Montana's perfect Super Bowls in perspective

[Bobsyouruncle]

I am going to be very clear here. The jury is not in. Period. It is still deliberating. The only proof we have if Dynasty's are harder post cap is if there are less dynasty's post cap. Right now we can not determine that for sure. We are still within a range that is not largely outside of past patterns. We are still averaging 1 dynasty per decade.

Now if there is no dynasty that emerges by the end of 2020 lets say. Now you have some very good evidence for it being harder to have a dynasty with the cap cause that would show a break in the pattern in the salary cap era. Until that happens though I don't think it is unfair to say we don't have enough evidence.

The sample size is simply too small right now IMO (though admitted not by too much).

Also Joes D was great. When Have I not said so? Lets look at is fairly.

1st SB run - Gave up 24, 27 & 21 points = 24 PPG
2nd SB run - Gave up 10. 0. 16 = 8.67 PPG
3rd run - Gave up 3. 9 & 16 = 9.3 PPG
4th run - Gave up 13, 3, & 10 = 8.67 PPG.

Obviously 3 of those runs had superb D. However this great D also let Joe down at times giving up 17. 36 and 49 points in Joes 3 one and dones. This goes to show that the D was very good it was not otherworldly for the whole run.

I don't like how you only picked 6 games. We should look at all 12 to be 100% fair.

Lets also be fair and acknowledge Joe rarely needed his D to play as well as they did in those runs generally. The 49ers never scored below 20 PPGs in any of those 12 playoffs victories. Even with a lesser D they could have still won 4 championships. Brady on the other hand needed his team to hold the opponent below 20 a couple times to win. Now in fairness that is a bit of a loaded statement cause those 2 game were bad weather games but it is interesting.

I did some looking at this last night for my own curiosity. In the SB era (1966) there have been 26 years without free agency, and 22 with free agency. IMO the question is not "is it harder to build a SB team" but is it harder to build multi-SB teams. That's sort of the point of free agency, and salary caps is to get parity. Salary cap was 94, and free agency was 93. I'm going to exclude the Cowboys from either category because their 3 wins in the 90's one was pre cap and FA, one was pre cap but during FA, and one was post cap and during FA so they don't fit in either category.

Pre FA (26 years)
4- Teams with 3 or more SB (PIT 4, SF 4, OAK 3, WAS 3)
8- Teams with multi SBs

The breakdown
2- Teams with 4SB
2- Teams with 3 SB
4- Teams with 2 SB
4- Teams with one SB

So 14 of the 26 years (54%) were won by dynasties (3 or more), that's over half. 22 of the 26 (86%) featured multi SB Teams, 14% single winners.

Post FA (22 years)
1- Teams with 3 or more SBs (NE 4)
6- teams with multi SBs

The breakdown
1- 4SB
0- 3SB
5- 2SB
6- 1SB

4 out of 22 years (18%) were won by a dynasty. 14 of 22 (63%) were multi SB winners, 27% single winners.

So side by side
Pre and Post

Dynasty
54% to 18%

Multi
85% to 63%

Single
14% to 27%

Not perfect but it looks to me like it's harder to win multi-SBs post FA, and MUCH harder to build a dynasty. 4 dynasties in 26 years, to now 1 in 22. Time will tell but I think what the Patriots did will stand out more through the years.

 

[BobDigital]

yeah, I picked 6 games --- you know why I picked 6 games?
because YOU told me the afc wasn't much of a fair challenge and montana needed every penny of this bloated payroll to cope with the monsters of the nfc.
YOU told me the real challenge for montana was beating the nfc, and apparently montana's only claim to the throne is that HE won 4 sb, so I took a look at the nfc path to those 4 sb that he had to travel and found his defense did most of the work, and beating those nfc teams wasn't such an arduous task for joe cool, after all, considering his offense only needed a couple fg to manage it.
that first sb, which I give joe all the credit for, was prior to the niners retooling their defense.
congrats to him on that one.

here's joe cool's heroic efforts in those 'one and dones' you mentioned, where the defense 'let him down'
I mean, since we're being 100% fair
'85 - 26/47 296y 0/1 td/int -- offense scored 3, defense allowed 17
'86 - 8/15 98y 0/2 -- includes pick 6, knocked out after a half
'87 - 12/26 109y 0/1 -- int was a pick 6 and joe cool was benched in the 3rd qtr, defense allowed 2 td

'85 - '87 -- the best ever right in his prime

Well if you want to pick only NFC games that is fine but you should have picked all 8. Also I did say the NFC gamers were generally harder than the AFC. I think that is true. The AFC teams (particular Denver/Miami when the 49ers played them) had weaker Ds but probably better Os than most the NFC teams. So I think looking at it from a purely defensive perspective sells it short. You are dismissing some of his best offensive opponents even though the team might have been weaker overall.

