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

[Niles Standish]

49ers won 5, too.

SF resume:

Seasons - 18 (1981-1998)

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

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

Playoff appearances - 16/18

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

Division titles - 13/18

Playoff record -22-11 (0.667)

Reached NFCC - 9/18

Reached SB - 5/18

Super Bowl record - 5-0

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

NE resume:

Seasons - 16 and counting (2001-2016)

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

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

Playoff appearances - 14/16

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

Division titles - 14/16

Playoff record -25-9 (0.735)

Reached NFCC - 11/16

Reached SB - 7/16

Super Bowl record - 5-2

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

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

It's actually pretty crazy how close these 2 dynasties have been from the numbers.  I think NE gets a plus for doing it in the salary cap era.  If they can get another 2 years out of Brady  with 11-12 wins and no Superbowls we're looking at almost identical numbers.  I was too young to catch the first 7 or 8 years of the 49ers dynasty but it felt like growing up (with a not great Pats team to watch) that they were always beating everyone.

One thing that's pretty interesting is 3 of Montana's playoff losses were against Belichick's defense where he scored a total of 19 points.  He beat the Giants a few times too.  But it's funny that without Belichick that 49ers dynasty might be sitting at a few more titles.

 

[Don Quixote]

49ers won 5, too.

SF resume:

Seasons - 18 (1981-1998)

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

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

Playoff appearances - 16/18

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

Division titles - 13/18

Playoff record -22-11 (0.667)

Reached NFCC - 9/18

Reached SB - 5/18

Super Bowl record - 5-0

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

NE resume:

Seasons - 16 and counting (2001-2016)

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

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

Playoff appearances - 14/16

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

Division titles - 14/16

Playoff record -25-9 (0.735)

Reached NFCC - 11/16

Reached SB - 7/16

Super Bowl record - 5-2

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

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

Oof. Not sure how I forgot about the 5th. All of the talk about Brady getting the edge over Montana must have made me forget Young's.

Good post though. They are pretty close putting the numbers side-by-side. 

 

[Ack88]

While you can make an argument about select teams being better than the Patriots at their apex, such as the 92-95 Cowboys or 75-79 Steelers, the longevity of the Patriots excellence is the deciding factor for me. Before this Super Bowl, I had the 49ers as the #1 dynasty of the modern era, but the Patriots have deservedly claimed that mantle.

 

[dgreen]

49ers won 5, too.

SF resume:

Seasons - 18 (1981-1998)

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

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

Playoff appearances - 16/18

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

Division titles - 13/18

Playoff record -22-11 (0.667)

Reached NFCC - 9/18

Reached SB - 5/18

Super Bowl record - 5-0

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

Average SRS - 8.6

NE resume:

Seasons - 16 and counting (2001-2016)

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

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

Playoff appearances - 14/16

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

Division titles - 14/16

Playoff record -25-9 (0.735)

Reached NFCC - 11/16

Reached SB - 7/16

Super Bowl record - 5-2

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

Average SRS - 9.2

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

I added Average SRS to both teams. Again, slight advantage to NE.

If we line up the SRS of each team and use it as a point spread, we can see which teams would be favored. I'll look at this two ways.

Season n vs Season n

For 16 seasons, this compares SF season 1 (1981) vs NE season 1 (2001), SF season 2 (1982) vs NE season 2 (2002) and so on through season 16 (1996 vs 2016). These are all from NE's perspective (NE favored in bold).

1: +1.9 (NE SRS in 2001 = 4.3; SF in 1981 = 6.2)

2: -6.4

3: +1.8

4: -0.1

5: +5.7

6: -3.2

7: -6.8

8: +0.9

9: -0.5

10: -9.6

11: +1.6

12: -1.0

13: +3.8

14: +0.7

15: +4.8

16: -1.3

This has the two dynasties even at 8-8.

