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

[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

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.

Faf I agree, But if you base the logic on you have to be an elite QB to win it all than IMO you cant say he is elite.  I think he ascended to the Elite status after he won.  So its kind of a chicken/egg situation.  

And I sincerely disagree, fafnir, the only team that has gone undefeated in the regular season since it has been expanded to 16 games.  That automatically puts them above those other 18-1 teams.  And you can say but they won the superbowl, and I can say, but they lost in the regular season.  and we can keep going around and around.  

I mean I admit the patriots werent the best team in 2001.  I think the Rams were the far better team, and the Pats won. Much like the USA team in 1980, not the best team but great upset.  

[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.

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

No no... I'm saying you can't be a DYNASTY unless you have one of those once in a lifetime QB's like Brady.  You can certainly win one superbowl without one.  Essentially though, every NFL season there are about 5 teams that have a logical shot at winning a superbowl at the start of the season.  It's no coincidence that all of the "experts" seem to pick the ones that have the best QB's in the league.

[Rondo2287]

It depends though, Because this year the big choices are

NE-Brady
Pitt-Big Ben
Ravens-Flacco
Giants-ELI

I personally think the falcons and Matty Ice come out of the NFC but thats just me

so out of those 4 that are considered favorites I think you have one elite QB but my viewpoint again, I understand and respect anybody that thinks Big Ben is elite, he just isnt there yet for me. 

Other Elites in NFL right now by my estimation
Peyton Manning
Brees
Warner

In that order

[RAcker]

This surely does not apply to my beloved Crimson Tide.  Think of the great coaches we had between the Bear Bryant and Gene Stallings days and today's Nick Saban era.

Ummm....Mike DuBose....Ummmm....Dennis Francione....Mike Price (for a few weeks)....Mike Shula....errr.

Okay, so it does apply to my beloved Crimson Tide.  Those days are over though, my friends.

Knights in Saban's Service!

[Rondo2287]

No offense RAcker, but I cant count College teams in this whole dynasty discussion.  There are so many because of the imbalance in recruiting ability and all that.  My questions about possible dynasties really focusses on how to achieve it during a salary capped era. 

[RAcker]

No offense RAcker, but I cant count College teams in this whole dynasty discussion.  There are so many because of the imbalance in recruiting ability and all that.  My questions about possible dynasties really focusses on how to achieve it during a salary capped era. 

No offense taken.  This is why I can't get into baseball more until all teams can compete on a slightly more level playing field.

[Rondo2287]

No offense RAcker, but I cant count College teams in this whole dynasty discussion.  There are so many because of the imbalance in recruiting ability and all that.  My questions about possible dynasties really focusses on how to achieve it during a salary capped era. 

No offense taken.  This is why I can't get into baseball more until all teams can compete on a slightly more level playing field.

Agreed, Baseball certainly is an interesting beast in its own right however with the prevelance of prospects and teams rebuilding through an incredibly intricate minor league system whereas sports like football and basketball have no minor league system for developing talent(sorry NBADL)

[Fafnir]

Rondo I know you're a Pats fan, but what's more important: A)winning a regular season game B) the Superbowl.

I can't put the Pats of two years ago ahead of two teams that were 15-1 and dominant in the playoffs. Both winning every game they played in laughers, especially the SB.

I do think you need an elite QB to maintain a dynasty. Big Ben wasn't during the first SB, but they keep winning because he became one. Brady wasn't an elite QB the first SB run either, he became one quickly after though.

[Rondo2287]

Who was a better team, the 01 rams or the 01 pats?  who was a better team 1980 us or soviet union? 

[Donoghus]

Here's how I see it.  There are dynasties and then there are periods of sustained excellence.  Its subjective but here's how I look at it.

Dynasties constitute periods of championship sucesses.  I think Pittsburgh Steelers of the '70s, Niners of the '80s.  Multiple championships in a window.  With very few exceptions, these windows last less than a decade

Periods of sustained greatness pertain to a time frame where a team is playing at a very high level but may have only won a singular title.  Think Atlanta Braves of the '90s through early part of this decade.  Or Indianapolis of this decade.  You could argue that the Yankees of the '00s have been in this classification.  I think the windows here can be longer than a decade but are measured a notch below a dynasty.  

Dynasties come to an end. Its just the nature of the beast.  The game changes, the names change, etc. Periods of sustained greatness can linger for decades and can often have new names coming in for old and such.  However, they are not quite at the dynasty level because of the lack of championships.

Hopefully that makes some sense.  My idea of it can be a bit difficult to put into words.  

[the_Bird]

The way I would frame the question would be...

Is it better to go for a dynasty - which I'll define simple as "as many titles as you can get, in as short a period as possible", or to be a consistent playoff contender a la the Steelers?

I'll argue that a dynasty inherently lends you to do things that will naturally implode the dynasty itself; structuring contracts to defer cap charges (but not indefinately) like the 49ers, trading picks for veteran players, *not* making trades like the Seymour trade.  Do things like that, you maximize your chances of winning a title this year, but at the expense of the team's success down the road.

I mean, if Brady got hurt again and wasn't able to come back, we'd need a QB but would still likely be a playoff team and maybe not too far from contention again (especially given the draft pick we've got coming from Oakland).  Is that better than putting all of your chips in on 2009?

[Donoghus]

Who was a better team, the 01 rams or the 01 pats?  who was a better team 1980 us or soviet union? 

IMO, you measure it by championships won.  The best team doesn't always win but history tends to treat those teams that won (no matter how flawed) in higher regard.

[Fafnir]

Who was a better team, the 01 rams or the 01 pats?  who was a better team 1980 us or soviet union? 

But over a sample of games all three teams were 18-1 with ridiculous margins of victory. The tie-break should be dominant post-season performance against the best competition in the NFL.

[Donoghus]

Look, I'm a Pats fan but I can't hold that 2007 team in the same light as the '85 Bears, '84 Niners, '79 Steelers, etc. because they didn't win it all.  Its about the ring, first and foremost, and that is how history tends to remember the best teams of all-time.

Leading up to SB XXXVI, people were calling that '01 Rams team one of the best of all-time.  Now, when you discuss great NFL teams, those '01 Rams don't come up in the conversation because they didn't win it all. 

[Fafnir]

Who was a better team, the 01 rams or the 01 pats?  who was a better team 1980 us or soviet union? 

IMO, you measure it by championships won.  The best team doesn't always win but history tends to treat those teams that won (no matter how flawed) in higher regard.

Yeah, thats how teams are remembered. How many other than hardcore Celtics fans remember the 68 win team of 1973? I googled the year because it slipped my mind and I found two sites that had the record wins for a Celtic season wrong. They said the 1986 team that won it all.

How many will remember the Mavericks as a great team rather than a first round flame out with 67 wins?