Go Back   Sports Central Message Boards > Professional Sports Discussion > National Football League

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 03-05-2005, 01:33 AM   #1
Brad O.
1,549
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 792
Brad O. will become famous soon enough
Default Dynasty

WARNING: This will probably be the longest post I have ever written. Most people will probably find it quite boring.
===

SI's Paul Zimmerman (Dr. Z) recently wrote an article about the eight dynasties in pro football history. It's interesting timing, because I just finished an extensive study of dynasties sparked by Zimmerman himself. Fooling around on my computer a few weeks back, I found an old text file called "dynasty".
Quote:
from CNNSI.com, Dr. Z's February 2003 Mailbag
Marcus of Montreal wonders where all this talk about the Bucs becoming a dynasty comes from. Probably from Tampa. You want to know what is meant by "a dynasty?" Try this statistic, which I think I must have mentioned triple-figure times: During the period of the Steelers' playoff run of the '70s, 1972 through '79, their record against teams that eventually finished the season below .500 was -- get ready -- 50-1. They simply did not lose to the bad teams. They were bullies, tough guys. A dynasty.
That is impressive. How, I wondered, do other great teams compare? I looked up 32 potential "dynasties" and came up with their record against sub-.500 teams, non-losing teams, overall regular-season record, playoff record, number of winning seasons, number of postseason appearances, number of championship appearances, and championship wins. If you want to see the numbers, keep reading.

To determine which teams I looked at, I figured a dynasty has to last at least half a decade, be consistently great, and play on the biggest stage. So a dynasty covers at least five seasons, has no more than one sub-.500 year, no more than two non-winning years, no more than six seasons without a championship appearance, and never went five consecutive seasons without a championship appearance. Lax standards, but I'm trying to be inclusive. We can narrow things down later. Teams prior to the establishment of an official championship game are excluded.

Some teams that technically met the criteria didn't make my list. The 1965-69 Raiders had an awesome .779 winning percentage (that's like going 12-4, 13-3, 12-4, 13-3, 12-3-1), including a 37-4-1 record (.893) from 1967-69, but they played in only one Super Bowl and got annihilated by the NFL's Packers. The Air Coryell Chargers and today's Colts have been nice in the regular season but never made the big game. Bill Cowher's mid-90s Pittsburgh teams were consistently good, but not a dynasty in any meaningful sense of the word.

I'll present the teams I did examine soon, but first, there's a problem with Dr. Z's 50-1 stat. Not its accuracy -- although that's the only one I didn't personally check game-by-game -- its effectiveness as a tool in evaluating dynasties. The 72-79 Steelers, assuming Zimmerman's numbers are correct, went .980 against teams that finished the season under .500. That's better than any other group I evaluated. Second on the list, the 1936-44 Packers went 45-0-2. That was considered 1.000 at the time, but for all teams, I used the modern rating in which ties count as ½-win, ½-loss. That puts Green Bay at .979. Zimmerman cited the 36-39 Packers as one of his eight dynasties, but since I had to tack on a fifth year, I also included GB's impressive 33-7-2 run from 1941-44, which included another championship. Either way, this is clearly one of the great teams in history. So far, so good.

The problem is numbers three and four on the chart: the 1973-77 Vikings (40-1, .976) and the 1973-77 Raiders (34-1, .971). That's not a typo: same five-year span for both teams, and it overlaps entirely with Pittsburgh's 72-79 dynasty. Throw in another top-ten team from the list, the 1969-78 Cowboys (67-6-1, .912), and it appears that the worst teams of the 1970s were very bad, almost incapable of defeating the best teams. In that context, three of the top four teams in this category are less impressive than they initially appear.

Even worse, the 1973-77 Vikings and Raiders combined for only one Super Bowl victory. Minnesota went 0-3 in the big game, and the Raiders only won their own conference once. Both teams were exceptional in the regular season, but it's tough to really consider them dynasties.

Another problem is that the quintessential dynasty, the Lombardi Packers, comes in 31st out of 32 teams in this category, with an ordinary .798 winning percentage against teams that finished under .500. The only team below them? Another true dynasty, the 1981-89 49ers, with a measly .764. Anyway, here's the list.

