How do you define "long term successful" franchise?

[Steve102]

This topic has been brought up in another thread to a certain extent, I thought it would be a good discussion.

To me, any winning franchise that can reload and stay competitive in a championship hunt is successful. The Steelers come to mind. Eight AFC Championships, including the dominant 70's, once in the 90's and three in the second half of the 2000's. Three coaches. The Patriots come to mind, obviously, but they have not done it without Belichick/Brady yet. Green Bay did it with Favre and Rogers. I am sure I am omitting a team or two, and I would love to hear what you folks have to say.

I am omitting franchises with ownership change. (Cowboys). Jerry Jones has not been able to duplicate his success.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Squealers, Horsies (Colts), Giants and Pats come to mind as 21st century franchises successfully winning championship and also strongly contending for championships with perennial contendahs like Green Bay in the next tier.

 

[Nikolai]

"Long Term Successful" to me means success over multiple eras. The only two teams I can really put into that category are the Steelers and Giants. The one thing those teams have is a consistent ownership with a dedication to winning. Sure, both have had periods of suckage, the Giants in particular, but overall, these are successful franchises. I'd like to think that the Pats could start their own run over multiple eras, with reliable ownership from the Kraft family, but we haven't had a chance to see what's going to happen after the Belichick/Brady era.

 

[patman52]

multiple SB appearances with multiple qbs and coaches over 25 years.

 

[Uncle Rico]

multiple SB appearances with multiple qbs and coaches over 25 years.

So 7 Super Bowl appearances over 26 years with three coaches = not bad. ...

 

[shmessy]

"Long Term Successful" to me means success over multiple eras. The only two teams I can really put into that category are the Steelers and Giants. The one thing those teams have is a consistent ownership with a dedication to winning. Sure, both have had periods of suckage, the Giants in particular, but overall, these are successful franchises. I'd like to think that the Pats could start their own run over multiple eras, with reliable ownership from the Kraft family, but we haven't had a chance to see what's going to happen after the Belichick/Brady era.

In that case, you have to include the Cowboys there (except for the ownership change).

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Predicting a Super bowl win every year and never even making it to one.
Post game 'us against the world' rants ending with "CAYNT WAIT", then proceeding to get smashed the following week and have consecutive losing seasons.
Paying $10M to a headcase WR who puts up okay #'s for a WR2 and quits on the team.
Running into your OL's ass face first and fumbling.

Only in a perfect world :sigh:

 

[Rusty Coupe]

San Francisco won 5 SB from 1981 - 1994 with Walsh and Siefert as coaches, and Montana and Young at QB. That is very close to the amount of time BB and Brady have been winning with the Patriots. The turnover in personnel in that amount of time shows that the organization was able to reload without sinking to the bottom.

The Niners were similar to the Pats in that they were able to bring in older players for a few years to fill holes in the roster in addition to the draft. Players like Russ Francis, Jim Burt, Charles Haley, and Deion Sanders were brought in to help win championships.

 

[goheels22002]

The Patriots come to mind, obviously, but they have not done it without Belichick/Brady yet.

The Kraft era is more to the point. The Patriots were successful during the Parcells and Pete "pumped and jacked" Carroll years before Darth Hoodie took over.

 

[pazrul72]

I would say you have to have at least one ring and make it to the playoffs more then 50% of the time. It is tough to win consistently in the nfl and at least making it to the dance needs to count for something. Legitimate hope of a championship is all most fans ask for.

 

[Deus Irae]

It'll vary with the person asking about it.

The Philadelphia Eagles, for example, went to the playoffs 9 times in 11 seasons, got to multiple NFC Championship games, and got to a Super Bowl. They tend to get overlooked when people talk about the successful teams of the 2000s, yet that is clearly a long period of success.

If you look at the teams beginning in 2000

Patriots (9,3)
Colts (10,1)
Steelers (8,2)
Eagles (9,0)
Baltimore (8,1)
Green Bay (8,1)

would all seem to be obvious qualifiers but, again, it would depend on what parameters were set (playoff appearances, wins, SBs, etc....)

 

[ivanvamp]

I think this is a great and interesting topic, and I'm glad you started it to separate it from the other thread. Everyone will define "successful" differently, just as they will define "long term" differently. Moreover, there are different levels of success. What the Patriots did from 2001-2004 was remarkable, and it was more successful than the Pats' last 3 seasons have been. And yet, the past 3 seasons, the Pats have been remarkably successful.

