playoffs and of course twice with the Cowboys in the Super Bowl. While the Steelers may have been weakened by free agency had it existed, a similar impact could have been expected on the Riaders and Cowboys (and other strong teams in that era).

I think you answered yourself in your own post. Given that teams that win are the ones most pirated by other teams for players, IMO it becomes much more difficult to plug and play key players and still be expected to win.At least in the pre-salary cap era you knew what weapons you had in your arsenal. Now with such a high turnover you never know what you'll get.

That's true for every team, though.

I'd love to read a study/analysis on the ease of teams to change their win totals from year to year based on era. Maybe if one of the stat geniuses here could actually show me with empirical evidence that it's more difficult to build a regular winner in the salary cap era rather than with theoretical suppositions, I'd be on board. Until then, we could all just make up our own theories.

I don't have the time or the desire to do such a study, but here's what I can offer as an alternate.Since the onset of the salary cap, there have been 14 seasons played. In that timeframe, there have been 78 times when a team increased or decreased its win total by 5 from one season to the next. That is an average of 5.57 teams per season.

I randomly selected the 1970-1979 seasons for comparison. In that 10 year timeframe, 24 times the same thing happened (+/- 5 wins or losses per season) for an average of 2.4 occurances per season.

There are a few more teams now than there were then. Adjusting for that . . .

78 occurances in 433 total team seasons in the salary cap era = 18%

24 occurnaces in 268 total team seasons in the 70s era = 9%

So basically that's happened twice as frequently now compared to then.

 

[dgreen]

It's not a coincidence that the teams who have done the best in this salary cap era over a period of years (Denver, Green Bay, NE, Indy, St. Louis) have all had HoF caliber QB's leading them (Warner's career petered out, but he was at a HoF level from '99-'01).

Most of them have had consistency at HC, too.

 

[The Jerk]

Some specific responses beyond my overall oration...

Old days: Best Players + Best Team + Keeping Players on Team = Continued Success = Continued Best TeamNew Days: Best Players + Best Team - Can't Keep Players = No Longer the Best Team

New Days: Best Players + Best Team - Can't Keep Players + CAN ACQUIRE OTHER PLAYERS = Continued Best TeamFree agency is not a one-sided street. The champ is also allowed to sign free agents and the last time I checked, other top teams also lose players, not just the SB champ. (Burress leaves Steelers in 2004, James leaves Colts in 2005, and dozens more)

In the old days, with limited change teams could also better scout other teams and expect similar players, schemes, and game plans. Things change so much in today's NFL that you never know what to expect.IMO, the element of change did not exist anywhere near as much "back in the day" as it does now. I do not think that I am in the minority of people that think it is far more difficult to be at the top of the list for an extended timeframe these days.

I'm not sure that the element of change and not knowing what to expect necessarily favors parity. I would think that it rewards teams that can process information from game film and live scouts most effectively and translate it into good game planning. Sound like any hoodie coach we know?Once again, I applaud the Patriots for mastering the current system. The Packers and Steelers would have no idea what a capologist is or how to use a computer to break down each play for each individual player and use that as preparation for the next game. No doubt football is more complicated than ever, but that doesn't mean it automatically is more biased toward parity AT THE TOP. So if you want to be a 2000s dynasty, it's not enough to have good coaches and good drafts. You also need to excel at free agency and salary cap management. Again, however, that doesn't apply only to the defending SB champ. It also applies to all of the nearest competitors and even the doormats of the league.

 

[The Jerk]

Finally, I'm not sure how it can be said that it was easier to win multiple CHAMPIONSHIPS in past decades when the same rules apply to all teams. The supposed increased parity of today does not just affect bad teams and make them mediocre. It also affects the top teams and makes them weaker. The 1970s Steelers matched up frequently with the Raiders in the playoffs and of course twice with the Cowboys in the Super Bowl. While the Steelers may have been weakened by free agency had it existed, a similar impact could have been expected on the Riaders and Cowboys (and other strong teams in that era).

I think you answered yourself in your own post. Given that teams that win are the ones most pirated by other teams for players, IMO it becomes much more difficult to plug and play key players and still be expected to win.At least in the pre-salary cap era you knew what weapons you had in your arsenal. Now with such a high turnover you never know what you'll get.

That's true for every team, though.

I'd love to read a study/analysis on the ease of teams to change their win totals from year to year based on era. Maybe if one of the stat geniuses here could actually show me with empirical evidence that it's more difficult to build a regular winner in the salary cap era rather than with theoretical suppositions, I'd be on board. Until then, we could all just make up our own theories.

I don't have the time or the desire to do such a study, but here's what I can offer as an alternate.Since the onset of the salary cap, there have been 14 seasons played. In that timeframe, there have been 78 times when a team increased or decreased its win total by 5 from one season to the next. That is an average of 5.57 teams per season.

I randomly selected the 1970-1979 seasons for comparison. In that 10 year timeframe, 24 times the same thing happened (+/- 5 wins or losses per season) for an average of 2.4 occurances per season.

There are a few more teams now than there were then. Adjusting for that . . .

78 occurances in 433 total team seasons in the salary cap era = 18%

24 occurnaces in 268 total team seasons in the 70s era = 9%

So basically that's happened twic as frequently now compared to then.