I didn't say the AFC were push overs but I though most years the 2 best teams in the NFL were both in the NFC when Montana was around. Not always but usually. The NFCCG was often more challenging then the SB. I stand by that. Montana is 4-0 in the SB and 4-2 in NFCCG. I take this to mean that game was usually harder.

You are right about Joe's D making it easier on Joe to win those games. My counter point is he could have won with a less dominate D in the 3 runs you are pointing out.

To your points about Joes performance in those 3 one and dones he had. Yep, he did not play well. I think he had a chance to win the first one particularly but the other 2 would have taken an amazing effort cause the 49ers were just outclassed those 2 games.

 

[BobDigital]

Yes, you did, and no it doesn't, as I've pointed out a bunch of times.

3 in 4 years is much faster than 4 in 11 (even 10) years

Simple mathematics

As I've said, repeatedly, one can make an argument for any of the top 6. That includes Montana. The problem is that your attempt to make the argument for Montana was fatally flawed because of your approach.

Your point about 3 in 4 years is fair but we were comparing 4 titles to 4 titles. If you wanna compare 3 in 4 then Montana never did that. Absolutely. I think only Bradshaw and Aikman have besides Brady (unless you count Starr but one of those was pre-SB so IDK if you would.

My argument was about comparing the time frame it took each to win there 4 titles not 3 (mostly cause both have 4 now). If you disagree that is works that is fine. At this point we will just need to agree to disagree.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

4 out of 22 years (5%) were won by a dynasty. 14 of 22 (63%) were multi SB winners, 27% single winners.

How is 4 out of 22 5%?

4 out of 22 is 18%.

Oh wait I see what you're saying later in the logic of your post and assume it applies throughout...

The 18% of SBs won by the Patriots over 22 years, were won in aggregate by a single franchise, so divide 22 years into that 1 team which yields "won by a dynasty." I get it.

Seems more to the point that 18% were won by a dynasty in the sense that one team won 18% of those SBs.

 

[Deus Irae]

Your point about 3 in 4 years is fair but we were comparing 4 titles to 4 titles.

No, YOU were setting up a 10 year window for the 4 SB wins. That was my point when I was repeatedly demonstrating that you were cherry picking. You kept getting angry that I was pointing it out, and then ignoring it in the discussion.

If you're talking about "dominance in a small window", Brady destroys Montana, as 3/4 is much, much more impressive than 4/11(4/10).

If you wanna compare 3 in 4 then Montana never did that. Absolutely. I think only Bradshaw and Aikman have besides Brady (unless you count Starr but one of those was pre-SB so IDK if you would.

I wasn't trying to make the comparison. You were. It's a lousy argument, because of the easy counter I made, which is why I wouldn't be making it if I were taking the Montana side of the discussion.

My argument was about comparing the time frame it took each to win there 4 titles not 3 (mostly cause both have 4 now). If you disagree that is works that is fine. At this point we will just need to agree to disagree.

Yes, and to repeat, you were cherry picking the argument. Your "small window" position obviously fails if you discuss the entire course of their careers. Your "small window" position also obviously fails if you go with a truly "small window" of 3 wins in 4 years. Your "small window" position only has credence if you both ignore 1980 AND choose a specific 10-12 year period in order to slip that 4th Montana SB win into the mix, while avoiding the more impressive 4 year "small window" for Brady by dismissing it because it's 3 SBs instead of 4.

In short, yes, at this point, it's safe to say that you're arguing dishonestly, so we might just as well move on.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Okay, just edited my post figuring you were doing something fancier...

Point taken, it's harder to build a dynasty now, on purpose. There's been exactly one. And we have no evidence that in the salary cap/FA era anybody else can do it. Period

Won't that suck, if it basically works to fix the game against any more dynasties, just isn't enough to stop the 2001-2015 Pats? Apres nous, la deluge...

