Greatest Dynasty? (1 Viewer)

[Boston]

Consolidating your replies...

You don't understand how revenue sharing, allowing some teams to spend more than they could without it, and limiting other to spending less, leads to parity?  Again, it keeps teams from hoarding talent.  The cap and free agency work to disperse the ability of talent scout rich teams, and development ability, around the league, instead of it being hoarded in one city.

What it doesn't change is that some teams are talent scout rich.

On Revenue sharing/cap hink baseball, and how the Yankees and Red Sox are right there each and every year.  Other teams may win, but nobody else has a chance in that division.  Does outspending work every year, and in every instance?  Absolutely not, but it's a heck of a start when you've got 9 players on your bench that could start for half the teams in the league. 

ON talent scouting/development, think the Oakland A's, and formerly the expos.  Teams that spotted talent, and developed it, only to lose it because they didn't have the revenues to keep it.

You just proved part of my point for me. You're acting as though these things are unrelated. They're not. In a capless environment, the incentives are different. That doesn't mean that one situation is harder than another -- it just means that the skills required are different. If there is something different, it is that a Dan Snyder cannot simply buy a championship. It seems to me that this is a real *plus* in the cap era that is pro-dynasty. Teams cannot get good in one year, and they can't get bad in one year unless they have been ignoring the fundamentals.

As for circumventing the cap in football, you can't do it.

Sure you can, if you think the cap is about ensuring parity. If there was true parity, it would be a coin flip situation whether the Patriots were going to finish below or above .500 in any given year. Are you going to tell me that is the case?If you think the cap is about nothing more than complying with a set of rules, you cannot circumvent those rules.

This is why the 9ers were bad for many years.  They deferred monies, and when they lost the players, the deferments go on the next year, leaving you w/ less to spend.

The 9ers have been bad for longer than cap hell explains. They also didn't adjust their strategy when the cap was implemented to maximize their chances. They were a victim of their own complacency.

I will agree that everybody is trying to build under the same rules, but to compare building a team now to building in the 70's, and earlier, is sheer ignorance.  Just so you're clear, I'm not calling you an idiot, just saying you're ignoring the realities of the differences between the obstacles to get over to build a perennial contender.

Just so we're clear, we're not talking about comparing team building. We're comparing winning championships. I don't care about team building, and I'll grant you that you could achieve continuity more easily in that era. Where we differ is how we value that continuity. You see it as some magic pill that means dynasty building is easy. I don't see it that way at all. I think the forced turnover is helpful to the building of a dynasty for a team that manages itself in the proper way in light of the rules in place because it keeps teams from getting old. A smart team in this era sheds talent and brings new talent in gradually, allowing it to stay on top for potentially a longer period. Imagine if the Steelers had any incentive to make this happen when they were on top. Instead of playing guys who helped win that first Super Bowl for a year too long, they could have brought in fresh players over that time. They could have blamed the salary cap for the beneficial turnover. Maybe they win 6 over 10 years instead of 4 over 6 that way.

So you're saying the Steelers would have been better off showing a new CB how to play in their system rather than rolling out Mel Blount to shut down other WRs on a yearly basis?The fact that the Steeleres were able to keep such an awesome core together made the job of the coaches 1,000 times more easy. They could concentrate on other things, had minimal young player mistakes and each and everyone of them had experience in huge games. I just don't see how this could be percieved as anything other than a positive. You seem to be advocating replacing Hall-of-Famers with youngsters and/or players new to a system which makes the job of a coach much more difficult.

 

[popeye.]

How come the 1950s Cleveland Browns are not an option? I think they won 9 championships in 10 years.

People around here don't tend to go back that far sonny. If it hasn't happened in 10 years, it doesn't count.

 

[Jimmy James]

So you're saying the Steelers would have been better off showing a new CB how to play in their system rather than rolling out Mel Blount to shut down other WRs on a yearly basis?

I am no expert on the Steelers, so I cannot comment as to when it would have been better for them to have a new CB in there. I can say for certain that there was a time when they would have been better off, though.

The fact that the Steeleres were able to keep such an awesome core together made the job of the coaches 1,000 times more easy.

See, I'm not sure of that. It kept them from exploring the talents of the other players both on the roster and out there in the draft. You can see the complacency when you look at baseball. Show me the homegrown Yankees and Red Sox. It may have made the job of the coaches easy while they were winning big, but it eventually really hurt when they had to go about replacing this core of players more or less all at once without the benefit of players coming in behind them and stepping in. Look at 1981 and 1982.