I don't think there's any doubt that there are more multigame swings in recent years. However, I'm not sure that translates to change at the very top. In fact, I'd argue that a part of the increase in these larger swings is due to injury at key positions and the lack of backups forced by the salary cap. The top teams of the 1970s tended to have greater depth across the board than the top teams of the 2000s. Also, keep in mind that only the last two years of the seventies included a 16 game schedule...

 

[phthalatemagic]

Finally, I'm not sure how it can be said that it was easier to win multiple CHAMPIONSHIPS in past decades when the same rules apply to all teams. The supposed increased parity of today does not just affect bad teams and make them mediocre. It also affects the top teams and makes them weaker. The 1970s Steelers matched up frequently with the Raiders in the playoffs and of course twice with the Cowboys in the Super Bowl. While the Steelers may have been weakened by free agency had it existed, a similar impact could have been expected on the Riaders and Cowboys (and other strong teams in that era).

I think you answered yourself in your own post. Given that teams that win are the ones most pirated by other teams for players, IMO it becomes much more difficult to plug and play key players and still be expected to win.At least in the pre-salary cap era you knew what weapons you had in your arsenal. Now with such a high turnover you never know what you'll get.

That's true for every team, though.

I'd love to read a study/analysis on the ease of teams to change their win totals from year to year based on era. Maybe if one of the stat geniuses here could actually show me with empirical evidence that it's more difficult to build a regular winner in the salary cap era rather than with theoretical suppositions, I'd be on board. Until then, we could all just make up our own theories.

For a long time, I just accepted that "it's harder now." But, I've never seen anything that proves that. I'm not saying I don't believe it's harder now, I just don't have an opinion on it any more.

Players are faster, stronger, quicker, more intelligent.The game itself is far more complex esp when it comes to offensive and defensive schemes.

Salary Cap + Free Agency

Teams are forced to play far more games just to get to the SB let alone win it

The techn. advances in the game and means of study.

24 hour media

Clearly, you are more on the side of "Make up our own theories" rather than the "empirical evidence" side. That's OK, I guess.

 

[pats3in4]

'80s 49ers...

'81 - champs

'82 - 9 game strike season

'83 - lost close NFCCG, which fueled...

'84 - champs (an all-time great team)

'85 - playoffs

'86 - playoffs

'87 - playoffs (really blew a good title chance)

'88 - champs

'89 - champs (an all-time great team)

I don't know if it's fair extending them into the '90s, but there was a lot of roster similarity that started with the '88 team that lasted well into the next decade...

'90 - lost close NFCCG (had a decent chance at the 3-peat)

'91 - missed playoffs at 10-6, torch passed from Montana to Young

'92 - lost NFCCG (had a decent title chance)

'93 - lost NFCCG

'94 - champs (an all-time great team)

'95 - playoffs (Green Bay's arrival)

'96 - playoffs

'97 - lost NFCCG

'98 - playoffs (Young's final full year, IIRC)

Four titles (five, if you count the '90s), two (or three) of the all-time best teams and a remarkable string of playoff appearances year after year with several NFCCG appearances, both before and after the salary cap era. The Montana/Young 49ers are the best NFL team I've witnessed over a prolonged period.

 

[phthalatemagic]

Finally, I'm not sure how it can be said that it was easier to win multiple CHAMPIONSHIPS in past decades when the same rules apply to all teams. The supposed increased parity of today does not just affect bad teams and make them mediocre. It also affects the top teams and makes them weaker. The 1970s Steelers matched up frequently with the Raiders in the playoffs and of course twice with the Cowboys in the Super Bowl. While the Steelers may have been weakened by free agency had it existed, a similar impact could have been expected on the Riaders and Cowboys (and other strong teams in that era).

I think you answered yourself in your own post. Given that teams that win are the ones most pirated by other teams for players, IMO it becomes much more difficult to plug and play key players and still be expected to win.At least in the pre-salary cap era you knew what weapons you had in your arsenal. Now with such a high turnover you never know what you'll get.

That's true for every team, though.

I'd love to read a study/analysis on the ease of teams to change their win totals from year to year based on era. Maybe if one of the stat geniuses here could actually show me with empirical evidence that it's more difficult to build a regular winner in the salary cap era rather than with theoretical suppositions, I'd be on board. Until then, we could all just make up our own theories.

I don't have the time or the desire to do such a study, but here's what I can offer as an alternate.Since the onset of the salary cap, there have been 14 seasons played. In that timeframe, there have been 78 times when a team increased or decreased its win total by 5 from one season to the next. That is an average of 5.57 teams per season.

I randomly selected the 1970-1979 seasons for comparison. In that 10 year timeframe, 24 times the same thing happened (+/- 5 wins or losses per season) for an average of 2.4 occurances per season.

There are a few more teams now than there were then. Adjusting for that . . .

78 occurances in 433 total team seasons in the salary cap era = 18%

24 occurnaces in 268 total team seasons in the 70s era = 9%

So basically that's happened twice as frequently now compared to then.

Why not? You use that as a basis for your arguments.

 

[phthalatemagic]

I can't believe the Packers only have 7 votes! What's the deal???