Against sub-.500 opponents

team....years....record...%

PIT......72-79.....50-1.......980
GB.......36-44.....45-0-2....979
MIN.....73-77.....40-1.......976
OAK.....73-77.....34-1.......971
CLE.....46-55*....60-2.......968
CHI.....84-88......44-2.......957
WAS°..36-45......57-4.......934
CHI.....39-43......28-2.......933
LA......49-53......27-2-1....917
DAL.....69-78....67-6-1.....912
RAID...80-85......31-3.......912
PHI.....44-49......28-3.......903
BAL....64-71......50-5-1.....902
MIA....81-85......34-4........895
MIA....70-75......46-5-1.....894
PHI.....00-04......42-5........894
NYG....56-63......46-5-2.....887
SF......90-94......37-5........881
NYG....85-90......45-7........865
WAS...82-91......66-11......857
DAL....91-95......30-5........857
DEN....96-00......30-5........857
DET....52-57......29-5........853
SD^...60-65......37-6-3.....837
NYG....33-41.....47-8-3.....836
BUF....89-93.....29-6........829
NE.....00-04......26-6........813
DEN...84-89......30-7........811
GB......94-98.....32-8........800
STL....99-03.....36-9........800
GB......59-67.....44-10-3...798
SF......81-89.....53-16-1...764

* 1946-49 in the AAFC
° 1936 in Boston
^ 1960 in Los Angeles

You may have noticed a number of "losing dynasties" -- the 70s Vikings, 80s Broncos, 90s Bills, 00s Eagles -- on the list. These teams were dominant -- Minnesota went five seasons with only one loss to a team without a winning record -- and they deserve to be evaluated here. It's also worth examining what separates good regular-season teams from one another in the postseason.

Zimmerman's point about Pittsburgh's 50-1 mark has value. A team that always wins the games it should is dominant. But conversely, isn't a team with a good record against winning teams even more impressive than one with a great mark against losing teams? What about dynasties that usually win whether they're supposed to or not? On this list, the Lombardi Packers and Montana 49ers are in the top five.

Against .500+ opponents

team...years...record....%

CLE.....46-55....45-15-4....734
CHI.....39-43....17-6-1......729
GB......59-67....45-19-1.....700
SF......81-89....45-21........682
DAL....91-95....30-15........667
MIA....70-75....21-11........656
BUF....89-93....29-16........644
BAL....64-71....34-18-4.....643
OAK...73-77....22-12-1.....643
MIA....81-85....22-12-1.....643
SF......90-94....24-14........632
GB......94-98....25-15........625
PHI.....44-49....20-13-3.....597
DEN....84-89....34-23-1.....595
PIT.....72-79....38-26-1.....592
DEN....96-00....26-19........578
NYG....56-63....27-20-2.....571
STL....99-03....20-15........571
GB......36-44....28-21-2....569
NE......00-04....27-21.......563
DAL....69-78....38-30........559
WAS...82-91....41-34........547
RAID...80-85....30-25........545
CHI.....84-88....18-15.......545
LA......49-53....15-13-2.....533
PHI.....00-04....17-16.......515
DET....52-57....19-18-1....513
NYG....33-41....23-22-3....510
MIN....73-77....14-14.......500
NYG....85-90....20-23.......465
SD......60-65....17-20-1....461
WAS...36-45....17-25-5....415

This list appears to be a much better predictor, but the Jim Kelly Bills and Woodley/Marino Dolphins are awfully high -- better than, for instance, the Steel Curtain Steelers or Buddy Parker Lions (both among Zimmerman's eight dynasties). What probably makes the most sense is to scrap the level of competition and just look at regular season winning percentages as a whole. And don't worry, I am getting to the postseason.

Regular Season

team...years...record......%

CLE.....46-55....105-17-4....849
CHI.....39-43....45-8-1.......843
OAK....73-77....56-13-1......807
MIA....70-75....67-16-1......804
CHI.....84-88....62-17........785
MIN....73-77....54-15-1......779
MIA....81-85....56-16-1......774
BAL....64-71.....84-23-5.....772
GB......36-44....73-21-4.....765
PIT.....72-79....88-27-1.....763
SF......90-94....61-19........763
DAL....91-95....60-20........750
GB......59-67....89-29-4.....746
DAL....69-78....105-36-1....743
PHI....44-49.....48-16-3.....739
PHI....00-04.....59-21........738
NYG...56-63.....73-25-4.....735
LA.....49-53.....42-15-3.....725
BUF...89-93.....58-22........725
SF.....81-89.....98-37-1.....724
GB.....94-98.....57-23........713
WAS..36-45.....74-29-5.....708
WAS..82-91.....107-45......704
DEN...96-00.....56-24........700
STL...99-03.....56-24........700
NYG...33-41.....70-30-6.....689
RAID..80-85.....61-28........685
NYG...85-90.....65-30........684
DEN...84-89.....64-30-1.....679
DET...52-57.....48-23-1.....674
SD.....60-65.....54-26-4.....667
NE.....00-04.....53-27........663

