Can a Dynasty last or are all sports dynasties doomed to die out eventually?

[Rondo2287]

With the Patriots trading Richard Seymour in an attempt to field a team to win it all this year while also trying to restock in the future and keep the dynasty going for many years.  I have been thinking about how dynastys work. 

Most have a group of players and ride that horse untill it dies, and then try to retool.  The Celts in the 80s 49ers in late 90's etc. 

Is it possible for team to continue year after year to compete for a superbowl while retooling year in and year out to keep their talent level up?  Or are the Patriots fighting a losing battle trying to win now and plan for the future when they should just focus on winning now?

[Fafnir]

With the Patriots trading Richard Seymour in an attempt to field a team to win it all this year while also trying to restock in the future and keep the dynasty going for many years.  I have been thinking about how dynastys work. 

Most have a group of players and ride that horse untill it dies, and then try to retool.  The Celts in the 80s 49ers in late 90's etc. 

Is it possible for team to continue year after year to compete for a superbowl while retooling year in and year out to keep their talent level up?  Or are the Patriots fighting a losing battle trying to win now and plan for the future when they should just focus on winning now?

Winning consistently in Football depends so much on having a great QB and avoiding injuries to your core group of players. Its very difficult to remain excellent through QB changes. Much less title contending through turnover.

In Basketball its all about your top 2 or top 3 players. You need a franchise level big man and the pieces around him. Any injury to your top 3 players dooms a season in most cases. So I'd say its harder in basketball, usually dynasties are just tied to one great player. Its hard to get those, much less back to back.....

[Rondo2287]

With the Patriots trading Richard Seymour in an attempt to field a team to win it all this year while also trying to restock in the future and keep the dynasty going for many years.  I have been thinking about how dynastys work. 

Most have a group of players and ride that horse untill it dies, and then try to retool.  The Celts in the 80s 49ers in late 90's etc. 

Is it possible for team to continue year after year to compete for a superbowl while retooling year in and year out to keep their talent level up?  Or are the Patriots fighting a losing battle trying to win now and plan for the future when they should just focus on winning now?

Winning consistently in Football depends so much on having a great QB and avoiding injuries to your core group of players. Its very difficult to remain excellent through QB changes. Much less title contending through turnover.

In Basketball its all about your top 2 or top 3 players. You need a franchise level big man and the pieces around him. Any injury to your top 3 players dooms a season in most cases. So I'd say its harder in basketball, usually dynasties are just tied to one great player. Its hard to get those, much less back to back.....

I agree with this.  One of the guys doing the sports hub radio over the weekend said that Pats dynasty had a chance to live on as long as number 12 was under center.  I think this is probably true. 

What do you guys think, if BB were running the Celts during the 80's how long would he have kept the Big 3 together?  would they have won as many championships?  Would he have set them up for a longer run through the 90s?

[Eja117]

I can't think of a team in any sport that didn't have a bunch of bad years at some point

The America's Cup sailors had a string of like 180 years or something. That's two or three lifetimes so maybe it is possible, but I can't think of anything else like that

[Celtics17]

Statiscically it's impossible to sustain a dynasty forever. However, certain teams are going to be much more likely to be able to have one more often then other teams. The Lakers really is the team that comes to mind the most. Due to the weather and Hollywood and a huge market they can attract players better then most cities. If it werent for Russ's Celtics we would have only 6 titles which would still be great but actually ties with Chicago.

[MrTripleDouble10]

In terms for a "dynasty" in the NFL it's a pretty simple question to answer:  How many years left do you have with your top 3 QB in the league?

It's pretty simple for the Patriots really.  Once Brady is gone, and unless they replace him with another one of those once-in-a-lifetime-QB's, they'll be good, but not at that dynasty level.  No way.  It's all about the QB in football.  Well, if you're talking about the difference from the good vs. elite teams anyway.

If you don't have one of those top QB's you have ZERO chance.

[Rondo2287]

In terms for a "dynasty" in the NFL it's a pretty simple question to answer:  How many years left do you have with your top 3 QB in the league?

It's pretty simple for the Patriots really.  Once Brady is gone, and unless they replace him with another one of those once-in-a-lifetime-QB's, they'll be good, but not at that dynasty level.  No way.  It's all about the QB in football.  Well, if you're talking about the difference from the good vs. elite teams anyway.

If you don't have one of those top QB's you have ZERO chance.

Last two Qbs that won are Ben Roethlessburger and Eli Manning. Nobody would put them in Elite QB ranking I assume

[the_Bird]

With the Pats, they'll be a Championship contender every year until Brady retires, then they'll have to take a step back; my expectation would be to a team like what we saw last year, not all the way back to "total rebuild."  That's why you have to keep retooling, let guys who might still help go if they're keeping the younger guys from getting better and taking over.

