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.
Greatest Dynasty? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter steeltime
- Start date
Red Apples
Footballguy
the 1 year dynasty of the 85 bears.
Jimmy James
Footballguy
The Patriots are a Super Bowl win away from being a dynasty in my book. I demand three wins in a row or four in 8 years for that title.My standard is high? Good. I like it that way.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
I'd go Browns or Packers. Being a Packer homer who watched the Lombardi years you have to like 5 titles in seven years. All the Pats would have to do to equal that mark would be to win the next two superbowls.
There will never be dynasties like the dynasties of old, because there is more talent to diffuse around the league now. Nobody can stay on top. I love that the cutoff for dynasty is four Lombardis, as though a fourth championship is something special, that a third is not. IT's a laughable notion. Winning half of the championships over a 8 year period isn't nearly as impressive as the steelers willing four in 6 (66%) or the Pats and Cowboys 3 in 4 (75%). You're not setting the bar high, just to where you don't have to include the Pats. If you want to set the bar high, make it sustained excellence. Say 60% of the championships over any 10 year period. Isn't that fair? Better than half, over a decade? There's never been an NFL dynasty by that measure. Even on the 9ers 'dynasty' they were missing the playoffs. But, who cares if somebody wants to call something a dynasty? You win them one at a time, and the Pats have done something that only one other team has, and that's win 3 in 4 years. AND, they did it during the free agency period. It may not be impressive to many, but it's impressive to me. And, the interesting thing is that I don't believe they're done. When we look at the Pats, and if they rack up another 2 over the next 5 years, they'll have 5 in 10years. Wait until you see the end of the Pats story before you write it off. What is really interesting though is that most said the Pats had to win the 3rd in 4 years to be a dynasty. They did.
C
CrossEyed
Guest
yesno
Evilgrin 72
Distributor of Pain
Fro?
ScottNorwood
Footballcutie
Bills 90-93
Keys Myaths
Pokerguy
Waiiit...You're calling him a rookie?
much?
Godsbrother
Footballguy
4 SB victories in 6 years? I'll take the 70s Steelers.
Mr. Pink
Footballguy
Of the choices, my take as the most dominant would be the 90's Cowboys. That is,
If we're only talking about their performance during their run of championships.
I give them the nod because of their talent, the dominance of both lines, and their appearance in four consecutive championship games.
If the author of the post doesn't want to consider the Pats a dynasty due to the fact that they only won three Super Bowls in 4 years, then you may have to take the 90's Cowboys out as well, despite the extra playoff appearance.
As was previoulsy mentioned, the Pats dynasty is remarkable in that they've sustained it during the salary cap era. And I agree with PMENFAN that it is far from over. What I also believe is that the era of dynasties will probably end once the Pats run is done. It's just too difficult to sustain that success in today's climate.
If we're only talking about their performance during their run of championships.
I give them the nod because of their talent, the dominance of both lines, and their appearance in four consecutive championship games.
If the author of the post doesn't want to consider the Pats a dynasty due to the fact that they only won three Super Bowls in 4 years, then you may have to take the 90's Cowboys out as well, despite the extra playoff appearance.
As was previoulsy mentioned, the Pats dynasty is remarkable in that they've sustained it during the salary cap era. And I agree with PMENFAN that it is far from over. What I also believe is that the era of dynasties will probably end once the Pats run is done. It's just too difficult to sustain that success in today's climate.
Jimmy James
Footballguy
Oh, a third is something special. In fact, each one is something special. It isn't a dynasty, though.
That isn't so at all. I want a team to dominate the league for three years running or to stay on top for a long period of time before I'm willing to apply the label. The Patriots have a chance to get the label, but they don't get it as of yet. It's not about my rooting interests. If it was, I would argue that going to three Super Bowls and winning two of them qualified. It doesn't.
I would sooner accept that definition than I would a definition that puts teams that do not deserve the honor into the fold.
That's a valid question
Those people should live up to their definition. I was never one of those people.
All the above, really.You can include a few other teams, one being the Raiders from the 70's through early 80's. 1976, 1980 and 1983 SB champions. Multiple playoff appearances in other years.If the Bills could have just won a few SB's during their time on the top of the AFC, I would say them also.Notable mention is the 85 Bears, not for dynasty but simply one of the greatest teams ever.New England gets special consideration for having done more with less than any of the teams mentioned above.
