Thread: Dynasty
View Single Post
Old 03-06-2005, 08:08 PM   #6
Brad O.
1,549
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 792
Brad O. will become famous soon enough
Default

Kevin, Doug, Marc -- thanks.
Quote:
Originally posted by Doug Graham
For the stuff I have bold, 7-9 and below would be the sub-.500 year...is a non winning year that is seperate from that an 8-8 year?
Yeah. Or 7-7, or 6-6-2, whatever. But I probably shouldn't even have mentioned that, because out of all 32 potential dynasties I examined, only the 1984-89 Broncos had a .500 season (8-8 in 1988). Frankly, I didn't pay much attention to my own rules. The "years without a championship appearance" thing, I broke several times.
Quote:
One thing I'm wondering is if any of those ten remaining teams had a sub-.500 season and whether or not removing that season would move the rankings any.
Of the final ten, only those from the 1980s had non-winning seasons: SF was 3-6 in the 1982 strike season, and Washington was 7-9 in 1988. If you drop those, the 49ers were 95-31-1 (.752) and Washington was 100-36 (.735). That would move SF's winning percentage ahead of the Staubach Cowboys, Lombardi Packers, and Jimmy Johnson Cowboys.

Just for fun:
team...years......*...........reg............%......post....%
SF......81-89.....4/4/9......98-37-1......724...13-4...765
WAS...82-91.....3/4/10....107-45........704...15-4...789

SF......84-89.....3/3/6......72-22-1......763...9-3.....750
WAS...82-87.....2/3/6......66-22.........750...11-3...786

SF.....81,83-89..4/4/8.....95-31-1.......752...13-4...765
WAS..82-87,89-91..3/4/9..100-36.......735...15-4...789


Only eight other teams had a losing season: the 1936 Giants, 1955 Lions, 1962 Chargers, 1981 Raiders, 1987 Giants, 2000 Patriots, 2002 Rams, and the 1945 Bears (who weren't part of the 1939-43 core I used for that team, but did appear in the red section and on the final list of seven).

As long as I'm doing this, one of the most interesting charts I made, I didn't include in the original post. It's the same data you've already seen, but sorted by years. Makes it easier to compare, for instance, the Niners, Skins, Bears, Giants, and Broncos of the late 80s.

* = Championship wins / Championship appearances / Years

team...years....*............reg............%.......post....%
NYG....33-41....2/6/9......70-30-6......689....2-4.....333
GB......36-44....3/4/9......73-21-4......765....3-2.....600
WAS...36-45....2/6/10.....74-29-5.....708.....3-4.....429
CHI.....39-43....3/4/5......45-8-1.......843.....3-1.....750
PHI.....44-49....2/3/6......48-16-3......739....3-1.....750
CLE....46-55....7/10/10...105-17-4.....849....9-3.....750
LA......49-53....1/3/5......42-15-3......725....2-3.....400
DET....52-57....3/4/6......48-23-1......674....5-1.....833
NYG....56-63....1/6/8......73-25-4......735....2-5.....286
GB......59-67....5/6/9......89-29-4......746....9-1.....900
SD.....60-65....1/5/6.......54-26-4......667....1-4.....200
BAL....64-71....1/3/8.......84-23-5......772....6-4.....600
DAL....69-78....2/5/10.....105-36-1....743....14-7....667
MIA....70-75....2/3/6.......67-16-1.....804....8-3.....727
PIT.....72-79....4/4/8......88-27-1......763...14-4....778
OAK....73-77....1/1/5......56-13-1......807...7-4......636
MIN....73-77....0/3/5......54-15-1......779....7-5.....583
RAID...80-85....2/2/6......61-28.........685....8-3.....727
MIA....81-85....0/2/5......56-16-1......774....6-5.....545
SF.....81-89....4/4/9......98-37-1......724....13-4....765
WAS...82-91....3/4/10....107-45.......704....15-4....789
CHI....84-88....1/1/5......62-17.........785....5-4.....556
DEN....84-89....0/3/6.....64-30-1......679....6-4.....600
NYG....85-90....2/2/6.....65-30.........684....7-2.....778
BUF....89-93....0/4/5.....58-22.........725....9-5.....643
SF.....90-94.....1/1/5.....61-19.........763....6-3.....667
DAL....91-95....3/3/5......60-20........750....11-2....846
GB.....94-98.....1/2/5.....57-23.........713....8-4.....667
DEN...96-00.....2/2/5.....56-24.........700....7-2.....778
STL...99-03.....1/2/5.....56-24.........700....5-3......625
PHI....00-04.....0/1/5.....59-21.........738....7-5.....583
NE.....00-04.....3/3/5.....53-27.........663....9-0....1.000

