The great runs

[wilfork is beastin']

What it comes down to, is sure I'd love to win a Superbowl every season, but I'd rather be winning more games than losing each season. The point in basking in the glory of Superbowl victory is how bloody hard they are to win.

Imagine having to support the Raiders this past decade, even Detroit.

speaking of the Raiders, the whole "win now" approach is exactly what went wrong for that team. During their early 2000s run they had too many old players (Gannon, Tim Brown, etc.) and never bothered to replace them. It's like when they picked Janikowski in the 1st round because they believed the team was stacked and they didn't want to spend a pick on a skill player they could develop

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Well thought out & well said.
Since you brought up 76 Pats I remember that like it was yesterday. If it wasn't for BS call roughing passer on Stabler it would have been my favorite 2 QBs going to superbowl. Grogan Vs Tarkenton. What a year in 1976 for Pats.

Yeah, I'm glad there are other folks out here with that memory! How painful it is. But, the scales of justice were balanced with the Tuck call. It just took, what, 25 years plus?

 

[PatsFanSince74]

speaking of the Raiders, the whole "win now" approach is exactly what went wrong for that team. During their early 2000s run they had too many old players (Gannon, Tim Brown, etc.) and never bothered to replace them. It's like when they picked Janikowski in the 1st round because they believed the team was stacked and they didn't want to spend a pick on a skill player they could develop

Yeah, I chalk the Raiders' plight up to the increasing irrationality of Al Davis, but it is certainly the case that we can look at some franchises and wonder how strong their commitment is to winning. It's one thing to say "we want to win," but it's another to put the pieces in place to make it happen, consistently and not just once every six or seven years.

I would think that the Krafts' example would inspire the Owners of teams that are perennial afterthoughts. A decade ago, one might have made the cynical argument that with Revenue Sharing, the Salary Cap and huge TV contracts, Owners did not have the incentive to win; indeed, there is arguably a disincentive to spending up to the Cap if you pocket the leftovers. But, now, the Krafts have shown that a winning program can take one of the weaker franchises in the NFL and turn it into something worth more than a Billion Dollars.

 

[Pat the Pats Fan]

Excellent post! Lost on a lot of fans here is that there is something to be said for consistent winning football, regardless of whether a Super Bowl win caps it off. Most fans of other teams would give their right arm to have a winning record year-in and year-out like the Pats do. At the very least it gives us HOPE, and that makes a season much more enjoyable.

I don't see the Colts mentioned here at all, oh wait its not about winning records year in and year out, its about getting to the SB AND WINNING IT. When you hardly ever get there, you can't even be mentioned in the same paragraph as these teams. How about that, the Colts of the '00s can't even be mentioned with the Bills of the 90's? Ain't that a hoot

 

[condon84]

The game has changed. New Orleans will win the Superbowl this year and it will be because of Drew Brees.

Brees has been awesome and he killed us, but I wouldn't give them the SB yet. Vikings have a great RB and the NO defense showed that they were susceptible to bein run on. Also, the Vikings have a pass rush. Brees won't have all day to sit there and survey the field. Biggest factor will be Favre. If he plays like he's been playing, I give the Vikings the edge because of AP and Jared.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I don't see the Colts mentioned here at all, oh wait its not about winning records year in and year out, its about getting to the SB AND WINNING IT. When you hardly ever get there, you can't even be mentioned in the same paragraph as these teams. How about that, the Colts of the '00s can't even be mentioned with the Bills of the 90's? Ain't that a hoot

I was recently watching an NFL Films account of the 2001 playoff run, and what people forget is that, on that last offensive possession, all the Raiders needed was a first down to run out the clock and beat us. They knew where Bryan cox was coming in from, and they were schemed correctly to block him, but they just didn't quite execute and the Raiders fell just a little bit short. They were thisclose to getting it, in which case the dynasty most likely never starts.

That's the margin of error we're dealing with here. When people say that the Pats have lost "it" or don't "have the eye of the tiger" simply because they haven't won the last couple of SBs, I immediately write these people off as, for lack of a better term, idiots. Nobody wins the SB without a heaping helping of luck: the best any team can do is put itself in the best position, year in and year out, to be in the mix and seize opportunities as they arise. 2006 and 2007 were both swung on a couple of plays that ultimately came down largely to luck- just like 2001. 2008 was its own story.