 

[eom]

pats end up as the greatest dynasty ever in football in an era designed to kill dynasties

 

[Bobsyouruncle]

Okay, just edited my post figuring you were doing something fancier...

Point taken, it's harder to build a dynasty now, on purpose. There's been exactly one. And we have no evidence that in the salary cap/FA era anybody else can do it. Period

Won't that suck, if it basically works to fix the game against any more dynasties, just isn't enough to stop the 2001-2015 Pats? Apres nous, la deluge...

I sort of meant to run amount of SB dynasty wins (14 to 4) vs years, AND amount of dynasties (4 to 1) vs years but jumbled them up. I do wonder if there are no dynasties it's bad for the game. Sometimes you need a villain to have a hero, or a Goliath to have a David.

 

[BobDigital]

I did some looking at this last night for my own curiosity. In the SB era (1966) there have been 26 years without free agency, and 22 with free agency. IMO the question is not "is it harder to build a SB team" but is it harder to build multi-SB teams. That's sort of the point of free agency, and salary caps is to get parity. Salary cap was 94, and free agency was 93. I'm going to exclude the Cowboys from either category because their 3 wins in the 90's one was pre cap and FA, one was pre cap but during FA, and one was post cap and during FA so they don't fit in either category.

Pre FA (26 years)
4- Teams with 3 or more SB (PIT 4, SF 4, OAK 3, WAS 3)
8- Teams with multi SBs

The breakdown
2- Teams with 4SB
2- Teams with 3 SB
4- Teams with 2 SB
4- Teams with one SB

So 14 of the 26 years (54%) were won by dynasties (3 or more), that's over half. 22 of the 26 (86%) featured multi SB Teams, 14% single winners.

Post FA (22 years)
1- Teams with 3 or more SBs (NE 4)
6- teams with multi SBs

The breakdown
1- 4SB
0- 3SB
5- 2SB
6- 1SB

4 out of 22 years (5%) were won by a dynasty. 14 of 22 (63%) were multi SB winners, 27% single winners.

So side by side
Pre and Post

Dynasty
54% to 5%

Multi
85% to 63%

Single
14% to 27%

I think it's clear that from what we see so far it's harder to win multi-SBs now, and MUCH harder to build a dynasty. 4 dynasties in 26 years, to now 1 in 22. Time will tell but I think what the Patriots did will stand out more through the years.

Well that math works but it has a very convent cut off point in that is starts just right after the Cowboys dynasty. There were 5 SBs that happened between the Cowboys last and Pats first SB. That is not unusual. There were 6 between GB's last and Pitt's first. Admitted the rest were very close and SF/Dallas could be argued to have over lapped (if you count Young's).

If you count post FAs as your standard we have 2 in about 26 years (with one just winding down that is split between them) and 2 in these past 23 years. Dallas won in SBs 27, 28 & 30 so they should count under post FA IMO but of course not post salary cap.

Also you seem to be using dynasty a different way then me. You consider Washington/Oakland Dynasties but I don't as I think their wins were a bit too spread out with too much cast change. I think when they are as spread out as those wins were you really need to win 4 but we can agree to disagree there.

Most people don't consider them dynasties though but maybe they could be. However I was arguing with the generally mass accepted Dynasties in mind (GB, Pitt, SF, Dallas & Pats) only.

Excluding Dallas form the discussion is kind of tricky. But lets do it. However we should also "start the timer" at the years after their SBs. That would be 19 SBs. Is it possible to have only 1 dynasty in 19 years? I think so depending on where the cut offs are. If we cut off right before 1 dynasty and cut off right before another happens lets see the time length.

The time between GB's last win to SF's first (really all years before, during and after the Pitt Dynasty) is 13 years. Not as long as 19 obviously but still IMO not quite long enough to say for sure dynasty's are harder. If we assume the league needs time to adapt to the changes then that gap could rightly be justified to be longer.

Also for all we know the next dynasty already won their first game (maybe Seattle).I want to see how the next 5 years play out. I think those will be fairly conclusive.

However, I must say I really enjoyed the work you put in with your post and found it a very interesting read. Lots of interesting points to consider.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Yeah, despite all the interest in parity so that the fugging Bills can keep having some reason to exist, the idea that nobody could dominate the league again seems to take away some of the historical character... it's like enforced randomness... ever year you have exactly a 1/32 chance? Hey, let's just make it a re-draft league, right?