Sorted Best vs Best down to Worst vs Worst

This is just sorting their 16 seasons of SRS to match NE's best team (2007) to SF's best team (1987), second best teams against each other (2010 vs 1984), and so on down to the 16th best vs. the 16th best (2005 vs 1997). I used all 18 of SF's seasons to find their best 16, so maybe that helps them a little. These are all from NE's perspective (NE favored in bold), with 1 being best seasons and 16 being worst.

1: -6.8 (NE SRS in 2007 = 20.1; SF in 1987 = 13.3)

2: -2.7

3: -1.0

4: -1.0

5: +0.4

6: Even

7: +0.5

8: +1.3

9: +0.4

10: +1.8

11: +1.8

12: +2.1

13: +2.7

14: +2.2

15: +1.9

16: +2.0

This heavily favors SF 11-4-1. NE had the best-of-the-best, but SF has the edge in most matchups.

 

[Anarchy99]

I have lost faith in strength of schedule as a uniform barometer. Take this year for example. The Pats strength of schedule got hammered by playing the Jets twice, the Niners, the Rams, and the Browns. IMO, the best way to measure a team's performance is by their games against top teams, not the bottom teams. Is there really much difference between a 6-10 team and a 2-14 team when playing a top team?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

60s Packers, 90s Niners, 00s/10s Pats, that's the conversation.

Length of domination, championships, head coach, QB.

30s Packers, 40s Bears, 50s Browns, 50s Lions, 70s Steelers, 70s Cowboys, 90s Cowboys are in the next tier.

 

[dgreen]

I have lost faith in strength of schedule as a uniform barometer. Take this year for example. The Pats strength of schedule got hammered by playing the Jets twice, the Niners, the Rams, and the Browns. IMO, the best way to measure a team's performance is by their games against top teams, not the bottom teams. Is there really much difference between a 6-10 team and a 2-14 team when playing a top team?

SRS incorporates SOS and margin of victory (MOV). NE's SOS this year was low (-2.7) but their MOV was the highest in the league (11.9), giving them the highest SRS (9.3). Just looking at this season, SRS has a very strong correlation with MOV and almost no relationship with SOS.

 

[lod001]

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

So would the 90's Niners. The rules are way different now on hitting. The Patriots teams really are not the class of the league. The coaching staff is. They beat superior teams because the superior teams had bad coaching and with their best team ever, lost to an inferior team, the Giants. They have never blown out anyone in the SB. The Cowboys and 49ers destroyed the other team on 2 and 3 occasions.

They are also benefitting from one of the most pathetic divisions in the last decade and 1/2. That gives them the leg up on home field advantage.

 

[Niles Standish]

So would the 90's Niners. The rules are way different now on hitting. The Patriots teams really are not the class of the league. The coaching staff is. They beat superior teams because the superior teams had bad coaching and with their best team ever, lost to an inferior team, the Giants. They have never blown out anyone in the SB. The Cowboys and 49ers destroyed the other team on 2 and 3 occasions.

They are also benefitting from one of the most pathetic divisions in the last decade and 1/2. That gives them the leg up on home field advantage.

Brady is 71/19 in division.  78.88%.

Brady is 112/35 out of division.  76.2%.

But 14/15 years as a starter he played teams 2-4 in the division and not the top team.  That might account for the discrepancy.

Not to mention in the 14 years the Pats won the division the AFC East produced 7 Wild Card teams.  Exactly what an average division should.

 

[DropKick]

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

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

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

The league was very different back then - both in number of teams, games played, free agency, play-off structure, etc.  Too hard to compare.  Both the Steelers and 49ers had great dynasties.  The Cowboys deserve mention too.  I didn't think any team could be dominant for this long IN THIS ERA.  I would put them at the top.

