Dallas? Or Dynasty

The Gipper

OK, which of these 70s/80s era Prime time soaps was the best?

Actually, that is not really the theme of this post. There has been, in the history of the NFL, a dynasty emerge in practically every decade. Going back you have the Patriots of the 00s, the Cowboys of the 90s, the 49ers of the 80s, the Steelers of the 70s, the Packers of the 60s, the Browns of the 50s, the Bear of the 40s...and the Packers of the 30s and the Bulldogs of the 20s.

Will there be a "teens" dynasty? And if so, who is the best candidate. So far no one team has emerged as the best....but that is OK, the Steelers dynasty didn't start until 4 games into the decade. So far this decade you have different winners every year: 2010 Packers, 2011 Giants, 2012 Ravens, 2013 Seahawks.

The Seahawks seem like a team that could be poised to be the dynasty of this decade. They won last year convincingly. They have the best record this year and are playing lights out after a slow start. Would anyone be surprised if they repeat? I suspect, though I have not looked it up, that they are probably the Vegas odds on choice to win this year. Who would have thunk a few years ago that a team from Seattle could be the dynasty of a decade? (whoda thunk in 1969 after the Steelers were 1-13 that they would have been the dynasty of the next decade).

Or, maybe the fucking Cowboys will rule again....fuck that and don't ask who shot JR, but who shot JJ.

The Gipper

I list these here because they are those "certified"l dynasties that have either won at least 3 titles in a 10 year period, or have appeared in 5 title games in a 10 year period, no matter how many they have won. Chronologically .

1922-24 Canton/Cleveland Bulldogs: 3 titles in 3 years (pre-playoffs)

1929-1939 Packers: 5 titles in 11 years plus one other title game appearance (partial pre-playoff...also won 3 in a row 29/30/31)

1933-1941 Giants: 5 title game appearances in 9 years, but only 1 title. Questionable dynasty.

1937-1946 Bears: 6 title game appearances in 10 years, 4 wins

1946-1957 Browns: 11 title game appearances in 12 years, 7 wins

1952-1957 Lions: 4 title game appearances in 6 years, 3 wins

1960-1967 Packers: 6 title game appearances in 8 years, 5 wins

1970-1978 Cowboys: 5 title game appearances in 9 years, 2 wins (borderline dynasty)

1974-1979 Steelers: 4 title game appearances in 6 years, 4 wins

1976-1983 Raiders: 3 title game appearances in 8 years, 3 wins

1981-1989 49ers: 4 title game appearances in 9 years, 4 wins

1982-1991 Redskins: 4 title game appearances in 10 years, 3 wins

1991-1994 Cowboys: 3 title game appearances in 4 years, 3 wins

2001-2007 Patriots: 4 title game appearances in 7 years, 3 wins (also should include 2011 when they lost again to Giants. That game them 5 appearances in 11 years.

Who will be next?

The Gipper

The following are "Uncertified", i.e "almost but not quite" dynasties, for various reasons:

1948-49 Eagles: repeat title winner, no other appearances

1949-1955 Rams: 4 title game appearance in 7 years, only 1 title

1958-1964 Colts: 3 title game appearances, 2 wins

1960-61 Oilers: repeat title winner, no other appearances

1960-1964 Chargers: 4 title game appearances in 5 years, only 1 title

1964-1965 Bills: repeat title winner, no other appearances

1969-1976 Vikings: 4 title game appearances in 8 years, no titles

1971-1973 Dolphins: 3 title game appearance in 3 years, 2 titles

1990-1993 Bills: 4 Super Bowl appearances in 4 years, no titles

1997-1998 Broncos: repeat title winner (though if you combine them with the 1986-1989 Broncos, you would have 5 title game appearances in 13 years with 2 wins. Still not a certified dynasty by my criteria)

2005-2010 Steelers: 3 title game appearances in 6 years, 2 wins (could They become "certified" if they win another SB in the next year or so? If they would win this year, I would say certainly yes.

0

tml1138

Steelers could have a new dynasty, by your standards. 2005 & 2008 title wins, 2010 title loss, and potentially a 2014 title win would put them 3 wins in 9 years. If they don't win this year or next year, by your standards they would just miss the ten year mark and have to start anew. Other than that, no one next up immediately. Seahawks could be onto something however...

The Gipper

Interesting phenomena: in the first 4 years of this decade the 2010s, no team has made a repeat Super Bowl appearances.

We have had 4 games and 8 different participants:

2010: Packers and Steelers

2011: Giants and Patriots

2012: Ravens and 49ers

2013: Seahawks and Broncos

Only one other time in the history of the Super Bowl do I find that there was a 4 year period in which no team made a repeat appearance:

1979 Steelers/Rams

1980 Raiders/Eagles

1981 49ers/Bengals

1982 Redskins/Dolphins.

The Gipper

@tml1138 said:
Steelers could have a new dynasty, by your standards. 2005 & 2008 title wins, 2010 title loss, and potentially a 2014 title win would put them 3 wins in 9 years. If they don't win this year or next year, by your standards they would just miss the ten year mark and have to start anew. Other than that, no one next up immediately. Seahawks could be onto something however...

Yes, If the Steelers were to win, they would have 3 titles in a 10 year period....making them a certified dynasty(by my reckoning) If they appeared but lost they would have 4 appearances but only 2 wins....putting them into that "quasi-dynasty" "almost but not quite" list.

The Gipper

@everlastingxxx said:
I like looking at the Aikman efficiency ratings. According to his rankings this year, there are about 5 teams are very close to each other. Denver ranks #1 btw. The point being that there is not a dominate team this year. I am not sure there will ever be another dynasty. Parody has taken over and the offensive explosion has plateaued.

Did you mistype? Last time I looked Aikman wasn't playing this year. Or did Todd Aikman invent some new type of QB rating system, different from the Passer rating system or ESPN "QBR". If he did, I would be interested in seeing it.

As for whether or not there could be another dynasty...I think there certainly could be. Many if not most of these dynasties have a common thread: a compatible coach/QB combination that drove the team. Walsh/Montana, Bradshaw/Noll, Lombardi/Starr, Graham/Brown, Landry/Staubach etc. The Wilson/Carroll combo could carry the Seahawks to dynasty status.....as long as the other staple of these dynasties are present as well.....a fairly dominating defense . Which Seattle has.

As I noted, I think the Seahawks are odds on favorites to win the Super Bowl this year, no? Here are those odds:

New England Patriots 5/2

Seattle Seahawks 5/2

Green Bay Packers 11/2

Denver Broncos 6/1

Dallas Cowboys 8/1

Pittsburgh Steelers 12/1

Indianapolis Colts 30/1

Baltimore Ravens 40/1

Carolina Panthers 40/1

Cincinnati Bengals 40/1

Detroit Lions 50/1

Arizona Cardinals 75/1

The Gipper

@everlastingxxx said:

He came up with a system awhile back. Instead of measuring just yards, he includes turnovers, red-zone, ect. I think his ratings better reflect how good a team is. Example, NFL ranks the Texans as #16 in defense. Aikmans ranks them #1. NFL ranks the Browns D as #23, Aikmans ranks them #11.

Here is a link to his website: http://www.aikman.com/AikmanEfficiencyRatings/tabid/274/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/79/Final-2014-Aikman-Efficiency-Ratings.aspx

OK, well, it looks like some math/computer geeks invented this system and Aikman agreed to put his name on it for marketing purposes. I guess that OK....and may be as good as anything else.