DropKick
Footballguy
Nothing wrong with high standards but these are a stretch.Consider that no one has won 3 in a row in the Superbowl era. Teams had runs of consecutive NFL Championships but there were much fewer teams, shorter seasons, an abbreviated playoff structure, and no free agency or cap restrictions.
3 out of 4? 4 out of 8? So, if the Pats won the Superbowl in 2009 they would qualify? Despite a 4 year absence?
New England dominated over a 4 year span - that is quite long by modern NFL standards. In the process, they won 3 Superbowls, set records for consecutive wins, and (I believe) went 2+ years without losing a home game.
We all know how difficult it is to repeat in The NFL with modern rules, the NFL's tendency to promote parity, injury and the like - in reality, how different is 3 in a row from 3 in 4 years?
DropKick
Footballguy
By the way, I voted New England because they were able to win 3 in 4 years, which the others did not. Also, they did it an an era where it is much more difficult to retain your coaches and players.No offense to the Steelers because I think they accomplished something special in knocking off the top 3 seeds on the road. But I think the Pats had a legit chance to make it 3 in a row. It was hard to stomach the loss at Denver with two game changing calls blown.And also because your bias is obvious.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
I saw all those old teams in action and none compared to the Steelers for the ability to just physically crush their opponents on a regular basis.
BlueOnion
Footballguy
Would that be more impressive than what the Browns did?From 1950 to 1958 there 9 NFL Championship Games played and the Browns played in 7 of them, winning 3.
Has another clube even come close to make 7 out of 9 Championship games in successive seasons?
Last edited by a moderator:
Monty Burns
Footballguy
Has another clube even come close to make 7 out of 9 Championship games in successive seasons?1960 Green Bay (loss to Eagles NFL Championship game)1961 Green Bay (beat Giants NFL Championship game)1962 Green Bay (beat Giants NFL Championship game)1965 Green Bay (beat Clev NFL Championship game)1966 Green Bay (beat Chiefs, SB1)1967 Green Bay (beat Raiders SB 2)Thats 6 in 8 years, with 5 of them wins
That clinches it for me.The old dynasties really don't impress me as much as the Cowboys and Pats 3 in 4 years. This is mainly because of when they did it, and the difference in the game. MOreso the Pats than the 'boys, but in their time, there were several competative teams that could have won. In the old times, Steelers, 9ers, Raiders, there were only 3-4 good teams in a year. The competition was much thinner. That's not to take away from the Steelers, in particular, because their management, drafting and coaching was heads and shoulders above the rest of the league at the time. It's just a reality. Those teams were able to stay great because they weren't losing their pro bowl center, or star LB's, or safeties, or corners or guards to free agency, or as cap casualties. Even the 'boys to an extent didn't have that to deal with. That's why the Pats are to me a dynasty, and why they'er the most impressive.
Boston
Footballguy
Very valid points. From a team standpoint it's easy to say the Pack or Steelers were the dominate dynasties. They were absolutely loaded on both sides of the ball. Yet, if those franchises had to play by the same rules as the Pats could they have continued their roll? Look at the Pittsburgh roster and subtract about 20% of the big names. Do they still win if they don't have Stallworth, LC Greenwood, Jack Ham and Rocky. If they were competing in today's NFL than that would be the case. No way could they have retained that core for six years in today's NFL.So in many ways you can say TEAMS like the Packers or Steelers are the greatest dynasty but the Patriot ORGANIZATION is the greatest dynasty because what they had to deal with with regard to free agency, the salary cap, crazy agents, off field distractions, balanced scheduling and everything else the current NFL does to induce parity is light years more difficult than what previous dynasties had to deal with.
Last edited by a moderator:
BlueOnion
Footballguy
Certainly these are some valid points and if the Patriots won 4 Super Bowls in 6 years, the reasons you give would be reason enough to put such a dynasty ahead of the Steelers.However, the old dynasties played in times where a dyansty was more obtainable and easier to maintain; however it should be mentioned their dynasties reigned for a longer period of time.
Jimmy James
Footballguy
I am not convinced *at all* that it is more difficult for a dynasty to happen now than previously in the league. If you ask me, that is the worst type of self-congratulatory BS. I want to make it clear that I'm not lobbing that charge at Patriots fans -- I'm lobbing it all who make the argument. It's all about knowing how to work the system better than the other teams. If you know how to do that, you can achieve a dynasty. It's that simple, and the talk otherwise is created by today's fan in order to stroke that fan's ego that they're watching the game at its peak.
Of course you wouldn't be, because you don't understand the context of history and how the game has changed to make it EASIER for other teams to catch up. In the old days the only advantage the other teams had was drafting higher. Now, they can draft higher, AND take some of your talent away. If you don't understand that, I cannot help you.