 

[Riversco]

There is a book on how to beat belichick. His defenses give up a TON more points against teams that have a mobile QB. Brady does worse against a strong pass rush. In the AFC, the team that should give the patriots the most trouble is the Chiefs. Alex Smith is mobile. In fact, the two teams have met twice with Smith and andy reid. The chiefs destroyed the patriots 41-14 in kc and only lost by 7 in last years afc championship game in foxboro. I think they could have beat the patriots but the steelers screwed that up by beating the chiefs in the divisional round. The steelers do not match up well at all with the pats. 

Another guy that should give the patriots fits is cam newton. Newton is 1-0 lifetime vs belichick.  Russell wilson is another mobile guy and he is 2-1 vs belichick, obviously the only loss in the super bowl. 

i think it would be really interesting if one of those teams were in the pats division  

 

[DropKick]

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

That would an interesting "fantasy" match-up. I was a big fan of those teams and loved watching Jimmy Johnson do the NFL draft.

You almost got the Boys there this year.  I'd be excited about their prospects if i were you.  But, take it from me, I thought Marino would return to the SB year after year and it never happened again.  Hard to win in this league.

 

[Riversco]

I would love to see the jets draft deshaun watson. 

 

[DropKick]

There is a book on how to beat belichick. His defenses give up a TON more points against teams that have a mobile QB. Brady does worse against a strong pass rush. In the AFC, the team that should give the patriots the most trouble is the Chiefs. Alex Smith is mobile. In fact, the two teams have met twice with Smith and andy reid. The chiefs destroyed the patriots 41-14 in kc and only lost by 7 in last years afc championship game in foxboro. I think they could have beat the patriots but the steelers screwed that up by beating the chiefs in the divisional round. The steelers do not match up well at all with the pats. 

Another guy that should give the patriots fits is cam newton. Newton is 1-0 lifetime vs belichick.  Russell wilson is another mobile guy and he is 2-1 vs belichick, obviously the only loss in the super bowl. 

i think it would be really interesting if one of those teams were in the pats division  

As a Chargers fan, you can appreciate that the Dolphins blew it by not getting Brees or we could have enjoyed that divisonal match-up for some time.

The Chiefs do match up well but you have to give a big edge to Belichick over Reid.  Same with Tomlin because the Steelers have the fire power to compete. 

Harbaugh and BB seem to have a good, competitive (if not hostile) rivalry.

You give Newton too much credit.  The stage was too big for that Panthers team; they were nervous and it showed.  I think BB games plans for Newton.

I think the prototypical guy is Wilson.  The younger version is Dak Prescott. 

 

[Sabertooth]

From 61-67 Lombardi's Packers Won the Championship 5 times.  That seems pretty good.  The Packers are also the only teams to ever threepeat.  I say teams because they did it twice.  Winning the titles from 29-31 and again from 65-67.  

If the Pats win 1 more title, they will have almost half as many as the Packers.  Sure the Packers have a longer history.  But put in perspective

Packers have 13 titles in 98 years.  Or about 12.9% of the time.

Patriots have 5 titles in 59 years.   About 8.6% of the time.

Packers are about 50% ahead in terms of championships per year of existence.  So I'd say they've been substantially more successful.  Plus two threepeats.  

This Pats team is great.  No doubt.  But nothing like the Packers team that won the title 5 times in 7 years.  Winning 5 in 15 Years is still very impressive.  

 

[Anarchy99]

From 61-67 Lombardi's Packers Won the Championship 5 times.  That seems pretty good.  The Packers are also the only teams to ever threepeat.  I say teams because they did it twice.  Winning the titles from 29-31 and again from 65-67.  

If the Pats win 1 more title, they will have almost half as many as the Packers.  Sure the Packers have a longer history.  But put in perspective

Packers have 13 titles in 98 years.  Or about 12.9% of the time.

Patriots have 5 titles in 59 years.   About 8.6% of the time.

Packers are about 50% ahead in terms of championships per year of existence.  So I'd say they've been substantially more successful.  Plus two threepeats.  