Didn't remember that Ditka's Bears (.785) were that good, did you? Of course, they benefited from a five-year term here, as opposed to the Montana 49ers (.724), who put in nine seasons, and Joe Gibbs Washington (.704), which kept things up for ten years. And while Montana and Gibbs combined for seven Super Bowl wins and eight appearances, the Bears only got to the Super Bowl once. It's time to look at championships.

I actually divided all the potential dynasties into five categories. The most elite requires that the team won the Super Bowl (or equivalent league championship) in at least half the seasons listed, had a .750 regular-season winning percentage, and a .700 postseason record. It's important to note that before the AFL merger in 1970, teams posted lower postseason winning percentages, since the postseason usually consisted of a single title game. Today, a team that loses the championship finishes with a 2-1 or 3-1 record; in the old days, second-best usually meant 0-1.

Also, some teams are listed twice. Montana's Niners are listed for 81-89 and 84-89; Steve Young's Niners are listed for 90-94 and 90-98; Sid Luckman's Bears are listed for 39-43 and 39-50. Anyway, here are the five categories; within each, teams are presented in chronological order.

* = Championship wins / Championship appearances / Years

Minimum 5 years, 50% Championship wins, 50% Championship appearances, .750 regular season, .700 postseason


team...years....*............reg............%.......post.....%
CHI.....39-43....3/4/5......45-8-1........843....3-1.....750
CLE.....46-55....7/10/10..105-17-4.....849....9-3.....750
PIT.....72-79....4/4/8......88-27-1......763....14-4....778
SF......84-89....3/3/6......72-22-1......763....9-3......750
DAL.....91-95...3/3/5.......60-20.........750...11-2.....846


Minimum 5 years, 30% Championship wins, 40% Championship appearances, .700 regular season, .667 postseason

team...years.....*...........reg............%......post....%
CHI.....39-50....4/5/12....92-29-2......756...4-2.....667
PHI.....44-49....2/3/6......48-16-3......739...3-1.....750
GB......59-67....5/6/9......89-29-4......746...9-1.....900
MIA....70-75....2/3/6......67-16-1......804...8-3.....727
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
DEN...96-00.....2/2/5......56-24.........700...7-2.....778


Minimum 5 years, 0% Championship wins, 40% Championship appearances, .667 regular season, .500 postseason

team...years....*.............reg..........%......post....%
GB......36-44....3/4/9......73-21-4.....765...3-2.....600
DET....52-57....3/4/6......48-23-1.....674...5-1.....833
DAL....69-78....2/5/10....105-36-1....743...14-7...667
MIN....73-77....0/3/5......54-15-1.....779...7-5.....583
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
GB......94-98....1/2/5......57-23........713...8-4.....667


Minimum 5 years, 10% Championship wins, 20% Championship appearances, .667 regular season, .400 postseason

team...years....*............reg...........%......post....%
WAS...36-45....2/6/10....74-29-5.....708...3-4.....429
LA......49-53....1/3/5.....42-15-3......725...2-3.....400
BAL.....64-71...1/3/8......84-23-5.....772...6-4.....600
OAK....73-77....1/1/5.....56-13-1.....807...7-4.....636
RAID...80-85....2/2/6.....61-28........685...8-3.....727
CHI.....84-88....1/1/5.....62-17........785...5-4.....556
NYG....85-90....2/2/6.....65-30........684...7-2.....778
SF......90-94....1/1/5.....61-19........763...6-3.....667
STL....99-03....1/2/5.....56-24........700...5-3......625


The last category is really just for teams I went to the bother of compiling stats for. This is their last shot of glory, and then -- with a few exceptions -- they're out of the conversation.

