The NY Giants, SF 49ers, NE Patriots, and the common thread

[ivanvamp]

I hate to say it, but major kudos to the New York Giants football franchise. Why? Because there have been two long-term dynasties since 1980 - the San Francisco 49ers and the New England Patriots.

From 1981-1998, an incredible span of 18 years, the 49ers went 207-72-1 (.742), an average of 11.5 wins a year, went to the playoffs 16 times (88.9%), won 13 division championships (72.2%), and won 5 Super Bowls (27.8%).

However, during this amazing run, they were knocked out of the playoffs three times by the NY Giants. In 1985, the 10-6 49ers were beaten by the 10-6 Giants, 17-3. In 1986, the 10-5-1 49ers were beaten by the 14-2 Giants, 49-3. And then in 1990, the 49ers were 14-2 and were beaten by the underdog 13-3 Giants, 15-13.

So in a span of six years, the 49ers were derailed in their title run by the NY Giants.

As for the Patriots, from 2001-2011, an 11-year span, the Pats went 134-42 (.761), and average of 12.2 wins per year, went to the playoffs 9 times (81.8%), won 9 division championships (81.8%), and won 3 Super Bowls (27.3%).

Yet twice during this period they were knocked out of the playoffs by....yes, the NY Giants. Except, of course, those playoff losses were in the Super Bowl.

So if not for the Giants, the 49ers could have won 8 titles and the Pats could have won 5.

So as much as I hate to admit it, the Giants have been giant-killers for the two premier dynasties in the modern era in football.

[CheeseMonkeys]

Not to diminish all of your research but I couldn't care less.

[ivanvamp]

Originally Posted by CheeseMonkeys

Not to diminish all of your research but I couldn't care less.

Heh. Well, I can certainly understand that.

I honestly got thinking about it because I was thinking about how if not for a few miracle type plays, the Pats would have 5 SB titles, and that it was the Giants that took 2 from them.

I've always compared this NE dynasty to the 49er dynasty....lots of similarities, really. And I remembered that, dang, the Giants really hurt the 49ers during Montana's time with SF, knocking them out three times. Montana gets credit for being 4-0 in SBs, but he was denied 3 trips to the SB by the Giants. Brady goes 3-2 in SBs, with two of those losses to the Giants.

Made me wonder: if NYG were in the AFC, would they have beaten the 49ers in the SB, making Montana 4-3 in SBs instead of 4-0, while Brady would be 3-0 instead of 3-2?

[Elijah]

Superstition, superstition everywhere.

[Fencer]

The Giants are a good franchise, with good family ownership. Their players can have some NYC glitz or party too hard, but on the whole it's a pretty solid group.

[PatsFanSince74]

Originally Posted by CheeseMonkeys

Not to diminish all of your research but I couldn't care less.

I wouldn't be so harsh. I think Ivan has made an interesting observation.

It doesn't make me feel any better about what happened in Glendale and Indy, but it's interesting.

To me the more profound point is how hard it is to win Conference and League Championships in the NFL. There are always other, very good teams trying to keep you from snatching the Gold Ring. What the Pats and Giants did in those two different eras is remarkable, just as it was remarkable for the Cowboys to go to SB five out of nine seasons in the '70's and the Steelers to win four of six in the same era.

[TommyBrady12]

Giants own the patriots. That's all there is to it.

A lot of the Giants recent success can be traced back to their willingness to spend money on free agents like canty, boley, rolle, etc. coupled with great drafting by their terrific GM. Not only do the patriots not sign free agents to the same extent, they also draft poorly with the notable exceptions of gronk, solder, hernandez, mayo, etc. I mean this Victor Cruz kid was in BB's back yard - can't he send a scout over to UMASS? Poor personnel decisions by this organization. The 2007 draft was officially a bust. The 2008 draft is almost a bust, with the exception of Mayo. Mayo and Chung are the only decent players on defense this organization has recently drafted.

What this team needs is a real GM.

[ayjackson]

I'm not sure I agree with your premise that there have been two long-term dynasties in the NFL since 1980. I'd like to know what the criteria. SF's dynasty seems to come to an end by late to mid nineties. I wonder what Denver's record is from 1986 - 1999 or so. And if we go by 11 year periods, where do the likes of Dallas and GB fall, and even Pittsburg over the last 10 years?

But I agree, NGY seems to show up from nowhere every so often and take down the best in the league. And they don't seem to lose in the Superbowl.

[Snake Eyes]

The Giants have their stuff together very well, one could learn from them.

They have a pretty simple draft philosophy:
- get a great QB
- protect him
- beat the hell out of the other QB

It all starts at the lines, make sure your lines are excellent and you'll do ok.

[ivanvamp]

Originally Posted by ayjackson

I'm not sure I agree with your premise that there have been two long-term dynasties in the NFL since 1980. I'd like to know what the criteria. SF's dynasty seems to come to an end by late to mid nineties. I wonder what Denver's record is from 1986 - 1999 or so. And if we go by 11 year periods, where do the likes of Dallas and GB fall, and even Pittsburg over the last 10 years?

The Cowboys' short dynasty could be marked from 1991-1996, just six seasons. From 1986-1990:

1986: 7-9
1987: 7-8
1988: 3-13
1989: 1-15
1990: 7-9
- - - - -
1991: 11-5, made playoffs
1992: 13-3, won SB
1993: 12-4, won SB
1994: 12-4, made playoffs
1995: 12-4, won SB
1995: 12-4, won SB
1996: 10-6, made playoffs
1997: 6-10
1998: 10-6, made playoffs
1999: 8-8, made playoffs
2000: 5-11
2001: 5-11

Maybe you could extend it to 1999, but those last 3 seasons they were a .500 team (24-24). So a great six years, but it was short-lived.

The Steelers of the 2000's have been very good, but not a dynasty.

2001: 13-3, made playoffs
2002: 10-5-1, made playoffs
2003: 6-10
2004: 15-1, made playoffs
2005: 11-5, won SB
2006: 8-8
2007: 10-6, made playoffs
2008: 12-4, won SB
2009: 9-7
2010: 12-4, made playoffs
2011: 12-4, made playoffs

So very good, but they missed the playoffs in 3 of those seasons. Still, pretty close, but why they aren't a dynasty is because they weren't the best team in the NFL during this run. The Patriots have been. Same thing with the Colts.

Green Bay in the Favre years? Again, very good, but:

1993: 9-7, made playoffs
1994: 9-7, made playoffs
1995: 11-5, made playoffs
1996: 13-3, won SB
1997: 13-3, lost SB
1998: 11-5, made playoffs
1999: 8-8
2000: 9-7
2001: 12-4, made playoffs
2002: 12-4, made playoffs
2003: 10-6, made playoffs
2004: 10-6, made playoffs

Another very good run, but just one Super Bowl title. I think a dynasty has to include two things: (1) multiple Super Bowl titles, and (2) the best team in the league over that stretch.

Originally Posted by ayjackson

But I agree, NGY seems to show up from nowhere every so often and take down the best in the league. And they don't seem to lose in the Superbowl.

They've become the Patriots, really. The Pats won their last 3 SB victories by small margins (9 total points, 3.0 ppg). Two of them were won in the last seconds of the game.

The Giants' last 3 SB victories were by 8 points (2.7 ppg), and all three were won in the last minute. They could easily be 1-4 in SB games; instead, they're 4-1. The Pats could be 1-6 or 5-2; instead, they're 3-4.