This Pats team is great.  No doubt.  But nothing like the Packers team that won the title 5 times in 7 years.  Winning 5 in 15 Years is still very impressive.  

The Packers were great, no doubt. But they didn't have a SB in most of those years. Winning in a league with 32 teams is a lot harder than winning in a league with 14 teams (in the 60's) or 12 teams (in the 20's).

 

[dgreen]

The Packers were great, no doubt. But they didn't have a SB in most of those years. Winning in a league with 32 teams is a lot harder than winning in a league with 14 teams (in the 60's) or 12 teams (in the 20's).

Also have to consider that the NFL didn't really have playoffs back then. It was just a championship game. So you couldn't get to the playoffs as anything other than the 1 seed and get hot. In today's game, you have a 37.5% chance at the playoffs and then anything can happen. In a 1960's 14-team league, you had a 14.3% chance at the playoffs, which also happened to be the championship. If you were the #1 team, it was a good situation. If you weren't, then you had no chance. I'm guessing NE has been the #1 seed quite often?

 

[Sabertooth]

The Packers were great, no doubt. But they didn't have a SB in most of those years. Winning in a league with 32 teams is a lot harder than winning in a league with 14 teams (in the 60's) or 12 teams (in the 20's).

No it isn't.  Talent is watered down in the NFL.  Winning is winning.  If it was so easy, why did it take the pats almost 50 years to win their first one?

 

[DropKick]

No it isn't.  Talent is watered down in the NFL.  Winning is winning.  If it was so easy, why did it take the pats almost 50 years to win their first one?

Winning today isn't tougher than in a 14 team league with no free agency?  Complete loss of credibility with this one...

 

[Anarchy99]

No it isn't.  Talent is watered down in the NFL.  Winning is winning.  If it was so easy, why did it take the pats almost 50 years to win their first one?

For starters, teams back then had to win a single game to be declared champion. Now teams have to win 3 or 4 games to win the SB. Simple math tells us that it is more difficult to win in a league and a tournament with more teams.

As mentioned many times in many threads, it is much harder to win in the salary cap era where players move around more than the Native Americans did.

Your question about the Patriots only solidifies my point. It is HARDER to win now than it was in the leather helmet days and the pre-Super Bowl era. Fourteen teams have yet to win a Super Bowl.

 

[Sabertooth]

Winning today isn't tougher than in a 14 team league with no free agency?  Complete loss of credibility with this one...

You ignored the second half of the question. If it was so easy, why did it take the pats over 40 years to win their first one?

 

[Sabertooth]

Packers have won 7 since the Pats have been a team.  So....

 

[Boston]

You ignored the second half of the question. If it was so easy, why did it take the pats over 40 years to win their first one?

Because they were one of the worst franchises in pro sports...

 

[RandyDB]

Easy to prove it was easier to win championships in the pre Super Bowl or pre Free Agency era.

Detroit won 5 championships from 1952 - 1957

 

[DropKick]

You ignored the second half of the question. If it was so easy, why did it take the pats over 40 years to win their first one?

First of all, I'm a Dolphin fan and we're approaching the 50 year mark so I know how hard it is...  And I didn't ignore it... I mentioned how different things were before free agency...  NE was an expansion team in 1960, right?    Packers were great in the 1960s; easy to keep a team together.  One or two play-off games to win a championship? 

You realize it took 31 years for the Packers to win again after SB 2? And one SB in the 43 year span when Rodgers won?  Not exactly lighting it up.  Brady has more SB wins that Starr, Favre and Rodgers COMBINED. 

The Cleveland Browns had 4 NFL championships prior to the SB era. Yes, it's much harder to win today.

 

[Sabertooth]

First of all, I'm a Dolphin fan and we're approaching the 50 year mark so I know how hard it is...  And I didn't ignore it... I mentioned how different things were before free agency...  NE was an expansion team in 1960, right?    Packers were great in the 1960s; easy to keep a team together.  One or two play-off games to win a championship? 