[color=dark red]Minimum 5 years, 0% Championship wins, 10% Championship appearances, .650 regular season, .200 postseason

team...years....*............reg...........%......post....%
NYG....33-41....2/6/9......70-30-6.....689...2-4.....333
NYG....56-63....1/6/8......73-25-4.....735...2-5.....286
SD......60-65....1/5/6......54-26-4.....667...1-4.....200
MIA.....81-85...0/2/5.......56-16-1.....774...6-5....545
SF......90-98....1/1/9......109-35......757....9-7....563
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[/color]

Before we entirely dismiss this group, I'd like to reinforce the point I made earlier about postseason percentages. The Andy Reid/Donovan McNabb Eagles are notorious postseason underachievers, yet their postseason record is almost .600. Frank Gifford's Giants, who played for the NFL title six times in eight years, are less than half that, below .300. The two earliest teams on this list, the Giants, are dragged down by poor postseason percentages and should probably be one or two categories higher. And the Belichick Patriots, weighed down by a 5-11 2000 season but boasting three titles and a perfect record in the playoffs and Super Bowl, clearly are better than their .663 winning percentage, the lowest of any team I evaluated.

We wave goodbye to: Sid Gillman's Chargers; the AFL's most dominant team for the first half of the league's existence usually flopped when the stakes were highest; the David Woodley/Dan Marino Dolphins; an exceptional regular season record didn't mean much against the dominant NFC teams of the 80s; Steve Young's 49ers; maintaining a winning percentage above .750 (12-4) for nine years is extremely impressive, but with only one Super Bowl, the team can't really be considered a dynasty; Reid's Eagles; with only one Super Bowl appearance and no victories, this is the probably the least-dynastic team on the list, but it was interesting for comparisons.

Grouping teams according to these categories is helpful -- and it finally puts winning championships front and center -- but it isn't the end of the story. Lombardi's Packers are held out of the top grouping because of a .746 regular-season record. Long-lasting dynasties aren't given weight over 5-year reigns like the Terrell Davis Broncos. But with 29 teams left, things are falling into place.

Let's lose four more teams to get to 25: the Marshall Faulk Rams, who were really dominant for only two of their five years; the Bill Parcells Giants, not even one of the top three teams of its own era; the Waterfield/Van Brocklin Rams, with a short five-year run and only one title; and the Broncos under Dan Reeves, who reached three Super Bowls in a pathetically weak AFC only to lose by an average of 32 points.

Even the weakest of the remaining teams has some claim of being a dynasty. The 1973-77 Vikings and 1989-93 Bills are the only teams without any Super Bowl wins (or equivalent), but they dominated their conferences and went to the big game almost every year. Both were over .500 in the postseason and won well over 70% percent of their games; Minnesota's .779 mark is the 6th-best of any team on the list. The Vikings' .976 record against sub-.500 teams (remember the inspiration for this whole project, from Dr. Z?) trails only the Steel Curtain and Hutson's Packers; Buffalo couldn't get past Dallas in the Super Bowl, but it was an impressive .644 against teams at or above .500 -- good for 7th-best on the list.

For all that, dynasties are about winning championships, and while those teams were certainly dominant, only the most liberal of judges would deem them dynastic.

For similar reasons, the 1973-77 Raiders, 1984-88 Bears, and 1990-94 49ers can't really be considered dynasties. They are among the most dominant regular-season teams in history, with the 3rd-, 5th-, and 11th-best regular season winning percentages, all above .750. But they meet only the minimum five-year standard, and none appeared in more than one championship game. They have excuses -- the Steel Curtain, Bill Walsh and Joe Gibbs, Jimmy Johnson's Cowboys -- but one and done is no way to build a true dynasty.

That should leave us with 20 teams, 20 dynastic teams, dominant, long-lived, reaching the highest point of success. So why do we still have Gifford's Giants, with a .286 postseason percentage and only one NFL title? Sammy Baugh's Washington, which was .415 against teams that didn't finish with a losing record? Jim Plunkett's Raiders, with a blah .685 winning percentage? Mike Holmgren's Packers, with a brief five-year run that produced only one Super Bowl victory? The Shula/McCafferty Colts, the only remaining team without multiple championship wins?

And then there were 15. Here they are, listed again by regular-season winning percentage, but in the color-coded format used for the five categories.