When I think of the teams that have had long, sustained runs of excellence, these teams come to mind (just in the Super Bowl era):

- San Francisco, 1981-1998
- Pittsburgh Steelers, 1971-1979, 2001-2011
- Indianapolis Colts, 2002-2010
- New England Patriots, 2001-present
- Miami Dolphins, 1970-1985
- Dallas Cowboys, 1966-1985, 1991-1996
- Green Bay Packers, 1995-2004
- New York Giants, 2005-present
- Washington Redskins, 1983-1991
- Oakland Raiders, 1967-1985

Now in each of these cases, teams won Super Bowls, had a vast majority of seasons where they won 10+ games, regularly went to the playoffs, and had tons of pro-bowl (and all-pro and hall of fame) players. Each of these successful teams had different characteristics about them. Some won a lot of Super Bowls, but had some down years, others had fewer Super Bowls but were more consistent year-to-year, etc.

What the Patriots have done during their stretch is as impressive as anything these other teams have accomplished, mainly because (a) they did it in the salary cap era, where it's much harder to keep teams together, (b) their level of consistency is unmatched, and (c) they did win 3 titles in the process.

 

[BSR]

The term can mean anything you want it to be. At its base level there are plenty of programs that are successful. Ravens, Steelers, Colts, Patriots, Packers, Saints, Giants are examples of the current successful franchises. Of course, taking a deeper dive you see there are some differences. Some don't have longstanding successful programs (Saints). Others have long standing programs but not the steady success (Ravens).

As for the multiple era thing, I really don't see the point of that. What do the 90s Giants have to do with the 2000s Giants? Really very little. The Steelers on the other hand, had decades of loosing prior to the 70s and as a franchise have a lower winning percentage than the Patriots. In my opinion, a franchise should be evaluated based on the program that is in place at that particular time. Because by that definition you could say that the Cowboys are a long term successful franchise, but it really doesn't mean anything today.

 

[mgteich]

I think this list is right for the modern era.

My perspective is a bit different. I understand that starting at 2001 makes us look better. After all, we have won the division, or tied for it, in ALL of those years. But, I think longer-term is an even greater mark of greatness. I start the patriot dynasty in January 1994 when Robert Kraft bought the team. From 1994-2000 there were 4 playoff and 1 SB appearance. When the team was only 8-8 in 1999, the coach was fired and the rest is history.

I think this is a great and interesting topic, and I'm glad you started it to separate it from the other thread. Everyone will define "successful" differently, just as they will define "long term" differently. Moreover, there are different levels of success. What the Patriots did from 2001-2004 was remarkable, and it was more successful than the Pats' last 3 seasons have been. And yet, the past 3 seasons, the Pats have been remarkably successful.

When I think of the teams that have had long, sustained runs of excellence, these teams come to mind (just in the Super Bowl era):

- San Francisco, 1981-1998
- Pittsburgh Steelers, 1971-1979, 2001-2011
- Indianapolis Colts, 2002-2010
- New England Patriots, 2001-present
- Miami Dolphins, 1970-1985
- Dallas Cowboys, 1966-1985, 1991-1996
- Green Bay Packers, 1995-2004
- New York Giants, 2005-present
- Washington Redskins, 1983-1991
- Oakland Raiders, 1967-1985

Now in each of these cases, teams won Super Bowls, had a vast majority of seasons where they won 10+ games, regularly went to the playoffs, and had tons of pro-bowl (and all-pro and hall of fame) players. Each of these successful teams had different characteristics about them. Some won a lot of Super Bowls, but had some down years, others had fewer Super Bowls but were more consistent year-to-year, etc.

What the Patriots have done during their stretch is as impressive as anything these other teams have accomplished, mainly because (a) they did it in the salary cap era, where it's much harder to keep teams together, (b) their level of consistency is unmatched, and (c) they did win 3 titles in the process.

 

[shmessy]

San Francisco won 5 SB from 1981 - 1994 with Walsh and Siefert as coaches, and Montana and Young at QB. That is very close to the amount of time BB and Brady have been winning with the Patriots. The turnover in personnel in that amount of time shows that the organization was able to reload without sinking to the bottom.

