Comparing Dynasties

[JR4]

Some good info in this article ... a lot of names of the greats remembered.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/stories/012708dnsposuperlede.1fe5de7.html

One thing I take from this article is unlike Lombardi, Belichick won't have to
retire after his 5th championship. He builds his team for the long haul and
only needs to replace a few essential players every year.

 

[FrontSeven]

That's a well-researched article. It is impressive for the Patriots, assuming that they close the deal next Sunday. Here's an interesting quote though:

Most players are in their primes between the ages of 26 and 29. That's the window of opportunity. As players enter their 30s, they wander into the backside of their careers. They rely more on experience than talent to succeed.

So the best teams in a dynasty are usually the early teams of the dynasty. The 1962 Packers, 1975 Steelers, 1984 49ers and 1992 Cowboys all set the standard for decade dynasties. Those teams all won titles near the front ends of the curve.

Which makes New England's sprint through this decade much more impressive. The Patriots are already the NFL's team of the decade, with three Lombardi Trophies, and New England has fielded a better team with each title. The best team may be on the way.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

"That's not how it usually works. Dynasties are supposed to descend. The Patriots are ascending..."

And the Patriots have gotten better and better and better.

New England ranked 17th in offense when it won its first Super Bowl after the 2001 season, 17th in 2003 and seventh in 2004. This season, it led the league in offense for the first time since 1978 and set an NFL record with 589 points.

New England finished 24th in the league in defense in 2001 – the worst finish ever by a Super Bowl champion – but improved to seventh in 2003 and ninth in 2004. This season, the Patriots finished fourth in defense.

This isn't supposed to be the way the system works.

The salary cap was supposed to serve as the death knell of dynasties. It was supposed to promote parity, because teams could no longer afford to keep all of their best players. No team would be able to hold onto seven Hall of Famers over a seven-year period as the 1960s Packers did.

But who needs a roster of Hall of Famers? The Patriots have Belichick and Brady, and a team that gets better with each championship."

I think a lot of fans here need to read this. Many have a revisionist view of what this team has already done, just as trolls persist in marginalizing it, but more importantly how they did it. Rather than focus on stars or individual seasonal player or unit performances, look at the bigger picture - how they perform as a team. That is what BB builds for. A team that keeps getting better, because he is a firm believer that if you aren't getting better, you're getting worse in a league where everyone is re-shaping rosters annually to elicit a better performance next season. That, as much as X's and O's is a bit part of his genius - teambuilding vs. talent collection or retention.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

Both the Dallas and Pittsburgh papers can speak well of their own teams rich and strong history while also discussing New England's great season, a feat unattainable by the Miami papers.

 

[apricissimus]

Did anyone else notice that they misspelled "defies" in the headline? (They spelled it "defys"). That's pretty bad for a professional outfit.

 

[Maroney TD]

Most players are in their primes between the ages of 26 and 29. That's the window of opportunity. As players enter their 30s, they wander into the backside of their careers. They rely more on experience than talent to succeed.

So the best teams in a dynasty are usually the early teams of the dynasty. The 1962 Packers, 1975 Steelers, 1984 49ers and 1992 Cowboys all set the standard for decade dynasties. Those teams all won titles near the front ends of the curve.

Which makes New England's sprint through this decade much more impressive. The Patriots are already the NFL's team of the decade, with three Lombardi Trophies, and New England has fielded a better team with each title. The best team may be on the way.

Are players really in their primes from 26 to 29? That seems like a little short of a window to me. I remember reading a stats analysis that was done that showed RB hit their peak at 24, but thats obviously a much different position than any other one because of all the hits they take.