 

[Bobsyouruncle]

Well that math works but it has a very convent cut off point in that is starts just right after the Cowboys dynasty. There were 5 SBs that happened between the Cowboys last and Pats first SB. That is not unusual. There were 6 between GB's last and Pitt's first. Admitted the rest were very close and SF/Dallas could be argued to have over lapped (if you count Young's).

If you count post FAs as your standard we have 2 in about 26 years (with one just winding down that is split between them) and 2 in these past 23 years. Dallas won in SBs 27, 28 & 30 so they should count under post FA IMO but of course not post salary cap.

Also you seem to be using dynasty a different way then me. You consider Washington/Oakland Dynasties but I don't as I think their wins were a bit too spread out with too much cast change. I think when they are as spread out as those wins were you really need to win 4 but we can agree to disagree there.

Most people don't consider them dynasties though but maybe they could be. However I was arguing with the generally mass accepted Dynasties in mind (GB, Pitt, SF, Dallas & Pats) only.

Excluding Dallas form the discussion is kind of tricky. But lets do it. However we should also "start the timer" at the years after their SBs. That would be 19 SBs. Is it possible to have only 1 dynasty in 19 years? I think so depending on where the cut offs are. If we cut off right before 1 dynasty and cut off right before another happens lets see the time length.

The time between GB's last win to SF's first (really all years before, during and after the Pitt Dynasty) is 13 years. Not as long as 19 obviously but still IMO not quite long enough to say for sure dynasty's are harder. If we assume the league needs time to adapt to the changes then that gap could rightly be justified to be longer.

Also for all we know the next dynasty already won their first game (maybe Seattle).I want to see how the next 5 years play out. I think those will be fairly conclusive.

However, I must say I really enjoyed the work you put in with your post and found it a very interesting read. Lots of interesting points to consider.

Yeah, it's kind of difficult to draw the line perfectly, but I tried to not bias the numbers. It would have also been skewed in favor of pre FA if I included GB as a dynasty but I didn't. GB won 3 in a row, but only the last two were SBs.

I figured either side of the line I put Dallas under it kind of Bias' the numbers and rather than choose I figured best to exclude them, tell people I excluded them, and let people decide for themselves.

I had to draw the line somewhere, and IMO the SB era is big because the league went from 14 to 24 teams (28 by 1970). The amount of teams has a huge effect on chances to win, effectively between 65-70 the odds of winning a championship dropped by 50% because the league doubled the amount of teams. But since then it's been relatively steady (28-32).

Agreed that if say PIT, NYG, and GB win the next 3 then it effectively makes the eras close to identitical. Time will tell.

If we just use the dynasties you named GB, PIT, SF, DAL, NE, and look at time in between it goes.

GB-PIT 6 years
PIT-SF 2 years
SF- DAL 2 years
DAL-NE 6 years

BTW- Raiders had 3 in 8 years, WAS had 3 in 11.

That isn't perfect either because the length between wins. PIT had a 6 year spread, NE is at 14 years so length of dynasty is a big factor. I still think in terms of a few teams dominating its pretty tilted in terms of pre FA.

 

[BobDigital]

Yeah, it's kind of difficult to draw the line perfectly, but I tried to not bias the numbers. It would have also been skewed in favor of pre FA if I included GB as a dynasty but I didn't. GB won 3 in a row, but only the last two were SBs.

I figured either side of the line I put Dallas under it kind of Bias' the numbers and rather than choose I figured best to exclude them, tell people I excluded them, and let people decide for themselves.

I had to draw the line somewhere, and IMO the SB era is big because the league went from 14 to 24 teams (28 by 1970). The amount of teams has a huge effect on chances to win, effectively between 65-70 the odds of winning a championship dropped by 50% because the league doubled the amount of teams. But since then it's been relatively steady (28-32).

Agreed that if say PIT, NYG, and GB win the next 3 then it effectively makes the eras close to identitical. Time will tell.

If we just use the dynasties you named GB, PIT, SF, DAL, NE, and look at time in between it goes.

GB-PIT 6 years
PIT-SF 2 years
SF- DAL 2 years
DAL-NE 6 years

BTW- Raiders had 3 in 8 years, WAS had 3 in 11.