My opinion; the best that any franchise can realistically hope to achieve is probably what the Pittsburg Steelers have done.  It's not that they won the title last year; how often has Pittsburg *not* been among the better teams in the league over the past two decades?  In the seventeen years since Chuck Noll retired, they've only missed the playoffs five times (three of those from '98 to '-00, when they were still a combined 22-26).  Two Championships and anther SB appearance.  That's a helluva accomlishment, a helluva lot of good players who have come and gone (and not a lot of high draft picks to help).  

I think that's the model that the Pats would love to emulate; be consistently in a position where, if a few things break your way, you get lucky with a few draft picks, you can make some noise and be competitive each and every year.  I mean, we've seen in recent years how teams that were relatively medicore in the regular season caught fire at the end of the season and won the championship (the G-Men) or just came real [dang] close (the Cards last year).  Put yourself in a position every year so that when you DO get a little luck, you can take advantage of it.

[MrTripleDouble10]

In terms for a "dynasty" in the NFL it's a pretty simple question to answer:  How many years left do you have with your top 3 QB in the league?

It's pretty simple for the Patriots really.  Once Brady is gone, and unless they replace him with another one of those once-in-a-lifetime-QB's, they'll be good, but not at that dynasty level.  No way.  It's all about the QB in football.  Well, if you're talking about the difference from the good vs. elite teams anyway.

If you don't have one of those top QB's you have ZERO chance.

Last two Qbs that won are Ben Roethlessburger and Eli Manning. Nobody would put them in Elite QB ranking I assume

In today's NFL?  Sure they are.

[JSD]

So wait... Are we still considering a team that hasn't won a championship in 5 years a dynasty?  

[Rondo2287]

In terms for a "dynasty" in the NFL it's a pretty simple question to answer:  How many years left do you have with your top 3 QB in the league?

It's pretty simple for the Patriots really.  Once Brady is gone, and unless they replace him with another one of those once-in-a-lifetime-QB's, they'll be good, but not at that dynasty level.  No way.  It's all about the QB in football.  Well, if you're talking about the difference from the good vs. elite teams anyway.

If you don't have one of those top QB's you have ZERO chance.

Last two Qbs that won are Ben Roethlessburger and Eli Manning. Nobody would put them in Elite QB ranking I assume

In today's NFL?  Sure they are.

I think Ben you could make an argument for but he is elite because he won.  You are saying you can win unless you are elite, so I still dont see it based on his numbers and the fact that he was absolutely dreadful in his first superbowl appearence.  

Eli when you consider his career achievements and recent record is in the in the 7-12 range for QB's

[Rondo2287]

Lets look at the facts
2001 Champion
2002 Missed playoffs in last week
2003 champion
2004 champion
2005 lost in second round of playoffs
2006 lost in afc championship
2007 lost in superbowl(undefeated season/arguably one of the best teams ever)
2008 missed playoffs in last week with 11-5 record(while losing the previous seasons mvp and starting a QB that hadnt started since High School)

In current NFL standards where there is supposed to be parody.  I would consider that a Dynasty without Question. 

[Fafnir]

In terms for a "dynasty" in the NFL it's a pretty simple question to answer:  How many years left do you have with your top 3 QB in the league?

It's pretty simple for the Patriots really.  Once Brady is gone, and unless they replace him with another one of those once-in-a-lifetime-QB's, they'll be good, but not at that dynasty level.  No way.  It's all about the QB in football.  Well, if you're talking about the difference from the good vs. elite teams anyway.

If you don't have one of those top QB's you have ZERO chance.

Last two Qbs that won are Ben Roethlessburger and Eli Manning. Nobody would put them in Elite QB ranking I assume

Do you see the Giants forming a dynasty around Eli? I don't. Big Ben might be an interesting case though, I think it'd be hard to argue he's not an elite QB. Just not MVP level QB.

[Fafnir]

2007 lost in superbowl(undefeated season/arguably one of the best teams ever)

Third best 18-1 team in history.

I think the Patriots will be looked at as a Dynasty. Just as the 49ers and Cowboys were. They have several years of contention with Brady, as long as they're making the playoffs they'd have to be.

[JSD]

Lets look at the facts
2001 Champion
2002 Missed playoffs in last week
2003 champion
2004 champion
2005 lost in second round of playoffs
2006 lost in afc championship
2007 lost in superbowl(undefeated season/arguably one of the best teams ever)
2008 missed playoffs in last week with 11-5 record(while losing the previous seasons mvp and starting a QB that hadnt started since High School)

In current NFL standards where there is supposed to be parody.  I would consider that a Dynasty without Question. 

The Pats are now in the "strong competitive team year in and year out" Category.