That's why I have a problem with what we've done this year, whereas I never did in the past: this is the first time that I can remember in the Belichick era where we've willingly downgraded ourselves to a second-tier team. In the case of the Branch trade and the Bruschi stroke, our hands were obviously tied to varying degrees. That wasn't the case when we decided to get rid of Hobbs and Seymour for negligible compensation and deferred compensation, respectively. And it's not just them, either. I never got why we got rid of Hochstein, for example. For the life of me I still can't understand how we could find room on the roster for BJGE but not a quasi, let alone actual, fullback. From the getgo, I've had trouble understanding why we could afford to pay Joey Galloway $1.75M, but couldn't afford to pay Jabar Gaffney $2M ($10M total over 4 years). Coming back from his injury, Brady could have used his longest-tenured WR on the team. I actually liked both the Springs and Bodden signings, but I still never understood getting rid of Hobbs, unless we were confident that between Butler, Wilhite, and Wheatley, 2 of the 3 could perform at a starter-caliber level (so far, we're at maybe 1 of 3).

In a sense, I admire what Belichick is trying to do: rebuilding on the fly to stay perpetually competitive is a tall order. I just think he bit off more than he can chew, and I'm worried, as I have been since the day we traded Seymour, that we're going to end up wasting the rest of Brady's prime if we keep up like this. Everyone else on this team is replaceable. Even Randy Moss, a once-in-a-generation talent in his own right, can come and go. But you just don't get players like Brady. It's stupid to even hope for it: you just thank whatever gods you believe in if you're lucky enough for a guy like that to fall into your lap, and you do everything that you can to get the absolute most out of his career with you. In 2009, we're not doing that.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I don't see the Colts mentioned here at all, oh wait its not about winning records year in and year out, its about getting to the SB AND WINNING IT. When you hardly ever get there, you can't even be mentioned in the same paragraph as these teams. How about that, the Colts of the '00s can't even be mentioned with the Bills of the 90's? Ain't that a hoot

That was my chosen methodology, as I said in my OP.

For my review, I focused on teams that made three or more trips to the SB with the same HC and/or QB. I think that's as good a way as any to define a "Great Run." If you have another, I'd be interested in seeing it and the accompanying analysis, team by team and year by year over the last 50 or so years. I'm intellectually honest and am open to being corrected, but by facts and data. But, before you do that, please note that I'm not trying to capture every "Great Team" and every great QB and every great HC, just the great teams and QB's and HC's that have delivered consistently at the Championship Level (the AFC Championship is a Championship, won hard over 16 other teams).

Also, my analysis is not intended to suggest a Zero Sum Game. There are many other good ways by which to evaluate teams. We could simply, for example, take every team that has won an SB and put it on a well deserved pedestal; but then we put the Dilfer Ravens on the same stage as the Lombardi Packers, the Landry Cowboys and the Belichick Patriots. I was looking for a way to differentiate among the NFL's franchises from the perspective of consistent excellence at the Championship Level. I think it's pretty good, but please suggest another.

And, using the example you offer, I would defend the validity of my approach from the specific perspective of what it is trying to demonstrate.

The Levy/Kelly Bills dominated the AFC in their day in a way that I would argue the Colts have not in their time, at least until now; by my criteria, only the Steelers. besides the Patriots, are in a position today to make that claim in the AFC, if they go to another SB in the next year or so.

The standard of three trips to the SB in a relatively limited time frame is a very high standard. The Levy/Kelly Bills made four in four years; the other AFC teams just have to deal with that, as they couldn't keep the Bills out year after year. That's more remarkable than anything the Colts have yet to accomplish, in my opinion; but, the Manning Colts indeed look like they're on their way to Miami this year and so they too would move into the mix with their second SB trip.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

3) Elway and Shula are in a class by themselves, essentially going to the SB with very different teams wearing the same uniform, over a lengthy period.

Well, to be a stickler, this is not exactly true.

Still, great read. What's really interesting is that we were all here for all of that, and I at least wasn't surprised at the "runs," but using a single set of criteria and putting together the "dynasties" using that common measuring stick, the actual results were somewhat surprising somehow.

Lotta work there, well done

 

[maverick4]

It's a great thread.

Are there any themes or takeaways from this list, especially to divide the champions from the non-champions?

 

[PatsFanSince74]

It's a great thread.

Are there any themes or takeaways from this list, especially to divide the champions from the non-champions?

Thanks. Great question.

There's something to be said for "timing" when it comes to dividing SB Champions from "also-rans."

We can start with Landry's Cowboys. Landry took his teams to the SB five freaking times in a nine year period, yet, he walked away with "only" two rings. In SB V, he had the misfortune to catch Johnny U in his one SB win. In SB X and SB XIII, he ran into the Noll/Bradshaw juggernaut, arguably the greatest SB run ever, leading to four rings in six years.

The four great Grant Vikings teams also lost to legendary foes. The first to Hank Stram and Lenny Dawson, two HOF'ers. The second was lost to Don Shula and Bob Griese, two more HOF'ers. The third to Noll and Bradshaw (I think there's a theme here!). The fourth to Madden and Stabler, yep, two more HOF'ers. So, four trips to the SB by a great Coach and QB (Tarkenton for three of them) and four losses to eight other HOF'ers.

