How do you define "long term successful" franchise?

[Deus Irae]

I wouldn't include the Redskins from '83 to '91, and probably even the Giants from '05 to present. Most of that due to the words "long term successful."

I also wouldn't include the Packers from 1995 to 2004 for the same reason.

Long term success means just that, and while those teams were successful in the sense that they won SB's etc, they did not produce "long term success" by the standard definition.

I can't agree with you on Washington. From 1982-1992, the Redskins had one losing season (7-9) out of 11, had 8 double digit victory seasons, missed the playoffs twice with 10-6 records (one of those on a tiebreaker), went to the playoffs 8 times, won 3 Super Bowls and lost another. And they won those Super Bowls with 3 different quarterbacks.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

how do i define it? New England Patriots

 

[sturmrider]

I believe to judge this fairly, you do have to separate the eras between the salary cap era and non salary cap.

Dallas and Pittsburgh for example were able to hold on to their superstars and enjoy a longer period of excellence. This is not to take anything away from them. They had to find them first.

Now though it is a lot harder to build and retain a team. Balancing the cap with your players forces the GM and coaches to sometimes sacrifice a segment of team building.

Having the different eras really does make it harder to compare teams and what should be considered a long period of success.

 

[TomPatriot]

It'll vary with the person asking about it.

The Philadelphia Eagles, for example, went to the playoffs 9 times in 11 seasons, got to multiple NFC Championship games, and got to a Super Bowl. They tend to get overlooked when people talk about the successful teams of the 2000s, yet that is clearly a long period of success.

If you look at the teams beginning in 2000

Patriots (9,3)
Colts (10,1)
Steelers (8,2)
Eagles (9,0)
Baltimore (8,1)
Green Bay (8,1)

would all seem to be obvious qualifiers but, again, it would depend on what parameters were set (playoff appearances, wins, SBs, etc....)

Eagles = no rings

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

Eagles = no rings

They still had long term success. of course they are in that convo. They were the class of the NFC for so many years even if they didn't win the big one...they had a great team around westbrook and mcnabb back in the day

 

[supafly]

I can't agree with you on Washington. From 1982-1992, the Redskins had one losing season (7-9) out of 11, had 8 double digit victory seasons, missed the playoffs twice with 10-6 records (one of those on a tiebreaker), went to the playoffs 8 times, won 3 Super Bowls and lost another. And they won those Super Bowls with 3 different quarterbacks.

Hmm..that's quite a compelling argument.

I didn't realize that they won it 3x, I thought it was twice.

The fact that they did it with 3 different QB's is very impressive too.

Washington gets in by my standards then, but I suppose the final question would be the number of years of that kind of success. Double digit years would be good enough for my standards personally.

 

[supafly]

They still had long term success. of course they are in that convo. They were the class of the NFC for so many years even if they didn't win the big one...they had a great team around westbrook and mcnabb back in the day

Not to take it too far off topic, but these are the exact reasons why I may think twice about firing Reid right now.

In understanding that I am in the serious minority of those who feel this way, I still think that there are too many issues with that franchise at the moment besides "just" changing the head coach. Unless I had someone who I was pretty sure of, I'd keep him one more year. It's a bit of a pet peeve of mine that so many feel that firing Reid will suddenly give them a viable QB, or the specific personnel that they may need to compete again.

Getting back on topic though, I would agree that PHI should be in the conversation, although I probably wouldn't consider them as a "long term successful franchise" myself...they are surely in the conversation though, depending upon what one's specific criteria might be.

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

Wasn't free agency suppose to bring more balance and volatility to organizations? Also (and we haven't felt this exactly, yet), rookie contracts being shortened means you'll have a harder time keeping your "good/young" players if you have multiple and will need to be able to coach up those B level guys or just be plain smarter about evaluating cost to benefit. Which is one area the Pats seem to excel.

Long term success does seem to eb about talent evaluation and being able to manage the cap these days.

Getting back on topic though, I would agree that PHI should be in the conversation, although I probably wouldn't consider them as a "long term successful franchise" myself...they are surely in the conversation though, depending upon what one's specific criteria might be.

It very well might be team/fan base dependant.

For Example, The jets making it to the AFC Championship Game 2 years in a row, might be defined as long term success for them :bricks: :rocker:.

/sorry, i must be feeling a little snarky this morning.