They could concentrate on other things, had minimal young player mistakes and each and everyone of them had experience in huge games. I just don't see how this could be percieved as anything other than a positive. You seem to be advocating replacing Hall-of-Famers with youngsters and/or players new to a system which makes the job of a coach much more difficult.

Even accepting your statement, what you're accounting for is that this has an impact that is equal on all teams. Actually, I think you could say the impact is greater in the weak teams than it is on the good ones because the good teams have good coaches who can handle the difficult task more easily than the other coaches who would have squeaked by in the old days. Let's remember that there is no cap on coaches, too. Let's remember what the argument is: it is not that there have been changes. I'm not saying that the league is exactly the same. It is that you folks believe it is harder to have a dynasty now. When you consider that we have had approximately one a decade and that the Patriots are either at that level (according to most of you) or close to it (according to me), your view certainly hasn't been proven by the situation in the real world. What I'm looking for is something to validate that CW that so many of you are clinging to.

 

[Boston]

So you're saying the Steelers would have been better off showing a new CB how to play in their system rather than rolling out Mel Blount to shut down other WRs on a yearly basis?

I am no expert on the Steelers, so I cannot comment as to when it would have been better for them to have a new CB in there. I can say for certain that there was a time when they would have been better off, though.

The fact that the Steeleres were able to keep such an awesome core together made the job of the coaches 1,000 times more easy.

See, I'm not sure of that. It kept them from exploring the talents of the other players both on the roster and out there in the draft. You can see the complacency when you look at baseball. Show me the homegrown Yankees and Red Sox. It may have made the job of the coaches easy while they were winning big, but it eventually really hurt when they had to go about replacing this core of players more or less all at once without the benefit of players coming in behind them and stepping in. Look at 1981 and 1982.

They could concentrate on other things, had minimal young player mistakes and each and everyone of them had experience in huge games.  I just don't see how this could be percieved as anything other than a positive.  You seem to be advocating replacing Hall-of-Famers with youngsters and/or players new to a system which makes the job of a coach much more difficult.

Even accepting your statement, what you're accounting for is that this has an impact that is equal on all teams. Actually, I think you could say the impact is greater in the weak teams than it is on the good ones because the good teams have good coaches who can handle the difficult task more easily than the other coaches who would have squeaked by in the old days. Let's remember that there is no cap on coaches, too. Let's remember what the argument is: it is not that there have been changes. I'm not saying that the league is exactly the same. It is that you folks believe it is harder to have a dynasty now. When you consider that we have had approximately one a decade and that the Patriots are either at that level (according to most of you) or close to it (according to me), your view certainly hasn't been proven by the situation in the real world. What I'm looking for is something to validate that CW that so many of you are clinging to.

We're going to have to agree to disagree because we are at exact opposite ends. My point is there is absolutely no way the Steelers could have kept their core together today. Almost all of the Steeler key players were in their prime together. Not only were they in their prime together but they played through their prime together. If you look at the majority of key players during their run many were there the whole time. That's why they were so successful. They could rely on their core for an unusally long period. In this era that would be absolutely impossible. There is zero chance that could happen. Therefore you'd be looking at a Steeler team that would not have some guys from their core like a Stallworth, a White, a Webster or a Ham. Not only would they not be there but they would be replaced by either rookies or low cost alternatives because players like Bradshaw, Franco, Green, Swann and Lambert would be making top dollar. Due to that this team would have had a far more difficult time staying at the awesome level they did. The dropoff from these Hall-of-Famers to their replacements would in all liklihood be very dramatic. So while they still could have won the hurdles too do so would be far more difficult.

 

[Jimmy James]

We're going to have to agree to disagree because we are at exact opposite ends. My point is there is absolutely no way the Steelers could have kept their core together today.

I'm fine with agreeing to disagree, but I want to stress that the issue is not whether the Steelers could have kept their core together in today's conditions. If you're satisfied with an acknowledgement that you can't build literally the same type of dynasty that the Steelers had, I can give you that. My point is that you can build something that would be considered a dyasty under the same standard that governed at that time with the same amount of ease/difficulty.

 

[3nOut]

Notable mention is the 85 Bears, not for dynasty but simply one of the greatest teams ever.

Fixed. Happy Anniversary Chicago Bears!