Boston
Footballguy
I could not disagree with you more. I really can't and to think this is stroking an ego is simply bull. It's much easier to be a dynasty when all you have to do is roll out the same great players year after year. You have a thousand less distractions. The reason the NFL has changed many of it's rules is to achieve parity. That is a fact and if you think otherwise you're being biased. So much of what the NFL does is to keep teams on an even level. They no longer want dynasties. They want every team thinking they have a chance. It simply wasn't like that during the Packers/Steelers era. I'm not taking away their greatness yet it was a far different NFL than what we have today.
Last edited by a moderator:
BlueOnion
Footballguy
I believe there is some truth in this statement. I believe dynasties use to be decided by coaching. I don't believe the Steelers simply had good drafts, I just think they had better teachers than the rest of the teams they competed against.However, I think the formula has changed. The Patriots won 3 out of 4 Super Bowls because they focused on good teaching, assembling team-type characters, strong college scouting, strong free agent scouting and good cap management.
The attributes which make a dynasty has changed, but the requirement is still the same; a team has to be superior at the necessary attributes than all the other teams for a good period of time.
However, the league has changed it's format to increase disparity and this cannot simply be tossed aside.
BlueOnion
Footballguy
On a side note, there are quite a few other examples that time and longevity are not the same as they use to be. Dynasties use to be defined by 6, 7 or even 8 years of dominance. However, back in those days a medicore or bad coach could possibly hold his job for 5, 6 or even 7 years as well.
redman
Footballguy
I think I'd have to agree on this one. Have you guys taken a look recently at what the league was like then? There were a lot of other good teams to contend with just in the AFC either at various times during their run or throughout, including the Raiders, Dolphins, Broncos, Colts, and even the Patriots and Bengals. For them to have won 4 Super Bowls over 6 years in the league at that time was very impressive.
I have to disagree here Boston. I don't believe the NFL gives a frogs fat #### what the teams think. They want every fan, in every city to believe that their team can win THIS year, so they go out and buy tickets to games, and buy new jerseys to wear to the game. First and foremost, the NFL is a business now. For many teams it was back in the day. But for many it was also about football. I will say though that your were spot on that we cannot take away their greatness. My point is merely that when you're comparing feats from a different era, you have to take changes in the game into account. I love the old steeler teams, though I don't think much of Bradshaw. He was the beneficiary of playing w/ great receivers who could make great catches and take them home. Bart Starr was simply awesome. So was Otto Graham. But, they got to play w/ the same team, purging the lesser talant for better talent. It's not easy to repeat, but easier than now when you have to worry about replacing your viable talent lost, instead of supplementing the talent you already have. A 1000 yard season used to be a great season for a back. Now, it's really pittiful if you have less than 1300, barring injury of course. I just think the largest difference in the game is UFA. Teams have always got to pick ahead of you, but with the added dimension of not only picking ahead of you, but also the whole league able to raid your available talent; that makes a huge difference. The Pats have now lost 4 assistants in 3 years, Weis, Ryan (to Oakland 2 years ago), Crennell (he also took some, so it's really more than 4), and Mangini. And, that's just coaches. They've also lost Damien Woody, Ty Law, Lawyer MIlloy, Ted Washington, Joe Andruzzi, David Patten, Keith Traylor, Terrell Buckley and Tebucky Jones, and that's just the last 3 years. Continuity is huge, and it's impossible now.
dickey moe
Fingerpicker
Says Veteran Member No.: 19937
Jimmy James
Footballguy
Are you finished calling me an idiot, or are you going to have a second go of it? At any rate, on to the substantive matter...
You're only looking at this in one direction, which is why you're having trouble with what I'm arguing. Free agency and the cap are both two way streets. It's not a matter of everybody taking away the talent that the Patriots have -- it's a matter of the Patriots giving just as good as they get it.What has changed is the skillset necessary to build a dynasty. In the past, it was about excellent player evaluation at the draft level and excellent coaching. In today's game, it is about the value you get out of a player compared to the money spent on him and coaching. The draft means less than it did because there are other avenues for player acquisition.
Jimmy James
Footballguy
Typo fixed. I'm not convinced that the league has done anything of the sort. That is one way to look at the salary cap, but I think it is the way that is far too generous to the league. It is basically taking the league's PR at face value. There is a salary cap to limit payrolls on teams. The league knows that they could make relatively simple changes that would improve parity, but they have not done so because they have concluded that it might not be such a bad thing for some of the top teams to stay on top for a while and for some of the bottom rung teams to stay down.