You realize it took 31 years for the Packers to win again after SB 2? And one SB in the 43 year span when Rodgers won?  Not exactly lighting it up.  Brady has more SB wins that Starr, Favre and Rodgers COMBINED. 

The Cleveland Browns had 4 NFL championships prior to the SB era. Yes, it's much harder to win today.

Disagree.  But that's ok,   That's the beauty of sports.  We can all have different opinions.  You say NE was an expansion team in 1960 (I read 58 but whatever).  But there weren't many teams back then either so it wasn't like when Houston or Jacksonville came into the league.  

I think the reason New England has an easier time now is they have the Best QB ever and the Best Coach ever.  Those combined with a watered down league that favors offense make it easier for them to compete.  It isn't easy.  It has never been easy to be the best in professional football.  

If New England wins one more championship, they will have almost half what the Packers have.  That's awesome.  

 

[Sabertooth]

Easy to prove it was easier to win championships in the pre Super Bowl or pre Free Agency era.

Detroit won 5 championships from 1952 - 1957

Great point.  We may have our winner right here for Best Dynasty Ever.   Took New England three times as long to amass 5.  

Detroit must have been an awesome place to live in the 1950s.  Just a boom town.  

 

[Riversco]

The Patriots have played 17 mobile QBs since 2012.  In those 17 games, their defense has allowed 417 points.  The Patriots have a 9-8 record.   The teams that should match up well with the Patriots are currently the Panthers, Chiefs and Packers.  This year, they were lucky in dodging both the Chiefs and Packers.

Teams with mobile QBs vs the patriots:

2016:

bills 16 loss
bills 25 win
seahawks 31 loss
49ers 17 win

2015:

bills 32 win
bills 13 win
chiefs 20 win

2014:

chiefs 41 loss
jets 25 win
packers 26 loss
jets 16 win
seahawks 24 win

2013:

jets 10 win
jets 30 loss
panthers 24 loss

2012:

seahawks 24 loss
49ers 41 loss

 

[Riversco]

Aaron Rodgers and Cam Newton are both undefeated vs Belichick.

 

[Niles Standish]

Disagree.  But that's ok,   That's the beauty of sports.  We can all have different opinions.  You say NE was an expansion team in 1960 (I read 58 but whatever).  But there weren't many teams back then either so it wasn't like when Houston or Jacksonville came into the league.  

I think the reason New England has an easier time now is they have the Best QB ever and the Best Coach ever.  Those combined with a watered down league that favors offense make it easier for them to compete.  It isn't easy.  It has never been easy to be the best in professional football.  

If New England wins one more championship, they will have almost half what the Packers have.  That's awesome.  

That's nice historically, but unless you were around for those older championships they aren't worth a whole lot.  Because you never got to see your team at the pinnacle.  Now obviously the Packers have been good in modern times too, so you've gotten to see some championships even if you aren't geriatric.

Growing up with the Red Sox the 5 championships from way before I was born didn't matter a lot, I was used to futility.  With the Celtics I was a kid during the Bird years so I mostly saw them losing.  And I never got to see the Russell dynasty or the Havlicek/Cowens teams of the 70s.  I never saw the Big Bad Bruins of the 70s.  It was nice to have the Celtics who had 16 rings at the time (most in the NBA).  But I don't think I had it better in the 90s than the Bulls did.  Or in the 2000s than the Spurs (even though the Celts won one there).  30 years from now if the Pats are on a 20 straight year streak of missing the playoffs I will always have this dynasty with Brady and Belichick to remember.

 

[Sabertooth]

That's nice historically, but unless you were around for those older championships they aren't worth a whole lot.  Because you never got to see your team at the pinnacle.  Now obviously the Packers have been good in modern times too, so you've gotten to see some championships even if you aren't geriatric.