Quote:
European soccer, UEFA or whatever, has a rankings system for soccer clubs from around the World. They call it club coefficients or something along those lines. Different finishes in your league or if you place well in a particular European Tournament affects how you rank and what not.

Applying something like that and blending all those aspects, win % regular and postseason, Conference Title wins and Super Bowl wins could make for a very interesting survey. Just a way to maybe further seperate teams.
I thought about trying to do something like that. But this is such subjective material, it's really hard to weigh everything. How heavily should Lombardi's 9-1 postseason record count? Does that equate with the 3-1 mark for Luckman's Bears and the 16-5 mark for Gibbs in Washington? Should I dismiss postseason record entirely and just go by titles? To make a definitive list, you have to take era into account, too -- the 80s lent themselves to dynasties, for instance. It's just too difficult.

As an idea, though, here are three general ideas I cooked up. None of them seems to work very well.

System 1: 6 pts for each championship won, 2 pts for each championship lost, 1 pt for each season over .667, an additional 1 pt for each season over .750, and a third pt for each season over .850, with a penalty of -1 pt for each season in the AAFC. Using just the final 10 from my previous post, that yielded:

[1] CLE 46-55, 66; [2] GB 59-67, 45; [3] PIT 72-79, 36; [4] SF 81-89, 35; [5] GB 36-44, 34; [6] WAS 82-91, 33; [7] DAL 69-78, 32; [8] CHI 39-43, 30; [9] MIA 70-75, 25; [10] DAL 91-95, 23

System 2: 3 pts for each championship won, 1 pt for each championship lost, 1 pt for a collective regular-season winning% above .725, 2 pts above .750, 3 pts above .775, 4 pts above .800, and 1 pt for every non-AAFC season.

[1] CLE 46-55, 34; [2] GB 59-67, 26; [3] PIT 72-79, 22; [t4] SF 81-89, 21; [t4] GB 36-44, 21; [t6] WAS 82-91, 20; [t6] DAL 69-78, 20; [t8] CHI 39-43, 19; [t8] MIA 70-75, 19; [10] DAL 91-95, 15

System 3: same as system 2, but instead of adding points for seasons, multiply the score by #seasons/5.

[1] CLE 46-55, 48; [2] GB 59-67, 31; [3] PIT 72-79, 22; [t4] SF 81-89, 22; [t4] GB 36-44, 22; [t6] WAS 82-91, 20; [t6] DAL 69-78, 20; [8] CHI 39-43, 14; [9] MIA 70-75, 13; [10] DAL 91-95, 10

Quote:
Originally posted by buckeyefan78
Don't you have to win atleast ONE title to get put into dynasty conversation? Yeah, Tark's Vikes have some good stats that Brad points out, but don't you need ONE trophy...at the very least?
As I mentioned, my list was deliberately over-inclusive. Of course there haven't really been 32 dynasties. But surely the 70s Vikings and 90s Bills were more dynastic than the Van Brocklin Eagles or Brian Billick's Ravens. Check this out:

team...years....*............reg............%.......post....%
MIN....73-77....0/3/5......54-15-1......779....7-5.....583
MIA....81-85....0/2/5......56-16-1......774....6-5.....545
DEN....84-89....0/3/6.....64-30-1......679....6-4.....600
BUF....89-93....0/4/5.....58-22.........725....9-5.....643
PHI....00-04.....0/1/5.....59-21.........738....7-5.....583

I included these five teams for several reasons. First and foremost, it's interesting. The more teams included, the more interesting the study. And comparing them to the other teams, they're pretty strong in everything but actual titles. Why didn't they win? Choking?