Everybody's (who doesn't get the NFL) favorite whipping boy is the Levy/Kelly Bills, who distinguished themselves by losing four SB's in a row. Who can forget their first loss, against Bill Parcells and "Wide Right." Their second loss was against another HOF'er (assuming that Tuna waltzes in) in Joe Gibbs in his final SB win. Their third and fourth losses were against the Johnson/Aikman Cowboys, one of the "Great Runs" in NFL history. Aikman's in Canton and I would be among those who would put Johnson there, but his numbers won't allow it (Tony Dungy and Bill Cowher will ultimately have the same problem).

It is so very hard to win a Super Bowl. I really think it's even tougher to win the annual SB than the quadrennial World Cup in Soccer. The competition is intense and unrelenting for 17 weeks...and then the real fun begins. Only 17 of 32 NFL franchises have won even one. Six have won one and three have won two. Eight have won the other 31 among them. So, winning just one is a deal, winning three (as have the Pats) or more is a big deal.

Even storied franchises like the Colts and Dolphins have only won two each.

To appreciate the NFL, we have to take a long term view. Competitiveness and contending for championships consistently takes commitment and the ability (luck?) to land the Staubachs and Nolls and Brady's and Landry's and Bradshaws that turn a very good team into a multi-year champion.

If Peyton and the Colts don't get back to and win the big game, people will write that he had the misfortune to compete at the same time as Tom Brady and Bill Belichick.

 

[maverick4]

It's a great thread first of all, and an interesting response you gave to my question. I think the answer to this question is key.

No doubt to even make your list those teams had to have great talent and coaching for multiple seasons. However, I don't think it's satisfactory to just say certain teams ran into other better teams or had bad timing.

I would argue that the teams that actually won rings, were harder to stop, not because they were amazing at one thing over and over, but because they could beat a team different ways and were flexible enough to do that.

The thing is looking at this list, the QB's who actually won rings weren't the main stars of those teams. Those teams won a lot of different ways depending on the opponent and situation. They didn't overly rely on the QB to win them the game by out-executing the same plays over and over.

Elway finally won basically handing the ball off and using play action off of Terrell Davis, but could still beat teams with his arm. Aikman was more of a complement to Emmitt Smith. Brady spread the ball around but wasn't 'the guy'. Montana won rings before Rice even showed up, and they weren't especially pass or shotgun heavy. Bradshaw wasn't even one of the top 3 players on those teams. Big Ben could occasionally beat teams, but they were balanced and flexible. These teams had great passing games but didn't overly or exclusively (and predictably) rely on any one player or run or pass to win.

Jim Kelly ran a shotgun/no-huddle happy offense and lost every time he made the bowl. You didn't mention Steve Young in your list (appropriately so) but one reason he couldn't beat the Cowboys for so long was he was basically locked into getting the ball to Rice all the time (sounds familiar with the Pats right now). It took signing Deion Sanders to beat the Cowboys, and even then they barely did so with that predictable scheme. Another lesser example is the Warren Moon run-n-shoot Oilers, whose explosive passing offense would always get stuffed in big games.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Well, to be a stickler, this is not exactly true.

Still, great read. What's really interesting is that we were all here for all of that, and I at least wasn't surprised at the "runs," but using a single set of criteria and putting together the "dynasties" using that common measuring stick, the actual results were somewhat surprising somehow.

Lotta work there, well done

thanks. yeah, as i said in another post here, it's not a "Zero Sum Game" when it comes to evaluating success in the NFL. There are a number of ways of doing it.

We could just say that all 17 teams that have won a Super Bowl belong on a pedestal. Indeed, in some ways, they do, but then we have to put the Dilfer Ravens on the same level as the Bradshaw Steelers and that just doesn't work for me.

We could look at Regular Season W/L records, but then we'd have to somehow weight them for divisional and seasonal competition and that just doesn't work for me.

To me, looking at the teams that have won multiple Championships (Conference and League) in a period of time defined by the career span of a QB and/or HC is the best way to go. If someone can show me the analysis that suggests another, I'm more than open to it.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

It's a great thread first of all, and an interesting response you gave to my question. I think the answer to this question is key.

No doubt to even make your list those teams had to have great talent and coaching for multiple seasons. However, I don't think it's satisfactory to just say certain teams ran into other better teams or had bad timing.

I would argue that the teams that actually won rings, were harder to stop, not because they were amazing at one thing over and over, but because they could beat a team different ways and were flexible enough to do that.

The thing is looking at this list, the QB's who actually won rings weren't the main stars of those teams. Those teams won a lot of different ways depending on the opponent and situation. They didn't overly rely on the QB to win them the game by out-executing the same plays over and over.