For instance, the league knows that Andy Reid and company do every year. They could close off the loopholes at play, but they have not done so. In addition, the league could mandate a salary floor. They could put a salary cap on coaching staffs. They could increase the amount of material issued by the league to provide all teams with a starting point for important draft/free agency decisions.
In the absence of some compelling evidence that there is indeed "more parity" these days, these facts lead me to seriously doubt that the league has acted effectively to decrease disparity.
MSULions
Footballguy
Yep....and i forgot John Stallworth too
But Staubach, Stabler, Fouts, Bradshaw, Griese, Tarkenton - there was a helluva lot of talent in the late 70s among the top of each conference - particularly the AFC with Pitt, Oakland, SD, and even the Oilers (Dan Pastorini handing off to Earl Campell 
)
BlueOnion
Footballguy
Thanks for the typo fix, but I have to disagree. Without the salary cap or national television contract, what do you think the payroll for the Packers and Giants would be?I am guessing here, but the Packers would probably have a 35 to 45 million payroll and the Giants would be upwards of 300 million.
Couch Potato
Footballguy
I understand the Ming Dynasty was pretty impressive.No, I don't mean Yao.
Jimmy James
Footballguy
I agree with you there, but I don't see how that has to do with parity. There is more than one team that does carry a much lower than cap payroll, and there are creative teams who have demonstrated an ability to circumvent the cap as a limitation on talent accumulated.
Didn't call you an idiot, said you were not understanding the context of history. I presume you're quite young, and have only watched football in the free agency era. No, you don't just get to replace your talent. You get other players, but they're a step down, because you can't afford to keep the same talent level, because of the salary cap. That's what you're not getting. We lost Ty Law, and replace him with either Starks or Scott. That's a major talent drop off, and it's because of one reason, the salary cap.
We lose Damien Woody, and replace him w/ rookie Dan Koppen. Another talent drop off.
We lost Tom Ashworth and Adrian Klemm and replaced them w/ rookies. While the rookies played admirably, they weren't up to the level of these players. We'll get comp picks (3rd or 4th rounders) for them, but we've been a season w/o either.
We did go sixes on Lawyer Milloy. We were able to pick up Harrison, though the concensus around the league was that Harrison was done. We stole him. Your insinuation is that this is the commonplace happening around the league, and I respectfully disagree.
We lost Ted Washington, and in time Vince Wilfork will be the run stuffer Ted is. It's been 2 full years in the league now without that presence, but I believe next year he'll be there. In the old days, we hold Washington until Wilfork develops, and they both play, and we have a 4-3 going, with 2 great run stuffers in the middle, and Seymour and Warren on the outside.
This is just the Patriots. Care to count the players from Pittsburgh that dispersed around the league? It happens to everybody, and it's by design. The league wants the top teams to get worse by allowing others to vulture someof their developed talent. Yes, they get compensatory picks for some of the losses, but that doesn't help you on the field the following year when you'velost a probowler and replaced him w/ a rookie, after a season w/o either.
So, PLEASE give me some examples of players lost from these dynasties that went to other teams. How about coaches that they've lost? Did they lost their OC and DC in the same year? Any of those teams?
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.
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. 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.
As for circumventing the cap in football, you can't do it. You may manipulate it, but you can't cirucumvent it. 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. Happened to the Broncos too, and will again after this year. So, why is it structured this way? It gives teams the option of building solidly, or on fluff. You can build to take a single, or even two, shots at winning championships, or you can build solidly and have a shot every year. This is one reason the Eagles want to trade, and not cut, TO. If they trade him, the cap number remains the same. If they cut him, the bonus accelerates to all count this year, cutting their cap number by about 6 million IIRC. May not be the exact number, but it's close. There's also the reality that cutting him brings no compensation, only the loss. Hay, they could find the next great player w/ that 4th rounder they get in return.
Jimmy James
Footballguy
Consolidating your replies...
What it doesn't change is that some teams are talent scout rich.
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.
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.
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.
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.ETA: As to idiot, I did improperly put words into your mouth. I will say that it is a fair characterization of what I took from your words given the thoughtful anti-CW position I'm advocating here. Perhaps you were not aware of the depth of my position at the time of your comments. I hope you see now that I am not ignorant of the history involved.
Last edited by a moderator:
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
80's niners70's Steelers90's Cowboys
Similar threads
- Poll