* = Championship wins / Championship appearances / Years

team...years....*............reg............%.......post....%
CLE.....46-55....7/10/10..105-17-4....849....9-3.....750
CHI.....39-43....3/4/5.....45-8-1........843....3-1.....750
MIA....70-75....2/3/6......67-16-1......804...8-3.....727
GB......36-44....3/4/9......73-21-4.....765....3-2.....600
PIT.....72-79....4/4/8......88-27-1.....763....14-4....778
DAL.....91-95...3/3/5......60-20.........750...11-2....846
GB......59-67....5/6/9......89-29-4......746...9-1.....900
DAL....69-78....2/5/10....105-36-1....743....14-7...667
PHI.....44-49....2/3/6......48-16-3......739...3-1.....750
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
DEN....96-00....2/2/5......56-24........700....7-2.....778
NYG....33-41....2/6/9......70-30-6.....689....2-4.....333
DET....52-57....3/4/6......48-23-1.....674....5-1.....833
NE......00-04....3/3/5......53-27........663....9-0....1.000

All eight of Zimmerman's dynasties -- Hutson's Packers, Luckman's Bears, Graham's Browns, Parker's Lions, Lombardi's Packers, the Steel Curtain, Montana's Niners, and Johnson's Cowboys -- are still around, but it's time to start cutting some of them.

Buddy Parker's Lions won three NFL titles in six seasons, losing another to Graham's Browns -- arguably the greatest dynasty in the history of professional football -- which is nothing to be ashamed of. But Detroit wasn't really a dominant team. Its .674 regular-season record is unimpressive in the context of this list, and its .853 mark against subpar teams doesn't denote true dominance. Furthermore, being the best in a twelve-team league isn't nearly as tough as winning consistently in a league with more than 20 teams, as all but a few of the remaining groups did. And the Lions fell apart after their six-year reign, stumbling to 4-7-1 and then 3-8-1. The "dynasty" had no staying power. I think Zimmerman was just looking for a connector between Graham and Lombardi; the Lions aren't of the same caliber as the other dynasties he named.

For similar reasons, the 1930s Giants seem out of their league at this point. Their sub-.700 record indicates that they weren't nearly the best team of the late 30s, trailing the Bears (.843), GB (.765), and already-dismissed Boston/Washington (.708). Three championships seems like a reasonable cutoff for determining dynasties, and the Giants fail to meet that standard, as well. The team's consistency is countered by its lack of real dominance.

The Mile-High Salute Broncos are still pretty clear in our memories, and it seems easy to drop them from the list now, as well. Few really considered Denver a dynasty at the time, and a five-year, two-title, barely-.700 legacy isn't enough to change our minds.

With 12 teams remaining, it's long past time for me to address Belichick's Patriots. They don't belong on this list. Not as it stands. My five-year minimum is arbitrary, but that's what I've been using, and with that standard, New England should have been eliminated long ago. It's easy to project another winning season, and maybe another Super Bowl, for the Pats in 2005-2006, but as this list stands, Belichick's crew is more than 50 percentage points down from the next team with fewer than nine seasons. Make it a four-year dynasty, and the Pats are .750 with three championships in four years, but I can't wrap my brain around such a short reign being called a dynasty. Maybe it is, but I wouldn't put it, at this point, ahead of San Francisco or Washington in the 80s, or Dallas in the 70s. It's probably ahead of Steve Van Buren's Eagles. That would leave the Pats 11th on my list. Just my opinion.

Van Buren's Eagles are my favorite neglected team, and Van Buren my favorite neglected player. I've seen a lot of short video clips -- I seek them out and devour them like a kid and his Halloween candy -- but no whole games. As a rookie in 1944, Van Buren rushed for over 500 yards, intercepted five passes on defense, and led the NFL in kick return average, kick return TDs, and punt return TDs. The next season, he led the NFL in rushing yards and set the single-season TD record. After struggling with injuries in 1946, he tallied the second 1000-yard rushing season in history in 1947 -- and many believe that the first, by Beattie Feathers in 1934, accidentally counted kickoff returns. From 1947-49, Van Buren led the NFL in rushing yards and rushing TDs each year, and the Eagles went to the NFL Championship Game all three years, winning twice. The 1949 Championship Game is legendary: Los Angeles received three inches of rain the day before the game, but Van Buren, playing in ankle-deep mud, set an NFL record with 196 rushing yards. Imagine if Jamal Lewis, rather than setting his single-game record at home against the 5-11 Browns in September, had instead done it in the Super Bowl, on his opponent's home field, in conditions that would put the tarp-off Patriots to shame. That's what Van Buren did. Injuries ended his career two years later, but he was the first modern-era RB inducted into Canton.