Growing up with the Red Sox the 5 championships from way before I was born didn't matter a lot, I was used to futility.  With the Celtics I was a kid during the Bird years so I mostly saw them losing.  And I never got to see the Russell dynasty or the Havlicek/Cowens teams of the 70s.  I never saw the Big Bad Bruins of the 70s.  It was nice to have the Celtics who had 16 rings at the time (most in the NBA).  But I don't think I had it better in the 90s than the Bulls did.  Or in the 2000s than the Spurs (even though the Celts won one there).  30 years from now if the Pats are on a 20 straight year streak of missing the playoffs I will always have this dynasty with Brady and Belichick to remember.

Have what?  Memories?  Shared experience with friends and family?  Because you didn't actually participate.  Not that those experiences aren't awesome.  But you didn't actually win a championship.  

In terms of how far back we go, it's subjective.  The Pats are the current champs.  Every other championship is in the past.  This Pats team isn't the same team that beat the Seahawks even.  This Pats team will never be together in a room again most likely. 

 

[Niles Standish]

The Patriots have played 17 mobile QBs since 2012.  In those 17 games, their defense has allowed 417 points.  The Patriots have a 9-8 record.   The teams that should match up well with the Patriots are currently the Panthers, Chiefs and Packers.  This year, they were lucky in dodging both the Chiefs and Packers.

Teams with mobile QBs vs the patriots:

2016:

bills 16 loss
bills 25 win
seahawks 31 loss
49ers 17 win

2015:

bills 32 win
bills 13 win
chiefs 20 win

2014:

chiefs 41 loss
jets 25 win
packers 26 loss
jets 16 win
seahawks 24 win

2013:

jets 10 win
jets 30 loss
panthers 24 loss

2012:

seahawks 24 loss
49ers 41 loss

Interesting stats.  I'd remove the Bills loss this year since it was the Pats injured 3rd string rookie QB on offense.  I fully believe that Brady would have gotten the Pats a win in that game.

Also how are you defining mobile?  Tannehill rushes for 200yds/year which is pretty close to Rodgers and Smith.

 

[Anarchy99]

Aaron Rodgers and Cam Newton are both undefeated vs Belichick.

They each played NE once . . . and the Pats were on the road for both games. The Panthers won by 4 points when Gronk was mauled in the end zone on the final play of the game. The Packers won by 5 points. Both teams went 12-4 that year.

 

[Niles Standish]

Have what?  Memories?  Shared experience with friends and family?  Because you didn't actually participate.  Not that those experiences aren't awesome.  But you didn't actually win a championship.  

In terms of how far back we go, it's subjective.  The Pats are the current champs.  Every other championship is in the past.  This Pats team isn't the same team that beat the Seahawks even.  This Pats team will never be together in a room again most likely. 

Since you're talking Packers.  If you're 56 years old you were around for 7 championships.  Let's say 60 for any memory of those and probably 65 to really have followed the season.  If you're 50 years old you were around and old enough to see 2 championships.  You'd have to be in your 90s to have seen all 13 and have any memory of those.  Just my experience but the championships I have seen/watched have been a whole lot better than the ones before I was born or even the early Celtics ones when I was too young to really remember.  I remember watching '86.  I don't remember '84 or '81.  2008 was way more fun than '86 even though the '86 team was by most accounts one of the best basketball teams of all time.  Probably because I was 5 years old and didn't really follow the whole thing.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

That's nice historically, but unless you were around for those older championships they aren't worth a whole lot.  Because you never got to see your team at the pinnacle.  Now obviously the Packers have been good in modern times too, so you've gotten to see some championships even if you aren't geriatric.

Growing up with the Red Sox the 5 championships from way before I was born didn't matter a lot, I was used to futility.  With the Celtics I was a kid during the Bird years so I mostly saw them losing.  And I never got to see the Russell dynasty or the Havlicek/Cowens teams of the 70s.  I never saw the Big Bad Bruins of the 70s.  It was nice to have the Celtics who had 16 rings at the time (most in the NBA).  But I don't think I had it better in the 90s than the Bulls did.  Or in the 2000s than the Spurs (even though the Celts won one there).  30 years from now if the Pats are on a 20 straight year streak of missing the playoffs I will always have this dynasty with Brady and Belichick to remember.