That isn't perfect either because the length between wins. PIT had a 6 year spread, NE is at 14 years so length of dynasty is a big factor. I still think in terms of a few teams dominating its pretty tilted in terms of pre FA.

Oh I agree if we had to pick right now it is certainly leaning towards post FA/post cap being harder going by the information we have. I think including GB would be fair as they are borderline like Dallas but should probably count. It is hard to be 100% on the numbers though cause as you point out it tends to get messy at certain points.

 

[Brady'sButtBoy]

Montana/49er 'legacy' completely in question after Rice revelations. Tell me, Joe, you want US to believe you didn't notice the stickum on the ball after throwing it to Rice? And maybe, just maybe, Joe, the stickum residue helped your grip when it was cold or rainy? Didn't it?

Time to zip it Joe and Jerry, because along with your cheating owner who was banned from the league, everything you've 'accomplished' is in doubt as far as I'm concerned. After all, I'm only using your own logic.

 

[Bruins29]

*

 

[libra957]

Without stickum the 49ers might have lost Super Bowl XXIII. That was a close game, without the cheating Rice might have drop a few critical drop.

 

[1960Pats]

GB-PIT 6 years
PIT-SF 2 years
SF- DAL 2 years
DAL-NE 6 years

BTW- Raiders had 3 in 8 years, WAS had 3 in 11.

I would call all of those teams dynasties.
In addition to the 3 SB wins the Raiders had a great run from the mid 60s to mid 80s. They and Pittsburgh are the closest to the current Pats in terms of winning over a period of time.
The Redskins were great for most of their 11 year run in the 70s to 80s and those 3 titles gives them a seat at the dynasty table.

 

[eom]

so, some of you guys are actually trying to make a case that it's easier to maintain continued success by being forced to constantly churn and turnover your roster than it is to be able to sit on players indefinitely?
have I got that right?

 

[Deus Irae]

so, some of you guys are actually trying to make a case that it's easier to maintain continued success by being forced to constantly churn and turnover your roster than it is to be able to sit on players indefinitely?
have I got that right?

You could actually point out that Brady and Manning were absolutely dominant, and you could make an argument that the modern era, with free agency, has meant that great QBs can stack the deck. The problem with that argument is that Manning's only got the one SB ring, and

Rodgers
Brees
Rivers
Roethlisber

have not been able to equal that type of success. That's a big weak spot you'd have to overcome.

 

[eom]

You could actually point out that Brady and Manning were absolutely dominant, and you could make an argument that the modern era, with free agency, has meant that great QBs can stack the deck. The problem with that argument is that Manning's only got the one SB ring, and

Rodgers
Brees
Rivers
Roethlisber

have not been able to equal that type of success. That's a big weak spot you'd have to overcome.

but, see, that's not actually true.
what's true is that if the pats wanted to break the bank on dez bryant or calvin johnson, when they hit the market, they could pay top dollar and get these great receivers --- I'm assuming that's what you're talking about.

but then that takes away from other spots on the team --- they can't afford an offensive line, now, or they can't pay charles haley and ronnie lott to hold their opponents to single digit scores, and winning titles is always a team effort.
back in montana's time you could poach dez and mega, too, if you wanted to pay the price in draft picks, but the other team always had right of first refusal, which wasn't a big issue for the niners.

on the flip side of the coin is that you can offer to make deion branch one of the highest paid receivers in the league and he can still elect to force his way out of town for a couple more bucks --- 30 years ago that wouldn't happen.

now, that era wasn't an advantageous situation across the board --- if you had a $16m budget, like every other team in the niners division, that era probably wasn't so great, but if you were willing to spend $27m on payroll to build your dynasty it was definitely helpful, which is exactly why they instituted the cap, because they didn't want the globetrotters rolling the generals every week.

I understand people of our time are a little desensitized to these kinds of numbers, so what you really need to do is think of it as percentages, or ratios.
let's say, for example, goodell was to issue a statement tomorrow that going fwd the pats would get an extra 100m in cap to make up for deflategate, do you think pats fans would be happy?
would other fans be upset, or would nothing at all be said about it?
do you think it would be an advantage for the pats, or maybe not so much, as someone posted earlier?
what if we get in our hottub time machine and go back and pay branch -- does 2006 turn out any differently?
what if we go back and pay all those guys?

 

[Bruins29]

or maybe not so much, as someone posted earlier?

Who said having an extra 100M in payroll would not be an advantage?