The remaining ten teams:

team...years....*............reg............%.......post....%
CLE.....46-55....7/10/10..105-17-4....849....9-3.....750
CHI.....39-43....3/4/5.....45-8-1........843....3-1.....750
MIA....70-75....2/3/6......67-16-1......804...8-3.....727
GB......36-44....3/4/9......73-21-4.....765....3-2.....600
PIT.....72-79....4/4/8......88-27-1.....763....14-4....778
DAL.....91-95...3/3/5......60-20.........750...11-2....846
GB......59-67....5/6/9......89-29-4......746...9-1.....900
DAL....69-78....2/5/10....105-36-1....743....14-7...667
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

The astute will notice some overlap: the Packers and Bears from 39-43; Dallas, Miami, and Pittsburgh from 72-75; San Francisco and Washington from 82-89. Dynasties don't overlap. One ends and another begins, or -- even if no other begins -- a dynasty cannot be born until its predecessor has fallen. Cut 1972-73 off the Steelers if you like, but their dynasty clearly supercedes the Paul Warfield Dolphins. And with a 2-0 Super Bowl record against Staubach's Cowboys, there's no doubt who ruled the 1970s.

The 1980s, on paper, are harder to divide -- Washington had a better postseason record and was an upset away from a fourth Super Bowl -- but we all know who comes first in that era, and it was San Francisco. I'm going to justify keeping both the Packers and Bears by expanding Chicago's run to 1950; this breaks my "six years without a championship appearance rule", but I don't care.

team...years....*............reg............%.......post....%
CLE.....46-55....7/10/10..105-17-4....849....9-3.....750
GB......36-44....3/4/9......73-21-4.....765....3-2.....600
PIT.....72-79....4/4/8......88-27-1.....763....14-4....778
CHI.....39-50....4/5/12....92-29-2......756...4-2......667
DAL.....91-95...3/3/5......60-20.........750...11-2....846
GB......59-67....5/6/9......89-29-4......746...9-1.....900
SF......81-89....4/4/9......98-37-1.....724....13-4...765

Of these remaining seven, the only questionable one appears to be Jimmy Johnson's Dallas teams of the early 90s, whose five-year run is by far the shortest in this group. We could expand things to include the team's 10-6 campaign in 1996, but there are losing records on either side, so it's tough to make the case for anything longer than a six-year reign. I'm willing to consider that a dynasty, I guess, but not in the same league as Lombardi or Graham or the Steel Curtain.

The greatest dynasty in NFL history, IMO, must be either the Browns from 1946-55 or the Steelers from 1972-79. Cleveland has huge statistical edges in every category, but four of those ten seasons were in the AAFC. In the NFL from 1950-55, the Browns were 58-13-1 (.813), made the NFL Championship Game every season, and won it three times. They were 34-2 (.944) against sub-.500 competition and 24-11-1 (.681) against teams without losing records. Even excluding the AAFC years, that leaves them ahead of the Steelers in every category except league titles. Throw in four-for-four in the AAFC from 1946-49, and I'm inclined to regard Otto Graham's Browns as the greatest dynasty in the history of professional football.

For the record, the NFL's Battle of the Millennium video series, which is awful and which no one should buy, features Lombardi's Pack, the Steelers of the 70s, Montana's 49ers, and Johnson's Cowboys. SPOILER ALERT: the Steelers win.
===

Some other things that deserve mention, though: Tom Landry's Cowboys had 20 winning seasons in a row, including five Super Bowl appearances, two Super Bowl wins, and a last-minute loss in the Ice Bowl. That's a dynasty. The Raiders had 16 winning seasons in a row, followed by a 7-9 fluke year, then went 8-1 (strike season), 12-4 (and won the Super Bowl), 11-5, 12-4, and finally 8-8. Over 22 years, they won three Super Bowls and had only one losing season. That's a dynasty.

In the 1990s, Dallas owned the burgeoning Holmgren mini-dynasty. From 1993-97, the Cowboys were 7-0 against the Packers, all by double-digits and including three playoff wins. Crushing your rivals consistently is pretty dynastic. Belichick's consistent success against Peyton Manning's Colts has certainly added to the Patriots legend.

And I'm spent.

Last edited by Brad O.; 03-07-2005 at 02:56 PM.
Brad O. is offline   Reply With Quote
 

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:50 PM.