Unmatched level of success

robertweathers said:

My post was more a general comment to others that came after your OP. I had no idea if people are comparing Joe to Tom or NE to SF.

I don't think I was splicing JM v TBs careers. I took their entire careers and added everything up.

Tom > Joe.

49ers and NE is a judgement call.

Click to expand...

Your comment was are we comparing Montana 81-89 to Brady 2001-2009 which would put Montana ahead 4 rings to 3.
That's the one that had me scratching my head.

AndyJohnson said:

Your comment was are we comparing Montana 81-89 to Brady 2001-2009 which would put Montana ahead 4 rings to 3.
That's the one that had me scratching my head.

Click to expand...

Yea I can see how that can throw folks off. I was timeboxing the performance over a period of time.

Its the same argument that I have with Squealer fans. "4 SBs in 6 years is better than 4 SBs in 14"....In one respect, yes because the excellence is more concentrated but over a period of time the 70s Steelers are not as great of a dynasty as NE as it is not as long and not as sustained.

robertweathers said:

Yea I can see how that can throw folks off. I was timeboxing the performance over a period of time.

Its the same argument that I have with Squealer fans. "4 SBs in 6 years is better than 4 SBs in 14"....In one respect, yes because the excellence is more concentrated but over a period of time the 70s Steelers are not as great of a dynasty as NE as it is not as long and not as sustained.

Click to expand...

But when comparing Montana and Brady you have to consider all of their careers.

ViperGTS said:

The best unit on one side of the ball or the other won. Better even to say the one that was dominant. Hence Montana and Rice. The Steel Curtain. Staubachs Cowboys. When football really started to get some traction nationally and the league expanded, the parity concept/player greed creeped in. That's how we got to free agency.

Click to expand...

Yeah I agree. I was only pointing out that it wasn't "easier" for top teams to get to the SB. Cowboys/Redskins/49ers/Giants etc...had to get through each other to get to the SB. Although the NFC pretty much owned the SB through the 80's and 90's.

Not sure if I'm arguing with myself at this point.

robertweathers said:

Squealer fans. "4 SBs in 6 years is better than 4 SBs in 14"....

Click to expand...

It depends on how putrid some of those teams were before and after that 6 year run. The Steelers first championship in 1972 followed 8 straight LOSING SEASONS. The next 9 seasons after their 4th title shows an aggregate 0.500 record, exactly, with one 10 win season.

List of Pittsburgh Steelers seasons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For us, a bottom-of-the-barrel season in this 15-year run is to go 9-7.

There's a lot to winning 4 and being "in it" every season over a 15 year stretch, as opposed to winning 4 of 6 and only being "in it" for those 6 and not much else.

put it this way, I'll take
4 years of glory, 10 years of excellence, 1 year of ho-hum, with no years of crap
over 4 years of glory, 4 years of excellence, and the rest divided between ho-hum and crap.

then there's the salary cap difference, free agency, the rampant Steelers steroid use...

Galeb said:

How awesome would it be for the Pats to trump in IN SAN FRANCISCO, the same year that he creamed Manning in his final game ever. That would be truly epic.

Click to expand...

Wining one more makes them the Greatest Dynasty in NFL History. Period. Case Closed.

They already are the greatest dynasty. They are doing it in the salary cap era were being good is a major handicap with roster building. What BB and this organization have done since 01 is beyond incredible. Never will we see anything even close to this level of success in this era.

Tony2046 said:

Yeah I agree. I was only pointing out that it wasn't "easier" for top teams to get to the SB. Cowboys/Redskins/49ers/Giants etc...had to get through each other to get to the SB. Although the NFC pretty much owned the SB through the 80's and 90's.

Not sure if I'm arguing with myself at this point.

Click to expand...

I don't think that is really accurate though.
The Bears window was very small, maybe 4 years. The Giants not a lot longer (I mean as really tough outs) The Cowboys were a different era (the Montana 9ers started after the Cowboys were true SB contenders and then they emerged again in the Young era). Washington would be similar to Pittsburgh of current vintage.

The Patriots have had Baltimore, Indy, Denver, Pittsburgh, and even SD a little as tough outs during the run.

Palm Beach Pats Fan said:

It depends on how putrid some of those teams were before and after that 6 year run. The Steelers first championship in 1972 followed 8 straight LOSING SEASONS. The next 9 seasons after their 4th title shows an aggregate 0.500 record, exactly, with one 10 win season.

List of Pittsburgh Steelers seasons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For us, a bottom-of-the-barrel season in this 15-year run is to go 9-7.

There's a lot to winning 4 and being "in it" every season over a 15 year stretch, as opposed to winning 4 of 6 and only being "in it" for those 6 and not much else.

put it this way, I'll take
4 years of glory, 10 years of excellence, 1 year of ho-hum, with no years of crap
over 4 years of glory, 4 years of excellence, and the rest divided between ho-hum and crap.

then there's the salary cap difference, free agency, the rampant Steelers steroid use...

Click to expand...

Tough to draw the line in the sand, because what is 'the same team'? Do the post Brady years count for the Patriots dynasty? If not should the post Bradshaw years count for Pitt?
4 in 6 was the best run, but the Patriots have had more sustained success.

AndyJohnson said:

I don't think that is really accurate though.
The Bears window was very small, maybe 4 years. The Giants not a lot longer (I mean as really tough outs) The Cowboys were a different era (the Montana 9ers started after the Cowboys were true SB contenders and then they emerged again in the Young era). Washington would be similar to Pittsburgh of current vintage.