Me, I was around for the 60's Packers and for the Celtics.  I have distinct memories of both. There was magic when Lombardi would allow himself to smile towards an end of the game, and Auerbach's cigar, forgetaboutit, game over.

 

[Anarchy99]

The Patriots have played 17 mobile QBs since 2012.  In those 17 games, their defense has allowed 417 points.  The Patriots have a 9-8 record.   The teams that should match up well with the Patriots are currently the Panthers, Chiefs and Packers.  This year, they were lucky in dodging both the Chiefs and Packers.

Teams with mobile QBs vs the patriots:

2016:

bills 16 loss . . . NE had no healthy QB. The Bills QB being mobile had nothing to do with this loss.
bills 25 win
seahawks 31 loss . . . Wilson could barely stand up let alone run. Him being mobile had nothing to do with this loss. And NE was a yard short of going to OT.
49ers 17 win

2015:

bills 32 win
bills 13 win
chiefs 20 win

2014:

chiefs 41 loss . . . NE had 3 turnovers . . . Smith being mobile had nothing to do with this loss.
jets 25 win
packers 26 loss . . . the game was in GB and the Packers were a 12-4 team. Packers were 9-0 at home that season. Rodgers being mobile had little to do with the outcome.
jets 16 win
seahawks 24 win

2013:

jets 10 win
jets 30 loss
panthers 24 loss . . . as already mentioned. Gronk mugged in end zone on final play. CAR went 12-4. Newton did well running the ball, so his mobility certainly helped.

2012:

seahawks 24 loss
49ers 41 loss . . . NE had 4 turnovers and still only lost by 7 points. SFO having a mobile QB had nothing to do with the outcome.

I commented on all the losses. Very few of them had anything to do with an opponent having a mobile QB.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

No question the Patriots have staked a claim to this era. That claim comes with some complicated history and personalities.  It comes with some obvious negatives and controversies, but it comes, undeniably, as theirs.  There is no taking that away. 

 

[Riversco]

I commented on all the losses. Very few of them had anything to do with an opponent having a mobile QB.

i almost didnt list the win loss record because i was afraid someone would focus on that which is NOT the point. The point is the patriots allowed 417 points to mobile qbs in 17 games. They flat out suck when playing mobile qbs. Theres no sugar coating. The patriots are forced into outscoring them. 

 

[Riversco]

If im the jets or the bills and watson is on the board i run that card to the podium as fast as i can. Then i start building a pass rush. 

 

[Boston]

i almost didnt list the win loss record because i was afraid someone would focus on that which is NOT the point. The point is the patriots allowed 417 points to mobile qbs in 17 games. They flat out suck when playing mobile qbs. Theres no sugar coating. The patriots are forced into outscoring them. 

You mean MVP level QBs who happen to be mobile...right?  Is that unusual?  Please don't use the Alex Smith example of a few years ago...that was perhaps the worst performance of the BB era...Johnny Manziel would have beaten them that game...

 

[Anarchy99]

i almost didnt list the win loss record because i was afraid someone would focus on that which is NOT the point. The point is the patriots allowed 417 points to mobile qbs in 17 games. They flat out suck when playing mobile qbs. Theres no sugar coating. The patriots are forced into outscoring them. 

My point was, most of the games you mentioned happened to have QB's that sometimes were known to be mobile. How on earth can you hang multiple losses with multiple turnovers on the defense? You might as well pick out games where New England coughed up the ball three times and say their defense is terrible when the offense gives the ball away.  

I watch NE all the time, and they have trouble with skill players that are shifty and the Pats miss tackles. I don't know how you label that, but that is one of their thorns. 

