Greatest Dynasty Ever?

pdangle said:

If average player lifespan in the NFL is ~3 years, just spitballing, no team dynasty can really last much past twice as long as that. Then it's all new players.

What we are seeing here these last 15yrs, IMO, is one Organizational Dynasty (Kraft, BB) that berthed 3 teams. Team Dynasty #1 2001-2007 (Rookie TB, Defense, Moss), declined and went into a rebuilding phase (Prime TB yrs, Welker, FAs, midget DBs & Who'll rush the passer?,Young Gronk, Untimely injuries), and now into hopefully the beginning of another Team Dynasty #2 (knock wood) 2013- (Twilight TB, Gronk, Edeleman, Hybrid LB's and finally some DBs Revis/Browner/Mccourty/Etc). As we know, this team is one of the youngest in SB history, and one of the youngest in the NFL these last few years. Of course it's been re-built. We'll see the stamp they put on the NFL . Team TB #2, I would think most would agree 2008-2013 were good teams, but taken individually or as a whole, no dynasty there. Also Kraft pre-BB was no organizational masterstroke either. Team TB #1 was legendary. This is Team TB #3 under BB/KRAFT, future bright but undecided.

Click to expand...

You're right from our perspective, but from an outside perspective NE didn't go into a true decline in those 6 seasons from 08 thru 13, with 5 division titles, 3 AFC title game appearances, and a SB which they should have won. They weren't quite as strong as we've seen them, but that's hardly a decline. That's why I consider the entire 14 years as 1 continuous dynasty.

SF's dynasty is considered to include all 5 SB's over 14 years. We have one more SB appearance than they did and a better overall winning pct. If we'd closed the deal in 06, 07, or 11, there wouldn't even be a debate.

lurker1965 said:

He is talking 36 and 49. No Wilfork in XXXVI or XXXVIII.



Did you research that? I'm not 100% sure. Staubach's Cowboys won in 1971 and was it 1977. Was that long enough to turn over the rooster? And Montana's first SB with the 49ers in was it '81 and his last in, I think '89. Was there complete rooster turn over?

The only other possibility I can come up with off the top of my head is Jim Plunkett's Raiders. I forget when they were, but he had two not back to back (am I right?) and may have had some turnover. Am I missing a multiple, but not back to back SB QB?

Click to expand...

I looked at multiple winners first and then it was a process of elimination and only Montana came close but he had at least Ronnie Lott for both. Most c won their multiple Lombardi's with the same basic lineups, like the Steelers and Dolphins.

And yes, Wilfork is the only tie to 2004. There are no ties to 2001 and 2003. What Brady has done with Belichick is unprecedented, it's easily the greatest combination of coach and QB in NFL history.

Bobsyouruncle said:

I think it goes together, HC and QB are usually part of that formula. Those remained, and the Patriots had no lull in dominance really. Even between 04 and now they remained the winningest team.

Even when Walsh went to Young the 49er dynasty gets tied together so I certainly don't say it was a dynasty of 3 then another.

Click to expand...

IMHO "Dynasty" is exclusively a team thing. Even though the two critical pieces, BB and TB, are most responsible for the Dynasty, these two positions could eventually be different men yet it will remain 'the' Patriot Dynasty (assuming the new HC and QB produce playoff births, victories, and at least one championship).

If one only uses Wins and Losses, playoff births, championship births, championship victories, the Patriots are not the greatest dynasty, not even close. But if you factor in the environment and processes that are involved in achieving the Dynasty, the Patriots are unquestionably the greatest dynasty. No other dynasty has had to overcome built in obstacles like the Patriots have

Consider this analogy:
32 of the world's best poker players vie for a Poker championship. At the start each player is given the same amount of money to play with/to win or lose with. Given that largely level playing field, what are the chances of a player finishing top 4 or better? What is the chances he/she will achieve top 4 or better two years in a row? Now what are the chances that player achieves top 4 or better nearly 70% of the time over 13 consecutive years? (and top 8 or better almost 85% of the time).
Given that nearly level playing field that each player starts with, statistically the odds of achieving a 70% number over that span of time is all but astonishing.

Not to disrespect other dynasties (being a dynasty is difficult no matter how you slice it) but they had smaller contestant pools and/or more money than most or all of the other contestants (sometimes, Yankees, WAY more money than most) and/or little to no restrictions on retaining the talent necessary to achieve a final 4. IMHO if any of those teams were under the environmental and procedural limitations of the kind the Patriots faced year in and year out, their dynasties would have been diluted.

IMHO the Patriots will be the last classic type NFL dynasty. Obviously the NFL makes it outlandishly unlikely for teams to be successful year in and year out. But the Patriot thing is lightning in a bottle from BB (a unique, anachronistic, automaton like, last of his breed) and a under the radar QB that had unique leadership and competitive spirit (and TB is very very likely the last of this breed/this type of QB). So enjoy each playoff birth, each playoff win, each close but no cigar playoff outcome. This really is something that once it's gone, it will be gone forever.

lurker1965 said:

He is talking 36 and 49. No Wilfork in XXXVI or XXXVIII.



Did you research that? I'm not 100% sure. Staubach's Cowboys won in 1971 and was it 1977. Was that long enough to turn over the rooster? And Montana's first SB with the 49ers in was it '81 and his last in, I think '89. Was there complete rooster turn over?

The only other possibility I can come up with off the top of my head is Jim Plunkett's Raiders. I forget when they were, but he had two not back to back (am I right?) and may have had some turnover. Am I missing a multiple, but not back to back SB QB?

Click to expand...

Staubach had a lot of turnover but Harris, Waters, and Pugh were on both of those teams.

Tom Brady is also the only QB in history with a winning percentage over .700 for the regular season and playoffs. 773 regular season and .724 playoffs.

Can't forget the Packers dynasty of the 1960's. They were in the title game 6 times in 8 years, winning 5 including 3 in a row (including the first 2 Super Bowls) that has not been done since. Maybe the best over a shorter time period.