The Patriots have had Baltimore, Indy, Denver, Pittsburgh, and even SD a little as tough outs during the run.

Click to expand...

Yeah I agree. My original point was that it wasn't easier for top teams to get to the SB because they always had to go through other top teams to get there. SF, during the 80's still had to go through other tough teams and only made it to the SB 4 times.

But that point really doesn't support the bigger picture at all.

What BB and the Pats have done is unmatched in my mind. Today is much more of a level playing field than that era which means you have to be able to do more with less today and that takes great coaching. To do it for 15 years is just remarkable.

Palm Beach Pats Fan said:

It depends on how putrid some of those teams were before and after that 6 year run. The Steelers first championship in 1972 followed 8 straight LOSING SEASONS. The next 9 seasons after their 4th title shows an aggregate 0.500 record, exactly, with one 10 win season.

List of Pittsburgh Steelers seasons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For us, a bottom-of-the-barrel season in this 15-year run is to go 9-7.

There's a lot to winning 4 and being "in it" every season over a 15 year stretch, as opposed to winning 4 of 6 and only being "in it" for those 6 and not much else.

put it this way, I'll take
4 years of glory, 10 years of excellence, 1 year of ho-hum, with no years of crap
over 4 years of glory, 4 years of excellence, and the rest divided between ho-hum and crap.

then there's the salary cap difference, free agency, the rampant Steelers steroid use...

Click to expand...

Yep! I give the 70s Squealers credit. For 9 years the conference went thru them. They just couldn't sustain it.

Salary cap era. Pats dynasty is more impressive given the restraints they are under.

PittPatriot said:

My fault...we have only lost 3 AFCCG. This is our 10th and we will hopefully win it.
We have only lost to the Ravens ONCE in the AFCCG...the other was a divisional loss.

Click to expand...

ravens colts broncos all one time

JJDChE said:

Not true. Our playoff seeding was set in week 17 a few times and we trotted out the backups.

Click to expand...

They were still in contention for a championship even though the game wouldn't affect playoff seeding. No team has had a run like this since the merger of the NFL and AFL.

tigerjohn said:

The stat that explains the dominance best:

Since 2001, the Patriots have never played in a meaningless game. They've always been competing for a championship up until the final game of the season or the playoffs, even in the years where they did not make the playoffs.

Click to expand...

And further to that point, in each of the two seasons they didn't make the playoffs, they won their final game and left the field still in it (only to not receive the help they needed, which is why needing help is for losing teams.)

ViperGTS said:

The best unit on one side of the ball or the other won. Better even to say the one that was dominant. Hence Montana and Rice. The Steel Curtain. Staubachs Cowboys. When football really started to get some traction nationally and the league expanded, the parity concept/player greed creeped in. That's how we got to free agency.

Click to expand...

Prior to "Plan B" free agency in 1989, teams held the rights to all their players for their careers. In 1989, Plan B reduced that number to 37 players per team, which is pretty much the core of evry team. Compensation was required for any Plan B free agent which amounted to a trade where the owners sorted out the exchange. The Draft was 12 picks per team plus a small supplemental draft. With 12 picks, teams could compensate each other with guys who wouldn't make a roster or wind up stashed on "taxi squads."

The players didn't get true free agency until 1993 when Judge Doty ruled that Plan B violated anti-trust laws and threatened the NFL's anti-trust exemption. The draft decreased to 8 rounds in '93 giving more UFA's a chance to peddle their services to teams where they felt they might be able to compete.

The 49ers of the 1980s and Steelers of the 1970s are less impressive to me than the 1990s Cowboys and the 2001-2015 Patriots as dominant teams. That's not to say the 49ers and Steelers weren't great teams. They were. It was just much easier to hold onto core superstars for a long time and stay competitive. What Belichick and Kraft have done is amazing in the context of the draft, free agency, and the salary cap.

ViperGTS said:

Everyone and anyone I've ever heard says it was easier. Which it was.

Click to expand...

You should talk to some people over 18.

PittPatriot said:

Cowboys, Steelers, Niners?

Click to expand...

Yes, those are the 3 teams to win more Super Bowls than Brady. Tom is tied with the Packers and Giants with 4.

Steelers, Cowboys, and Broncos are the 3 to appear in more Super Bowls than Brady. San Fran ties Brady with 6 appearances.

robertweathers said:

What goal posts are we kicking at?

If it's Brady 01-09 vs Joe 81-89 Joe wins.........4 rings vs 3

If it's Brady 01-15 vs Joe 81-94 Brady wins......4 rings each. more wins in reg season and playoffs

If it's SF 81-95 vs NE 01-15 SF wins ...5 rings 10 CCG appearances vs 4 rings and 10 CCH

You could make the argument that the Pats made it to 1 more SB than SF in every period so they get the nod but IMO winning one more trumps it.

Click to expand...

Agree. Brady needs one more to put this argument to rest.

I've never fully understood the concept that winning in the salary cap era is tougher. Those that believe this usually point to how much easier it was back then to keep the same players on the same team but what that reason fails to address is that it was also equally easier for the other teams to keep their teams intact.

Yes, I see how pre-free agency, it would make dominant teams like the niners reach the playoffs in an easier fashion but come the playoffs, they would be pretty much facing those other teams like the Cowboys who were also stacked with great players.

I don't see the salary cap era as tougher nor easier, there are just certain different decisions because of different rules that need to be made to field competitive teams.

Just to address the original topic - I should add however that yes I agree this Pats team under BB and TB will go down as one of the best ever. Whether it's the best or not is one of those debates that lasts lifetimes.