The Vikings dominated the NFC in the mid-70s, winning the conference three times in five years -- overcoming the Staubach Cowboys and the Chuck Knox Rams (54-15-1), whom we've forgotten because Minnesota and Dallas were so good. The Rams won double-digit games (in 14-game seasons) every year from 1973-77, went 12-4 in '78, and made it to the Super Bowl in '79.

Minnesota was a dominant team, 40-1 against bad teams, .779 overall, 7-2 in the playoffs. But they couldn't get over the hump in the Super Bowl. It's tough to tell why. The NFC was 1-8 in the Super Bowl from 1972-80, so maybe they just never had a chance. The Vikes were 14-14 in the regular season against teams that didn't finish below .500, so maybe the odds just caught up with them. Maybe they choked.

But without the AFL merger, Chuck Foreman would be in the Hall of Fame and the 70s Vikings would probably be considered one of the greatest teams in history. Idle speculation, I know. But that .779 mark compares well even to dynasties: the 60-67 Packers (.764), 72-79 Steelers (.763), 84-89 Niners (.763), 91-95 Cowboys (.750), 01-04 Patriots (.750). I mean, that's really dominant. And they didn't fall apart in the playoffs as Manning's Colts and McNabb's Eagles have been accused of. They lost to the Warfield Dolphins Dynasty, the Steel Friggin' Curtain, and the 1976 Raiders, one of the best teams of the modern era.

Do I consider Foreman's Vikings a dynasty? Of course not. I'd probably only use that word for the final seven teams I named in my original post. Maybe the top 10 or 15 if we're feeling generous. But even though I don't think the team can be considered a dynasty, this discussion wouldn't be complete without it.

The 81-85 Dolphins won at a .774 clip and went 6-3 in the playoffs. The 1984 squad outscored its opponents 513-198. The 1985 team beat Chicago on Monday Night Football to preserve the team's undefeated 1972 legacy. But the NFC was simply better.

The 84-89 Broncos were pretenders. The AFC during the late 80s was weaker than either conference has ever been before or since, and Denver was there to take advantage. The team was just 30-7 against sub-.500 competition and .679 overall, and managed arguably the two most embarrassing Super Bowl losses in history.

The 89-93 Bills were much better, consistently beating teams led by John Elway, Dan Marino, and Warren Moon. They were .725 in the regular season, .644 against top competition, and 9-2 in the playoffs. They lost a tight game to the Parcells Giants, and were badly overmatched against Gibbs Washington and Johnson Dallas. This team didn't choke, it just wasn't the best.

Today's Eagles, as previously mentioned, probably don't belong in the discussion. But it's an interesting comparison, particularly vis-a-vis the Belichick Patriots and the other four teams mentioned here.

One thing I keep coming back to, you've probably noticed, is the competition between potential dynasties. How many titles would Gibbs and Ditka have won in the 80s without San Francisco around? What about Oakland and Dallas in the 70s if not for the Steel Curtain? Young's Niners and Kelly's Bills if the Herschel Walker trade never went down?

And conversely, how much credit should the top teams from those eras get? We've yet to see a team challenge Belichick's Pats the way Gibbs, Ditka, and Parcells pushed Walsh in the 80s. It's like the discussions buckeye and I have had about the level of competition Michael Jordan's Bulls faced during their championship years. Bird's Celtics may not have as many titles, but I see them as the more impressive team.

Quote:
Originally posted by Marc
Sports Central is very lucky to have someone like Brad. I hope you all read his stuff on the site, as well. Brad, why not submit that as a column on the main site?
Thanks, Marc. I could swing that, but I should probably streamline things a little, huh? Right now reading these posts requires a lot of patience.
Brad O. is offline   Reply With Quote