 

[Sabertooth]

Since you're talking Packers.  If you're 56 years old you were around for 7 championships.  Let's say 60 for any memory of those and probably 65 to really have followed the season.  If you're 50 years old you were around and old enough to see 2 championships.  You'd have to be in your 90s to have seen all 13 and have any memory of those.  Just my experience but the championships I have seen/watched have been a whole lot better than the ones before I was born or even the early Celtics ones when I was too young to really remember.  I remember watching '86.  I don't remember '84 or '81.  2008 was way more fun than '86 even though the '86 team was by most accounts one of the best basketball teams of all time.  Probably because I was 5 years old and didn't really follow the whole thing.

So what?  Doesn't mean they didn't happen?  I didn't watch the Cubs at all this year, doesn't mean they didn't make history.  

 

[Sabertooth]

I don't think anyone doubt the Pats have been the best since their first SB win. But there is certainly some arguement as to all time.  

Would any of these Pays teams beat the 85 Bears?  Maybe...maybe not. Different eras all present their own challenges.  They are in the conversation of course.  How could they not be?  But Detroit 5-peated.  Top that and we will revisit.  

 

[Anarchy99]

i almost didnt list the win loss record because i was afraid someone would focus on that which is NOT the point. The point is the patriots allowed 417 points to mobile qbs in 17 games. They flat out suck when playing mobile qbs. Theres no sugar coating. The patriots are forced into outscoring them. 

I went and looked back at the games you cited. I threw out this year's Bills 0-16 loss, as NE had no healthy starting QB (and other than the Pats losing, only allowing 16 points doesn't really show the Pats gave up more points).

As expected, there were 7 games when the Pats had multiple turnovers (which doesn't happen very often). In the 9 remaining games where the Pats were not turnover prone, they went 7-2 and allowed 20 ppg. IMO, the Pats holding on to the football had a bigger impact than the QB's they were facing.

Maybe there is a slight advantage to teams with mobile QBs, but I am not sure it is as big as you are leading on.

 

[dutch]

For arguments sake, someone with some time and verve please list all organizations that can be said to have been dynastys and list the years and accomplishments of thos teams.  Thanks.  And no, I do not consider the 1920-2017 Packers as a dynasty.  Sorry Sabertooth.

 

[Anarchy99]

I don't think anyone doubt the Pats have been the best since their first SB win. But there is certainly some arguement as to all time.  

Would any of these Pays teams beat the 85 Bears?  Maybe...maybe not. Different eras all present their own challenges.  They are in the conversation of course.  How could they not be?  But Detroit 5-peated.  Top that and we will revisit.  

Oh. Forgot to mention. Detroit did not five peat. They won in '52 and '53. They lost the championship in '54. They did not make the championship the next two seasons but won the title again in '57. So they won two years in a row in a league with 12 teams.

 

[FUBAR]

Oh. Forgot to mention. Detroit did not five peat. They won in '52 and '53. They lost the championship in '54. They did not make the championship the next two seasons but won the title again in '57. So they won two years in a row in a league with 12 teams.

oh comeon, you have to give Lions fans something to be proud about. 

 

[Anarchy99]

oh comeon, you have to give Lions fans something to be proud about. 

I just didn't remember Detroit winning 5 titles, let alone in a row. They have won 4 championships (35, 52, 53, and 57), so congrats on that.

 

[FUBAR]

I just didn't remember Detroit winning 5 titles, let alone in a row. They have won 4 championships (35, 52, 53, and 57), so congrats on that.

  this is the 60th anniversary of the last Lions championship!  

 

[Sabertooth]

Oh. Forgot to mention. Detroit did not five peat. They won in '52 and '53. They lost the championship in '54. They did not make the championship the next two seasons but won the title again in '57. So they won two years in a row in a league with 12 teams.

My mistake.  Green Bay did threepeat twice though.