Elway finally won basically handing the ball off and using play action off of Terrell Davis, but could still beat teams with his arm. Aikman was more of a complement to Emmitt Smith. Brady spread the ball around but wasn't 'the guy'. Montana won rings before Rice even showed up, and they weren't especially pass or shotgun heavy. Bradshaw wasn't even one of the top 3 players on those teams. Big Ben could occasionally beat teams, but they were balanced and flexible. These teams had great passing games but didn't overly or exclusively (and predictably) rely on any one player or run or pass to win.

Jim Kelly ran a shotgun/no-huddle happy offense and lost every time he made the bowl. You didn't mention Steve Young in your list (appropriately so) but one reason he couldn't beat the Cowboys for so long was he was basically locked into getting the ball to Rice all the time (sounds familiar with the Pats right now). It took signing Deion Sanders to beat the Cowboys, and even then they barely did so with that predictable scheme. Another lesser example is the Warren Moon run-n-shoot Oilers, whose explosive passing offense would always get stuffed in big games.

Wow! Great response. Really made me think.

You're absolutely right once you state your position. In fact, there's an argument to be made that the pre-Moss/Welker Brady was every bit as good as if not better than the big stats version. Your points on Bradshaw, Montana and Elway are just really perceptive.

So, what we're saying now is that there are combinations of players and approaches that are more able to adapt and figure out what's needed to win than others. The great ones put together a run where it works for four to eight or nine years. I suspect if we dissected the Lombardi/Starr Packers, that's exactly what we would find.

 

[maverick4]

Wow! Great response. Really made me think.

You're absolutely right once you state your position. In fact, there's an argument to be made that the pre-Moss/Welker Brady was every bit as good as if not better than the big stats version. Your points on Bradshaw, Montana and Elway are just really perceptive.

So, what we're saying now is that there are combinations of players and approaches that are more able to adapt and figure out what's needed to win than others. The great ones put together a run where it works for four to eight or nine years. I suspect if we dissected the Lombardi/Starr Packers, that's exactly what we would find.

Thanks. It's a great thread you started. The thing that concerns me is I don't think our current team, or the Pats teams of the past 3 years, fit this model of those teams we just described which win rings. It's a very one dimensional team, more like the 01 Rams. It seems like if you can stop Welker, this team is in big trouble.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Thanks. It's a great thread you started. The thing that concerns me is I don't think our current team, or the Pats teams of the past 3 years, fit this model of those teams we just described which win rings. It's a very one dimensional team, more like the 01 Rams. It seems like if you can stop Welker, this team is in big trouble.

Interesting comment. I thought about it and came back to it after yesterday's Mess in Miami. I think the game exposed a range of weaknesses, most notably on Defense and in the Red Zone, as has been pointed out at length (and then some) in other threads. But, Welker actually had another huge game and the offense was done in by dropped and errant passes. The attack was relatively balanced at 29 passes and 25 rushes, but the 25 rushes produced less than 100 yards total.

Personally, I'm still trying to sort it all out and think we have to wait and see over the next four weeks and, presumably, in the Playoffs, which I am still confident we will make.

But, in keeping with the topic of this thread, the Brady/Belichick Pats have had one of the Great Runs in NFL history. I'm not ready to say it's over, but it's clear this will have to be a very busy off season on the field and in the Head Office if it is to continue.

 

[BTTA]

This is what often gets missed here. If the Pats of 2009 were having the luck that the Pats of the championship years were having, they would be 10-2 right now and we'd all be singing a different tune. If they get the same kind of breaks in the Denver, Indy, and Miami games as they did in the Raider's game, they win those games.

And yes, there is something to be said for "making your own luck" and perhaps this team is a tad less capable than the championship teams, but not by much.

And if it is less capable than those teams, I'd first look to the coaching and schemes. The Pats brought something new to almost every team in the first half of the decade. They haven't done that in quite a while.

I was recently watching an NFL Films account of the 2001 playoff run, and what people forget is that, on that last offensive possession, all the Raiders needed was a first down to run out the clock and beat us. They knew where Bryan cox was coming in from, and they were schemed correctly to block him, but they just didn't quite execute and the Raiders fell just a little bit short. They were thisclose to getting it, in which case the dynasty most likely never starts.

That's the margin of error we're dealing with here. When people say that the Pats have lost "it" or don't "have the eye of the tiger" simply because they haven't won the last couple of SBs, I immediately write these people off as, for lack of a better term, idiots. Nobody wins the SB without a heaping helping of luck: the best any team can do is put itself in the best position, year in and year out, to be in the mix and seize opportunities as they arise. 2006 and 2007 were both swung on a couple of plays that ultimately came down largely to luck- just like 2001. 2008 was its own story.