The Niners were similar to the Pats in that they were able to bring in older players for a few years to fill holes in the roster in addition to the draft. Players like Russ Francis, Jim Burt, Charles Haley, and Deion Sanders were brought in to help win championships.

Pre-salary cap era. So were the Cowboys and the earlier version of the Steelers. I brought up the Cowboys earlier, but I think the apples-to apples discussion really centers around the salary cap era. The Niners died off like dinosaurs when the cap era took hold (and of course, they struggled with it and violated it).

 

[Lifer]

The 18 year run since Kraft took over, 13 playoff berths, 11 division titles, 6 AFC Championships, and 3 Super Bowl Titles (and still going) to me is only rivaled in my lifetime for long term success by the Tom Landry Cowboys that from 1966 to 1985 was always in the mix , the 18 year (81 to 98) run of the 49ers, and the Raiders run that pretty much paralled the Cowboys.

 

[Deus Irae]

The 18 year run since Kraft took over, 13 playoff berths, 11 division titles, 6 AFC Championships, and 3 Super Bowl Titles (and still going) to me is only rivaled in my lifetime for long term success by the Tom Landry Cowboys that from 1966 to 1985 was always in the mix , the 18 year (81 to 98) run of the 49ers, and the Raiders run that pretty much paralled the Cowboys.

Shula's Dolphins had only 2 losing seasons in 26 years, won 2 titles, lost 3 SBs, and went to the playoffs in 16 of those 26 years. It think that earns them a spot on the list.

 

[Rusty Coupe]

Pre-salary cap era. So were the Cowboys and the earlier version of the Steelers. I brought up the Cowboys earlier, but I think the apples-to apples discussion really centers around the salary cap era. The Niners died off like dinosaurs when the cap era took hold (and of course, they struggled with it and violated it).

I'll defer to Belichick who knows wwwaayyy more than i ever could about the subject. This interview with Jason Cole from 2009, is probably one of the best and most informative things about this topic available.

Cole: Why are there so many bad teams around the league this year?

Belichick: Here’s the only thing I’ll say: I think to have a really good team in this league, you have to make a lot, a lot of good decisions. You have to have a lot of good people, players, coaches, whatever. You need a lot of those. Conversely, to not be competitive, you would have to have a lot of bad decisions. One bad decision is not going to do it, one bad player is not going to do it, one bad coach is not going to do it. You’re going to have to collectively, over a cumulative period of time, make a long series of bad decisions and accumulate a lot of players who are substandard for their position. There have to be a multitude of things that go wrong.

Cole: Because you can keep yourself average for a long time?

Belichick: That’s the system. If you don’t have good players, you have money to spend on players. If you have a bunch of good players, you eventually run out of money and you can’t keep them all and somebody else gets them. That’s the system, it keeps everybody average. We’ve seen teams be really good just on coaching. We’ve seen teams be competitive with just a few good players.

Cole: Jimmy Johnson once said, if you don’t take too many risks, you can win nine or 10 games a year.

Belichick: Jimmy probably said the same thing to you that he once said to me: “You’re really only competing with about 10 teams a year. If you just say out of the way, the other 20 teams will screw it up themselves. Whether it’s ownership or personnel or coaching or some combination of factors.†Ego, internal struggle, something will happen to two-thirds of the teams, that was Jimmy’s theory. That leaves you with about 10 teams that you’re going to have to really battle with. Those teams have it together. They’re going to make good decisions and if you play bad football, they’re going to take advantage of it. They’re going to find some undrafted guy or some middle-round pick or some veteran free agent who is going to spark their team. Pittsburgh is always going to be there. Indianapolis is always going to be there. They may not win it, but they’ll be there. You’re going to have to beat them. Philadelphia is going to be there. Yeah, [quarterback Donovan] McNabb might get hurt one year and they might go 7-9, but they’re going to be there. You’re still battling them on every front.

Belichick Q&A: Every player has a trade price - NFL - Yahoo! Sports

 

[ausbacker]

Perennial post season and Superbowl contender.

 

[supafly]

I wouldn't include the Redskins from '83 to '91, and probably even the Giants from '05 to present. Most of that due to the words "long term successful."

I also wouldn't include the Packers from 1995 to 2004 for the same reason.

Long term success means just that, and while those teams were successful in the sense that they won SB's etc, they did not produce "long term success" by the standard definition.